Re: Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:00 am
BTW Scott, your ideas seem insightful. REALLY INSIGHTFUL! I will be back after I digest them.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
What problems? If you think the purpose of logic is to solve problems, you begin with a false premise. Logic is nothing more than an epistemological method, like language and mathematics, that makes it possible to identify faulty reasoning. It is not some mystic magic that, "solves problems."Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:25 am ... you cannot use one complete logic to solve all problems assumed to still exist.
I just responded to you in another post and see that you already took my proposed advice to look here. Logical analysis just means to use a mechanical means manipulating data analytically to determine something, such as logical arguments. But the input to the first premises are 'postulated' meaning that they are either guesses/pretenses OR they are based on experienced to define. These defined premises assumed literally true have to come from observation and why science is undestood to fill in this information to make the logical argument SOUND.raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:57 am Scott you wrote, " THIS is the essence of the logical positivists". LP is now only famous as the philosophy that refuted itself. It's core proposition is, " Anything not analytical or empirical is meaningless. " Is LP's core belief analytical? NO! Is it empirical? NO! Therefore by the dictates of it's own core belief LP is meaningless!
Thank you. I see that you are equally capable and appropriately thinking 'on track' about the problems. I look forward to discussing this more with you.raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:00 am BTW Scott, your ideas seem insightful. REALLY INSIGHTFUL! I will be back after I digest them.
I think you are just misinterpreting things. Your statement that "logic is nothing more than an epistemological method," IS the same as understanding that logic is a mechanism of language via 'symbolic' methods that ignore the particular meaning they represent.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:09 amWhat problems? If you think the purpose of logic is to solve problems, you begin with a false premise. Logic is nothing more than an epistemological method, like language and mathematics, that makes it possible to identify faulty reasoning. It is not some mystic magic that, "solves problems."Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:25 am ... you cannot use one complete logic to solve all problems assumed to still exist.
Those who have taken that premise have turned logic into something that does nothing but cause intellectual problems that have no real meaning at all. You've been taken in by the logical positivists superstition. Nothing of either scientific or philosophical value has been achieved by the machinations of logical positivism, but great harm has been done.
Fortunately, most of the harm done has no practical influence because the field is too esoteric. The only field it has damaged is some computer programming, but even that is minimal.
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:09 am Why bother. Whatever it says, it's opposite is also true. If you believe that nonsense, I'll take your word for it.
You won't read it and you already did read it. P and not-P. My point exactly. Thank you for so perfectly demonstrating the utility of constrained inconsistency.
I provided the etymology given by English dictionaries.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:37 amSpeakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:39 pmThe prefix Contra- comes from the Latin contrā, meaning against (see kom in Indo-European roots).Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 3:24 pm "Contradiction" literally comes from the etymological meaning, "with a third option asserted". ['con' with, 'tra' three, 'diction' stated thing] That something can be understood to be 'true and false' is this third of discrete possibilities.
Contradiction litereally means "speak contrary to".
Contrary comes from the Middle English contrarie, from Anglo-Norman, from Latin contrārius, contrā, against.
So, nothing to do with "with a third option asserted" as you claim.
You would need to open a dictionary more often, but I guess you are probably not even interested in truth.
You don't provide any evidence that your claim is true.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:37 am "con" means with, "tra" is three or third, just as I said.
It's not me disagreeing with you, it's you making up stories and disagreeing with English dictionaries.
The etymology does not even provide one hint. You just have too much imagination.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:37 am The etmology helps break down the root words that hint at how the history of the terms relate to the three underlying principles of logic and helps understanding how these laws are coinciding but have different perspectives.
What you have just described is exactly what I'm talking about. Logical positivists have exchanged logic for a useless system of manipulating symbols with no connection to reality. It's what you (and anyone else influenced by academia) have been taught.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:28 am I think you are just misinterpreting things. Your statement that "logic is nothing more than an epistemological method," IS the same as understanding that logic is a mechanism of language via 'symbolic' methods that ignore the particular meaning they represent.
Etymology has ALWAYS had political interference. Dictionaries (and etymogoly) are written by people with OPINIONS that cannot be dismissed. Look up most of the biblical terms that present definite links to the prior Egyptians, for example, has been intentionally manipulated into scripts that had to pass political 'canonizing': censorship and book-burning, being the feature that destroys the proper history.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:24 amI provided the etymology given by English dictionaries.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:37 amSpeakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:39 pm
The prefix Contra- comes from the Latin contrā, meaning against (see kom in Indo-European roots).
Contradiction litereally means "speak contrary to".
Contrary comes from the Middle English contrarie, from Anglo-Norman, from Latin contrārius, contrā, against.
So, nothing to do with "with a third option asserted" as you claim.
You would need to open a dictionary more often, but I guess you are probably not even interested in truth.You don't provide any evidence that your claim is true.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:37 am "con" means with, "tra" is three or third, just as I said.
Look up dictionaries.It's not me disagreeing with you, it's you making up stories and disagreeing with English dictionaries.The etymology does not even provide one hint. You just have too much imagination.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:37 am The etmology helps break down the root words that hint at how the history of the terms relate to the three underlying principles of logic and helps understanding how these laws are coinciding but have different perspectives.
EB
You can't turn the tables on this. I said that you falsely interpret the "logical positivists" and that you actually would SUPPORT some of their significant meaning as YOUR OWN, not your derogatory views against them. They argued pragmatically that logic is a language that uses symbols (as variables) and that you have to separate the postulates from the theorems,....the initial assumptions used in an argument as well as to the axioms of the system itself. Basically, they would tend to argue against a priori statements for the foundation of any argument, and let science determine what these are as a posteriori.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 1:29 amWhat you have just described is exactly what I'm talking about. Logical positivists have exchanged logic for a useless system of manipulating symbols with no connection to reality. It's what you (and anyone else influenced by academia) have been taught.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:28 am I think you are just misinterpreting things. Your statement that "logic is nothing more than an epistemological method," IS the same as understanding that logic is a mechanism of language via 'symbolic' methods that ignore the particular meaning they represent.
I don't care if you want to believe that, but if you expect to use that in place of true logical reason to ever answer a question about reality, it won't work. In other words, it useless.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:58 pm Etymology has ALWAYS had political interference. Dictionaries (and etymogoly) are written by people with OPINIONS that cannot be dismissed. Look up most of the biblical terms that present definite links to the prior Egyptians, for example, has been intentionally manipulated into scripts that had to pass political 'canonizing': censorship and book-burning, being the feature that destroys the proper history.
Which is why we need dictionaries to give the etymology of words. We don't need people to invent false etymologies.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:58 pm The root parts of a word have to be looked up, not merely the full evolved term. Words evolve by constructing from prior terms and parts.
The etymology of "contradiction" is as follows:Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:58 pm "Contradicition" comes from logic, not colloquial use of today's express uses or proprietary labeling. Most of the population at all times are relatively uneducatied to formal terms of logic.
So, nothing to do with "with a third option asserted" as you claim.The prefix Contra- comes from the Latin contrā, meaning against (see kom in Indo-European roots).
Contradiction litereally means "speak contrary to".
Contrary comes from the Middle English contrarie, from Anglo-Norman, from Latin contrārius, contrā, against.
Fuuuuuuck! How did we ever use words before dictionaries were invented?Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:22 pm Which is why we need dictionaries to give the etymology of words. We don't need people to invent false etymologies.
Yet another fallacious comment. I didn't say that we needed dictionaries to be able to speak.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:32 pmFuuuuuuck! How did we ever use words before dictionaries were invented?Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:22 pm Which is why we need dictionaries to give the etymology of words. We don't need people to invent false etymologies.
The logical positivists themselves did not produce anything in terms of the science of logic, which is kind of ironic. They didn't do what they preached.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:17 pm Basically, they would tend to argue against a priori statements for the foundation of any argument, and let science determine what these are as a posteriori. (...) The idea is to let science or similar valid observations and intterpretations NOT dictated by some religious prepostulated 'facts' of reality to act as initial postulates that then allows logic to act as an algebra, a form in which the logic can be determined without concern to the specific instances or 'constants'.
If you want to know about the etymology of the words that I invent, I am probably the only person you can ask about it...Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2020 5:39 pm Yet another fallacious comment. I didn't say that we needed dictionaries to be able to speak.
However, if you want to know the etymology, you look up a dictionary, you don't believe some false etymology made up by some anonymous Internet user.
EB