It is your 'interpretation' about the interpretation of others. That you default to trust them by faith just makes me discredit you off hand. I've read and continue to study in this area and it is clear that you haven't. If you want to debate me on this I welcome you. But if you just dismiss me for you own belief in what you've cursorily read ABOUT the problems associated with this subject (including science), you doubly earn my distrust of you.Terrapin Station wrote:It's not an interpretation (of mine). It's the received view. Logicism failed.Scott Mayers wrote:I responded from your previous post to relate to this interpretation of yours in this one.
"Logicism" is not even a word that the original logicians used. But if you base it on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logicism, this is fine for the purposes of the discussion. So in your 'wisdom' on this, if you think you know better, explain in your own terms what you see is the problem with logic that the wikipedia entry summarizes. If you cannot, then you simply resort to blindly trusting what you think has been proven by others and just don't actually care to know 'why' or whether it is or is not valid.