Page 5 of 6

Re: Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:00 am
by raw_thought
BTW Scott, your ideas seem insightful. REALLY INSIGHTFUL! I will be back after I digest them.

Re: Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:09 am
by RCSaunders
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:25 am ... you cannot use one complete logic to solve all problems assumed to still exist.
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."

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.

Re: Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:23 am
by Scott Mayers
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!
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.

I assume you know what 'soundness' means according to how you argued in the other thread. But if not, when the ANALYSIS via a logical argument can be 'valid' but still have only pretended premises that may not match with reality OR if the premises are unrelated, these arguments can be valid but are deemed 'unsound'. So the 'soundness' is when both the input premises are true (via observation...via science), that the premises are linked by some common appropriate means, and that the conclusion is valid.

If you still disagree, explain how you KNOW without using science nor logic (analysis of symbols). Some propose INTUITION as meaning that whatever we experience from our personal interpretation can fulfill this role. But some interpret "intuition" in a quasi-religious way, like how some think that the female sex has a magical innate ability to know something objectively true without direct experience at some point. The logical "intuitionists", like Godel proposed, meant that you can argue that something is true by some appearance (even if the appearance is not accurate enough to explain what you witness) because you can discover sound logical arguments that can appear to present something also impossible. His "incompleteness theorem" troubled him because he knew that Nature could resolve all real problems even if WE cannot in a practical matter. Thus we 'intuit' by postulating the appearance of something as having some practically specific meaning.

A magician, for instance, can make it appear that he can do magic. Yet, we 'intuit' some trick is involved even if we lack a means to prove this logically. This is the 'logical' form of intuition that was meant. However, the same kind of argument might conflict with another person's perspective, like the magician who knows what he is doing to make what appears non-intuitive to BE 'intuitive' by ones' senses alone.

Re: Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:25 am
by Scott Mayers
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.
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.

Re: Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:28 am
by Scott Mayers
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:09 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:25 am ... you cannot use one complete logic to solve all problems assumed to still exist.
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."

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.
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.

That quote you quoted of me is about Godel's incompletenss theorem. In that, he demonstrated that you cannot have an ideal complete logic that can explain consistently all truths about math. By extension this theorem implies more than just math though. And so my comment refers to using logical analysis as an attempt to solve all problem in a more general sense. For example, if you had a perfect UNIVERSAL system of reasoning, can it answer whether the universal system is itself sound? If not, such a system is 'incomplete' for not being able to solve all given problems in the universe. You can still have a system that is proven 'complete' on its domain but limited in that it cannot feedback itself as a member of that domain. Thus you would still have one problem you cannot solve using such a 'universal' system of reasoning.

Re: Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 4:39 am
by wtf
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.
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:33 pm I read the article twenty year ago.
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.

Re: Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:24 am
by Speakpigeon
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:37 am
Speakpigeon wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:39 pm
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.
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.
I provided the etymology given by English dictionaries.
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:37 am "con" means with, "tra" is three or third, just as I said.
You don't provide any evidence that your claim is true.
Look up dictionaries.
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:37 am You are welcome to disagree.
It's not me disagreeing with you, it's you making up stories and disagreeing with English dictionaries.
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.
The etymology does not even provide one hint. You just have too much imagination.
EB

Re: Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2020 1:29 am
by RCSaunders
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.
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.

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.

Re: Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:58 pm
by Scott Mayers
Speakpigeon wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:24 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:37 am
Speakpigeon 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.
I provided the etymology given by English dictionaries.
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:37 am "con" means with, "tra" is three or third, just as I said.
You don't provide any evidence that your claim is true.
Look up dictionaries.
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:37 am You are welcome to disagree.
It's not me disagreeing with you, it's you making up stories and disagreeing with English dictionaries.
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.
The etymology does not even provide one hint. You just have too much imagination.
EB
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.

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.

Compound terms don't pop up as having unlinked histories that have some whole meaning without respect to how they are constructed. "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.

Re: Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:17 pm
by Scott Mayers
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 1:29 am
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.
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.

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.
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.

Some of you are religious and think in terms of some 'god' that defines certain truths a priori (such as some specific morals, for instance). I think that his is what some of you are against regarding the supposed, "logical positivists". 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'.

Re: Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:22 pm
by Speakpigeon
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.

Are you suggesting that dictionaries are essentially opinions?!
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.
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 "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.
The etymology of "contradiction" is as follows:
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.
EB

Re: Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:32 pm
by Skepdick
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.
Fuuuuuuck! How did we ever use words before dictionaries were invented?

Re: Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2020 5:39 pm
by Speakpigeon
Skepdick wrote: Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:32 pm
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.
Fuuuuuuck! How did we ever use words before dictionaries were invented?
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

Re: Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2020 5:55 pm
by Speakpigeon
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'.
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.

The result is for all of us to see today: mathematicians now believe that logic in the sense it was understood in the Aristotelian tradition is a figment of the imagination, a philosophical construct, and claim instead that there is an infinite number of logics. They essentially started out with Boole, Pierce and Frege trying to produce a model of the logic of human reasoning. Then they failed. Then they disagreed as to which model was best. Then they went their separate ways, and now any mathematicians can make up their own private pseudo-logic, from 1st order, to 2nd order, to intuitionistic, to paraconsistent, to whatever they fancy when they get up in the morning. This has to be the most massive failure of the rational mind ever. Mathematicians will be the laughing-stock of future generations who will look back in dismay at the mess mathematical logic is in now.
EB

Re: Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:35 pm
by Skepdick
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
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...

No dictionary could possibly tell you about my protologisms.

But if you insist that I require Dictionary approval before I re-purpose or invent a new phrase, please do let me know where I can get the forms required to ask for permission...