Understanding is the application of logic to hypothetical or real world problemsTimeSeeker wrote:
And repeat : what is understanding ?
This is arrived at through knowledge acquired through deduction or observation
Understanding is the application of logic to hypothetical or real world problemsTimeSeeker wrote:
And repeat : what is understanding ?
My definition of a "problem" is the is-ought gap itself ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem )surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:01 am A gap in knowledge is merely academic so not really dangerous but a problem can have actual consequences
This is circular. You are defining understanding and knowledge in terms of each other.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:04 am Understanding is the application of logic to hypothetical or real world problems
This is arrived at through knowledge acquired through deduction or observation
They are not mutually incompatible terms because knowledge by definition must be understoodTimeSeeker wrote:You are defining understanding and knowledge in terms of each othersurreptitious57 wrote:
Understanding is the application of logic to hypothetical or real world problems
This is arrived at through knowledge acquired through deduction or observation
Then it's equivocation. So you haven't defined neither knowledge nor understandingsurreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:12 am They are not mutually incompatible terms because knowledge by definition must be understood
To understand something is to know what it means so they are defined in relation to each other
Circular reasoning is only invalid where the premise and conclusion are falseTimeSeeker wrote:This is circularsurreptitious57 wrote:
Understanding is the application of logic to hypothetical or real world problems
This is arrived at through knowledge acquired through deduction or observation
Uh. No Circular reasoning is never "valid" - it's a tautology. Recursive reasoning is valid - it is computation.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:17 am Circular reasoning is only invalid where the premise and conclusion are false
Where they are true though it is perfectly sound as with the above example
Just because circular reasoning is a tautology does not mean that it is invalidTimeSeeker wrote:
Circular reasoning is never valid its a tautology
I can do one better. Can you give me a tautology where you know the premises are true? Oops!surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:25 am Can you give me an example of circular reasoning with true premises and conclusion that is not objectively true ?
Black swans are not white [ too easy ask me a hard question instead ]TimeSeeker wrote:
Can you give me a tautology where you know the premises are true
If that were true it would be trivial. But it doesn't matter because it's false.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:44 pm Black swans are not white [ too easy ask me a hard question instead ]
I am married to my wife [ no more otherwise this just will get silly ]TimeSeeker wrote:
Can you give me a tautology where you know the premises are true
Who else would you be married to? Your dog? Or perhaps you are hinting that you aren't polygamous?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:27 pm I am married to my wife [ no more otherwise this just will get silly ]