Eugen,
And just how do you do the compelling thing? Do you use corporeal
punishment, or do you settle for posthypnotic suggestion?
In my post to Jef, I used the word "compel" as it is used in the sentence,
"The defense attorney made a compelling argument, so I voted to acquit."
What is i
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 12:10:12 -0500, Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Gordon, I've never tried to persuade you that my "arguments are true"
So you post all these ascii characters to me with no hope of convincing me
of anything?
Sorry but I hope you don't really expect me to believ
On 3/3/07, Jef Allbright wrote:
Gordon, I've never tried to persuade you that my "arguments are true";
on the contrary, I've said more than a few times that my point is that
it's not even possible to do so in the absolute sense that you claim.
I've said to you several times that we can't prove "
On 3/3/07, gts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do believe in what people sometimes call 'the force of logic', Jef? Do you
believe every rational mind is as a matter of definition compelled to
accept the conclusions of sound arguments?
I do. If you do too then we have no disagreement.
If you disagre
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 10:58:43AM -0500, gts wrote:
> Do believe in what people sometimes call 'the force of logic', Jef? Do you
I'm not Jef, but I have no idea what 'the force of logic' is supposed
to mean. Can you define it, preferrably using a formal production system,
so I everyone in the
Do believe in what people sometimes call 'the force of logic', Jef? Do you
believe every rational mind is as a matter of definition compelled to
accept the conclusions of sound arguments?
I do. If you do too then we have no disagreement.
If you disagree then I must think it odd that you try
On 3/3/07, gts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 09:43:29 -0500, Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> In a very general, and thus
> widely applicable sense, both induction and deduction are descriptions
> of methods of organizing information, performed by a necessarily
> subje
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 09:43:29 -0500, Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
In a very general, and thus
widely applicable sense, both induction and deduction are descriptions
of methods of organizing information, performed by a necessarily
subjective (limited context) system. You seem to be h
On 3/3/07, gts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 21:09:08 -0500, John Ku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Okay, thanks, I suppose I was coming at this from a different perspective:
personally I take Hume's criticism of induction somewhat seriously and
Carroll's criticism of deduction n
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 21:09:08 -0500, John Ku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The more general lesson is that it's a mistake to think you must answer
the skeptic on his own terms. (It usually seems to be a he.)
Okay, thanks, I suppose I was coming at this from a different perspective:
personally I
The whole thing is silly. Suppose you (I mean "you" in the general sense not
you personally) reject logic, and want me to prove it valid. What would you
have of me, a logical proof? But if you reject logic, then you need not
accept a logical proof. We always have to start somewhere.
This stuff is
It looks to me that Russell was pretty much making the same point that I was
making. The lesson is not to confuse a rule of inference (Russell's "p,
therefore q") with another premise (or proposition) to be justified
(including propositions like "p implies q"). If all you had were
propositions and
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 03:25:58 -0500, John Ku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Skeptics are fond of pointing out that no non-circular argument can be
given to support inductive reasoning. That is true, but a century ago,
Lewis Carroll showed through his modern parable of Achilles and the
Tortoise t
13 matches
Mail list logo
