tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5316185389349725344..comments2024-03-28T10:15:27.193-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Pod peopleEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger129125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83356176917180949772021-03-07T08:26:16.192-08:002021-03-07T08:26:16.192-08:00This blog is from ages ago, but I would just add t...This blog is from ages ago, but I would just add that what you say isn't quite true- the 1978 version is generally considered to be one of the few remakes that trumps the original (along with "Scarface", and perhaps "Breathless" and "Sorcerer". It's a great period piece, has superb dialogue, writing and character development, is excellently acted, has a terrific soundtrack and cinematography that's difficult to improve on (evocative angles, shadows on walls, hand-held camera etc.)<br />The only critic I can think of who prefers the original was Roger Ebert, who seemed to not understand that it's about the loss of self in the modern world, just as the original was about the Cold War. Everyone else seems to acknowledge it as being greater.Joshua McGillivrayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01915709602991970213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55047067231462351312020-06-30T06:24:36.892-07:002020-06-30T06:24:36.892-07:00grodrigues,
You are confusing deductive rules wit...grodrigues,<br /><br />You are confusing deductive rules with statement evaluation. Saying F => T is T invokes no deductive rule at all.<br /><br />Again, it's simple enough to create a 3-valued, single assignment logic that preserves modus ponens, modus tollens, syllogism, and non-contradiction without including explosion. I'm sorry if you didn't understand the example; but if you want me to go into more detail for you, I certainly can.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29384199803988711602020-06-30T03:46:05.412-07:002020-06-30T03:46:05.412-07:00@One Brow:
I see you continue to make up stuff (h...@One Brow:<br /><br />I see you continue to make up stuff (hint: you are wrong about the principle of explosion as it is a matter of looking at the simplest deductive calculus, Hilbertonian calculus, that has only one deductive rule, modus ponens; your example does not work -- this is mathematics, it is not enough to string words together, you actually have to produce a demonstration, etc. and etc.); but this is mea culpa, mea maxima culpa for having resumed the discussion when I should have forgotten about it and left it buried in the past.<br /><br />Once again my apologies for having wasted your time and cluttered the combox with a useless, pointless discussion. You want accuracy above consistency (giggle)? Good for you. Exeunt.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30898009539065302992020-06-25T06:17:12.460-07:002020-06-25T06:17:12.460-07:00grodrigues,
There is a difference between needing ...grodrigues,<br /><i>There is a difference between needing "a contradiction for explosion in classical logic" and needing the "law of non-contradiction". The latter, coupled with the properties of (material) implication standard in mathematical logic, is what implies the principle of explosion, a deductive rule.</i><br /><br />Sorry, but that's very misguided, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how logic works. All that is required for the principle of explosion is the rule of F => T is T. You don't need any sort of contradiction for that, any false statement will do.<br /><br /><i>It really is too much to ask you to know the difference between "logical minutiae", which in context is tied to the formalization of physical theories, with not using "logical reasoning at all".</i><br /><br />Logic is a process. If one is not paying attention to the process, including the minutiae, one is going to be doing it incorrectly. Scientists don't care, because for the most part that are not interested in following the logical process.<br /><br />Back on track, your harping about third values is completely extraneous to the matter, as you yourself concede:<br /><br /><i>More ignorance, but I am not going to waste my time explaining as you wouldn't understand it. </i><br /><br />I offered an example above of a three-valued, single-assignment logic with the principle of non-contradiction and no principle of explosion. Should I go over it again for you?<br /><br /><i>An intellectually serious man would at least retract the original claim.</i><br /><br />You quoted me acknowledging your correctness, which to me is retracting the claim. Just how many retractions does your ego require?<br /><br /><i> A moderately competent BS'er would at least make an effort to keep his BS consistent.</i><br /><br />I prefer accuracy to consistency.<br /><br /><i>And time to go underwater again, as I am running out of time again. </i><br /><br />I guess I'll see you in a few days, then.<br /><br /><i>Please, just spare me your whining about insults and invective. </i><br /><br />It's just my way of pointing out your limitations and ineffectiveness. Insulting and dismissing what you have not understood is the mark of a small person.<br /><br /><i>This is war, you are the enemy. I shoot my bullets, you shoot your blanks.</i><br /><br />What a sad, small view of the world. I don't view you as an enemy at all, just a fellow traveler in the world with a different perspective. It keeps life interesting.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15630730570563239242020-06-25T04:11:55.807-07:002020-06-25T04:11:55.807-07:00@One Brow:
"I do know enough to understand t...@One Brow:<br /><br />"I do know enough to understand that the "[the principle of explosion] basically depends on the law of non-contradiction, " is bullshit. You don't need a contradiction for explosion in classical logic, and you can have non-contradiction without explosion adding a third logical value and changing an inference rule."<br /><br />You really are a complete ignoramus, unable to understand elementary distinctions. There is a difference between needing "a contradiction for explosion in classical logic" and needing the "law of non-contradiction". The latter, coupled with the properties of (material) implication standard in mathematical logic, is what implies the principle of explosion, a deductive rule. Which is why the principle of explosion does *not* hold in exactly the place you would expect it not to hold, in paraconsistent logics where the law of non-contradiction does not hold.<br /><br />And by the way, here is another one:<br /><br />"Do you really think physicists worry about logical minutiae?<br /><br />Why no, I don't think that at all. From what I can tell, they don't use logical reasoning at all. As someone recently said, "Gee, thanks for making the point for me.""<br /><br />It really is too much to ask you to know the difference between "logical minutiae", which in context is tied to the formalization of physical theories, with not using "logical reasoning at all".<br /><br />Back on track, your harping about third values is completely extraneous to the matter, as you yourself concede:<br /><br />"You are correct in that there are multi-valued logics that also have the principle of explosion, you are incorrect that you only need the law of non-contradiction. Non-contradiction applies to any logic where every statement is assigned a single truth value, but some of them do not have the principle of explosion."<br /><br />More ignorance, but I am not going to waste my time explaining as you wouldn't understand it. Yet you concede that "there are multi-valued logics that also have the principle of explosion" therefore whether the logic is multi-valued or not is incidental to whether the principle of explosion holds. And your original claim, replicated here, was, among other things, that "To apply the principle of explosion, you need two-valued logical structure." An intellectually serious man would at least retract the original claim. A moderately competent BS'er would at least make an effort to keep his BS consistent.<br /><br />And time to go underwater again, as I am running out of time again. Please, just spare me your whining about insults and invective. This is war, you are the enemy. I shoot my bullets, you shoot your blanks.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53654965536742847852020-06-24T13:39:35.344-07:002020-06-24T13:39:35.344-07:00grodrigues,
I suppose it must be really grating th...grodrigues,<br /><i>I suppose it must be really grating that you cannot bullshit your way with me. You are pitiable.</i><br /><br />So grating that I entered the conversation five days after it stopped, just to insult someone without making any point.<br /><br />No, wait, that was you.<br /><br />I do know enough to understand that the "[the principle of explosion] basically depends on the law of non-contradiction, " is bullshit. You don't need a contradiction for explosion in classical logic, and you can have non-contradiction without explosion adding a third logical value and changing an inference rule.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21211534389352163282020-06-24T06:53:20.667-07:002020-06-24T06:53:20.667-07:00"Bold talk from someone who learned the rules..."Bold talk from someone who learned the rules without understanding why they were set up that way."<br /><br />I suppose it must be really grating that you cannot bullshit your way with me. You are pitiable.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83019847190733365742020-06-24T06:06:11.778-07:002020-06-24T06:06:11.778-07:00grodrigues,
Two ignorant morons debating each othe...grodrigues,<br /><i>Two ignorant morons debating each other...</i><br /><br />Bold talk from someone who learned the rules without understanding why they were set up that way.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28310825949655847172020-06-23T16:29:53.072-07:002020-06-23T16:29:53.072-07:00Two ignorant morons debating each other...Two ignorant morons debating each other...grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88466603961675009442020-06-18T05:45:34.462-07:002020-06-18T05:45:34.462-07:00StardustyPsyche,
In boolean algebra a variable tak...StardustyPsyche,<br /><i>In boolean algebra a variable takes on one of two values. Unknown is not a third value, it means that the actual value has not been stated.</i><br /><br />That's sounds pretty close to the third value of intuitionist logic, frankly.<br /><br /><i>That way, if one inputs a true as the U state, once can read the resultant. Else if one inputs a false as the U state the truth table will show that resultant.</i><br /><br />Which is how computers differ from actual logic, because in logic, the values of propositions don't get plugged in. They are considered to be a permanent part of the statement.<br /><br /><i>Go learn something about logic.</i><br /><br />I know the difference between properties and variables, which seems to have escaped you. Also, you were so busy being oppositional rather than analytical, you missed an actual error in what I said to focus on your confused rhetoric.<br /><br />So, I'll take your advice for all that it's worth.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12858789877701956362020-06-17T18:22:31.131-07:002020-06-17T18:22:31.131-07:00One Brow
"You are introducing a third logical...One Brow<br />"You are introducing a third logical value of "Unknown" while called multi-valued logics irrelevant."<br />Ok, this is just too ignorant to work with at all.<br /><br />In boolean algebra a variable takes on one of two values. Unknown is not a third value, it means that the actual value has not been stated.<br /><br />To expand such an expression one writes a truth table where the various possible values are solved for. <br /><br />That way, if one inputs a true as the U state, once can read the resultant. Else if one inputs a false as the U state the truth table will show that resultant.<br /><br />That is why the principle of explosion is nonsense, because there is no specific answer and thus no specific proof of anything.<br /><br />I don't agree with grod on much of anything but this time he has you pegged.<br /><br />Go learn something about logic.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69198327816687758432020-06-17T10:45:38.462-07:002020-06-17T10:45:38.462-07:00StardustyPsyche,
Your posts are getting so garbled...StardustyPsyche,<br /><i>Your posts are getting so garbled as to be nearly unintelligible.</i><br /><br />I am a terrible typist and proof-reader, no doubt.<br /><br /><i>OR is an operator, which makes the values that OR operates on operands.</i><br /><br />Correct. Since, in logic, operators like OR operate on statements, and not truth values, truth values are not operands.<br /><br /><i>Multi value logic is irrelevant to the principle of explosion because taking on multi values other than True or False leaves the Unknown unproven.</i><br /><br />You are introducing a third logical value of "Unknown" while called multi-valued logics irrelevant.<br /><br /><i>I already showed in step by step detail how the principle of explosion is nonsense.</i><br /><br />The Principle of Explosion is the result of evaluating F => T as T in a classical truth table, or making similar assumptions in other logics. If you want to call classical logic nonsense, fine, but it seems to be very useful nonsense.<br /><br /><i>All you do is throw around irrelevant terms in garbled messages that contain no proofs at all, just vapid assertions.</i><br /><br />Well, I can work on being less garbled, but you'll have to do the work of understanding what logic is and how it is assembled on your own.<br /><br /><i>But by all means, do attempt to convert the principle of explosion, which is deduced using binary operands, true or false, to a multi valued logic and show that a multi valued logic can somehow save the nonsense that is the principle of explosion.</i><br />You say that like it would be hard thing to do.<br />One way is add to "true" and "false" a third category of "meaningless", for errors of category or process. So, "moon rocks are made of the elements in the periodic table" would be "true", "mood rocks are made of 99% helium" would be "false" and "moon rocks are made of lyrics from Beatle’s songs" would be "meaningless". The meaningless value would act as an absorbtive state for the classical operations, and f => t or f => f type statements would also be meaningless.<br />For any P valued true or false, P ^ ~P is still false, but there is no explosion, because it would be meaningless to derive anything from a contradiction. This construction preserves modus pollens, modus tollens, disjunctive syllogisms, etc. One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2000508527722613732020-06-17T06:41:21.574-07:002020-06-17T06:41:21.574-07:00One Brow,
Your posts are getting so garbled as to ...One Brow,<br />Your posts are getting so garbled as to be nearly unintelligible.<br /><br />OR is an operator, which makes the values that OR operates on operands. <br /><br />Multi value logic is irrelevant to the principle of explosion because taking on multi values other than True or False leaves the Unknown unproven.<br /><br />I already showed in step by step detail how the principle of explosion is nonsense.<br /><br />All you do is throw around irrelevant terms in garbled messages that contain no proofs at all, just vapid assertions.<br /><br />But by all means, do attempt to convert the principle of explosion, which is deduced using binary operands, true or false, to a multi valued logic and show that a multi valued logic can somehow save the nonsense that is the principle of explosion.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80421642996406130872020-06-17T06:13:56.843-07:002020-06-17T06:13:56.843-07:00StardustyPsyche,
OR is an operator.
Yes, I said t...StardustyPsyche,<br /><i>OR is an operator.</i><br /><br />Yes, I said that above.<br /><br /><i>In the principle of explosion the operands take on one of two truth values, true or not true (false).</i><br /><br />As has been mentioned previously, the principle of explosion can also appear in multi-valued logics.<br /><br /><i>You don't even know what an operand is,</i><br /><br />The only time I mentioned operands, I said "Truth values are not operands." Do you disagree?<br /><br /><i>no wonder you are so confused, </i><br /><br />If you think of truth values of operands, then I'm not too concerned about your opinion of my understanding. On the other hand, if you read posts, agree that truth values are not operands, and still think I said something false about operands, I'm also unimpressed.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31305501084973692652020-06-17T03:54:25.595-07:002020-06-17T03:54:25.595-07:00One Brow,
"Truth values are not operands"...One Brow,<br />"Truth values are not operands"<br />OR is an operator.<br />In the example above Y and U are operands.<br />In the principle of explosion the operands take on one of two truth values, true or not true (false).<br /><br />You don't even know what an operand is, no wonder you are so confused, continually bringing up red herrings about multivariable logics, other logical principles etc..<br /><br />Your understanding of logic is so slight you don't even know what an operand is.<br /><br />I think of you as the picture in the OP.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44486318804090215182020-06-16T12:31:45.914-07:002020-06-16T12:31:45.914-07:00StardustyPsyche,
Yet another one of your red herri...StardustyPsyche,<br /><i>Yet another one of your red herrings. The Axiom of Choice is irrelevant to the fact that the principle of explosion is nonsense.</i><br /><br />I agree. I was merely pointing out another artifact of various constructions with no physical application and no way to determine the validity thereof. It's a common construction.<br /><br /><i>Further, if you allow invalid operands ...</i><br /><br />Truth values are not operands.<br /><br /><i>In computer programming ... </i><br /><br />Computer programming does not cover the depth and breadth of what is available in most logical systems.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69677372172309928102020-06-16T07:49:52.915-07:002020-06-16T07:49:52.915-07:00StardustyPsyche,
Arguing about the reality of the...StardustyPsyche,<br /><br />Arguing about the reality of the Principle of Explosion makes as much sense as arguing about warp coil configurations. We create logics with the Principle of Explosion, and without it. What you are actually doing is adding a logical value (or perhaps more, I'm not quite sure) to remove the Principle of Explosion.<br /><br />OR is a valid operator in a variety of systems of logic, and is not restricted to two-valued systems.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51038271120777771192020-06-16T07:43:50.881-07:002020-06-16T07:43:50.881-07:00grodrigues,
As fun and interesting as an extended...grodrigues,<br /><br />As fun and interesting as an extended conversation would be with you on this topic, you have flounced, so there is little point in spending 10,000 characters on the reply. <br /><br />However, there were a few of small things I found particularly telling.<br /><br /><i>"To apply the principle of explosion, you need two-valued logical structure." This is false. The details depend on how exactly you set things up, but the principle of explosion does *not* depend on 2-valued structure. It basically depends on the law of non-contradiction, so the place to look for violations of it is in paraconsistent logics, not on multivalued or intuitionistic logics.</i><br /><br />You are correct in that there are multi-valued logics that also have the principle of explosion, you are incorrect that you only need the law of non-contradiction. Non-contradiction applies to any logic where every statement is assigned a single truth value, but some of them do not have the principle of explosion. <br /><br />Then there was this:<br /><i>Do you really think physicists worry about logical minutiae? </i><br /><br />Why no, I don't think that at all. From what I can tell, they don't use logical reasoning at all. As someone recently said, "Gee, thanks for making the point for me."<br /><br /><i> ... they are well beyond what you could grasp.</i><br /><br />Naturally, you can't resist the urge to insult. That's pretty typical when you are running on invective and opposition, as opposed to serious thought and careful analysis.<br /><br />Should you care to re-join the conversation, I'll go over your fluff in more detail. As it is, enjoy the day.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5880827499028554552020-06-16T06:21:59.826-07:002020-06-16T06:21:59.826-07:00One Brow
"the principle of explosion...It'...One Brow<br />"the principle of explosion...It's an artifact of a specific type of logical construction, and no more nonsense than the Axiom of Choice."<br />Yet another one of your red herrings. The Axiom of Choice is irrelevant to the fact that the principle of explosion is nonsense.<br /><br />You can reference the above comment to grod as it applies to you also.<br /><br />Further, if you allow invalid operands you can "prove" all kinds of things. If I am allowed to use and invalid operand I can "prove" that 1 = 2.<br />Let<br />0*1 = 0*2<br />Factor out the zero<br />(0*1)/0 = (0*2)/0<br />Now we are left with the "proof"<br />1 = 2<br /><br />Hopefully you can easily see the error in this "proof". Obviously, divide by zero simply is not allowed, and therefore cannot be used to prove anything.<br /><br />In computer programming the type of operand allowable in an OR operation is commonly called a boolean, or sometimes bool. Using other types as operands can throw a type mismatch exception at runtime or can lead to a compile error at compile time, depending on the language. Some languages will accept a non-boolean in an OR operation but implicitly typecast it into either a true or a false, typically resolving a numerical zero into false, and anything else into true, but never both true and false.<br /><br />An operand that is both true and false is illegal in and OR operation, and thus cannot be used to prove anything, making the principle of explosion just one more example of medieval nonsense.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8688829718550440232020-06-15T18:40:27.236-07:002020-06-15T18:40:27.236-07:00The number in the title of Jerry Mander's book...The number in the title of Jerry Mander's book is four, not ten.Andynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67316419304049080712020-06-14T09:38:08.939-07:002020-06-14T09:38:08.939-07:00grod,
Please point out the logical argument and re...grod,<br />Please point out the logical argument and reasoned refutation contained in these words of yours:<br />"Roll eyes. Sure, whatever dude."<br /><br />The principle of explosion is nonsense. It is based on a sequentially invalid method of logical problem solving.<br /><br />Here is a simple example from the link I provided above:<br />1. We know that "All lemons are yellow", as it has been assumed to be true.<br />2. Therefore, the two-part statement "All lemons are yellow OR unicorns exist” must also be true, since the first part is true.<br />3. However, since we know that "Not all lemons are yellow" (as this has been assumed), the first part is false, and hence the second part must be true, i.e., unicorns exist.<br /><br />The equivocation happens in that example with the use of the word "must" in step 2. Instead of "must" the correct term is "assumed to be".<br /><br />The argument makes an invalid transition from "assumed to be" to "must" without any justification.<br /><br />From there the argument makes the statement<br />Y OR U = True<br /><br />But again, that is a misstatement and is unjustified. Since Y is only assumed to be true and U is unknown and could be false, the Y OR U can only be justifiably said to be assumed to be true, not that it must be true.<br /><br />Then the argument takes a further sequential step, that later we consider Y to be false, but for some irrational reason the argument makes the false assumption that the result or resolution of the OR statement is somehow static once it has been arrived at by some set of conditions on the LHS, even thought now the conditions on the LHS have changed! What a very strange way of thinking.<br /><br />No, of course not, if Y is now considered as false and U remains unknown then Y OR U is now unknown.<br /><br />Now, supposing we say that this is not an issue of a time sequence of considerations of different values on the LHS, rather, Y is truly a contradiction in that Y is simultaneously both true and false.<br /><br />In the case of a simultaneous contradiction we simply have an invalid operation, similar to a divide by zero error, our system of analysis simply rejects that condition as invalid and no resolution can be arrived at.<br /><br />The use of the logical operator OR presupposes that the operands are of a binary type, that is, by convention they are allowed to take on only 1 of 2 possible values, true or false. <br /><br />Like a great many medieval arguments the principle of explosion is nonsense. StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32290100592801222342020-06-14T08:30:20.035-07:002020-06-14T08:30:20.035-07:00But you are not content to fail to make your case....But you are not content to fail to make your case. Oh no, you go beyond it.<br /><br />1. You make factually false statements. I have already highlighted one above. Here is another: "To apply the principle of explosion, you need two-valued logical structure." This is false. The details depend on how exactly you set things up, but the principle of explosion does *not* depend on 2-valued structure. It basically depends on the law of non-contradiction, so the place to look for violations of it is in paraconsistent logics, not on multivalued or intuitionistic logics.<br /><br />But you are not content in simply making false statements, you go *well* beyond it:<br /><br />2. Continuing you state and I quote: "In science, you have at least a third logical value (similar to, but not quite like intuitionist mathematics), and really the better logical models use a continuum of values in multiple dimensions." This is laughably wrong. No physics textbook uses "at least a third logical value", you are inventing crap. Do you really think physicists worry about logical minutiae? All of physics can be formalized in classical ordinary logic with background theory something like ZFC (although this is probably overkill and much less suffices, possibly with the exception of some recondite parts of quantum field theory).<br /><br />And "the better logical models use a continuum of values in multiple dimensions" is a meaningless concatenation of words; you are literally bullshitting me. There are no such "better logical models" because there are no such models. I mean what can you possibly have in mind that even remotely fits the description? Quantum logic? I suppose if we twitch and turn, it could be made to fit. The problem is that quantum logic is not a logic in the relevant sense -- I will forego the details, they are well beyond what you could grasp.<br /><br />And even if there were such models, they could not be "better" in any scientifically relevant way, because changing the background logical theory in which you formalize things does not change the predictions of the scientific theory, so you are not even consistent with your own requirements.<br /><br />One of the perks of actually having had an education in these matters, and actually knowing what I am talking about, is to recognize a "patzer" miles away. Thanks for the lesson, patzer.<br /><br />3. But I am not done on the matter of false statements. You state and I quote: "A point that Bohr himself, who was a scientist and a philosopher, would disagree with." Once again this is a pure textual matter that can be easily checked and yet you have no compunction in, not to mince words, flat out lying. You clearly have never read Bohr and yet here you are, trying to pass off falsehoods.<br /><br />But your sins do not end up here.<br /><br />4. You say and I quote: "I know enough to know that bring in things like "the principle of explosion" is a gross oversimplification of the types of thinking you need to process science." Where did I implied or even so much as suggested that the "principle of explosion", or even deductive argumentation, exhausted all the types of argumentation done in science? The issue at stake is about your claim, which is a negative existential (there are no arguments of the form...) and here you turn it into a universally quantified statement (all arguments are of the form...). Are you genuinely this ignorant, not being able to distinguish quantifiers, or are you just kicking dust to obfuscate things? And you repeat the offense: "You've outed yourself as a person who has only the hammer, and thus thinks every problem is a nail." This would be true if... oh there is no more need for this.<br /><br />Enough. I leave you to your own devices, peace be with you.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58293460441551163362020-06-14T08:28:03.816-07:002020-06-14T08:28:03.816-07:00@One Brow:
So you chose to die on this hill; a hi...@One Brow:<br /><br />So you chose to die on this hill; a hill worth nothing, since this is about the most anodyne of statements. So be it; I will thoroughly trash you and then say no more, you will have the last word, to no doubt, triple and quadriple down.<br /><br />First let us take stock of what is at issue: statements like "It is a category error to introduce the concepts of logical argumentation into a scientific discussion." or "There are no scientific non sequiturs, because science is not a logical argument." These are very strong claims. They imply that there is *no* logical argumentation in science; they imply that the distinction between consistent and inconsistent theories is rigorously redundant.<br /><br />They are also patently stupid and obviously false claims. Now, strictly speaking, and given the logical form of the claim, a negative existential statement, it suffices to provide a single example. But as I said, open a page at random in a physics textbook and you will see a deductive argument every time a physicist makes a mathematical argument (e.g. some calculation). Falsifiability, a minimum requirement for an empirical science, just is an instance of modus tollens: T => p and not-p ergo not-T. The distinction between consistent and inconsistent theories is an important one; because an inconsistent theory, by the principle of explosion, proves everything and its contrary, thus has no predictive power. And then I illustrated this by enjoining Niels Bohr that makes this point several times in his papers (his Epistemology paper on the debates with Einstein, his complementarity paper, etc.): he invokes logical consistency to buttress his arguments and his account of the shape that QM ultimately ended up taking. Important here is not whether his arguments ultimately work or not, but that he specifically relies on logical consistency.<br /><br />So you start by saying that it is all very silly, somehow beneath your dignity. I do agree that it is silly, but the silliness is all on your side. So you grudgingly humor me. Let us take the mess apart.<br /><br />Your first line of response is: "The principle of explosion has no bearing on field where every theory is wrong." Start with the obvious. Do you know that QED is wrong? That the standard model is wrong? What are you doing here? Publish that paper and collect your Nobel prize. Strike one. And even if I granted that every theory is wrong or false, in the sense that it fails to capture accurately the slice of reality that it purports to describe, how does this render the countless deductive arguments not deductive after all? It doesn't. Strike two. And what exactly is the argument that every scientific theory is wrong? Well if such exists, since it covers all scientific theories it cannot be an argument from experiment but a deductive argument. Strike three.<br /><br />I suppose one can count the following as a second line of response: "Being contrary to evidence is not the same as being false. Sometimes the evidence is wrong. Sometimes our understanding of the evidence is wrong." The second and third statement just say that the argument purporting to establish the falsity of a theory could be wrong, not that it is not a deductive argument which it clearly is. Strike four. As far as the first statement "Being contrary to evidence is not the same as being false", suffice to say that it is wrong. And if not that, what could you possibly have meant by "Every theory is wrong"? You can't have both, so pick a lane. Strike five.<br /><br />Then you add: "Newton's Laws of motion were wrong, but we used them until we found phenomena that didn't obey them. We'll use our current theories until we find phenomena that don't obey them, and then we will improve the theories." Facepalm. Gee, thanks for making the point for me. Strike six.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15692534120294527312020-06-14T05:35:24.405-07:002020-06-14T05:35:24.405-07:00grodrigues,
I look forward to your wrap-up. If y...grodrigues,<br /><br />I look forward to your wrap-up. If you really don't want to post it on this blog, I welcome you to use my blog instead, where we will disturb no one but each other.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45739823818410895442020-06-14T05:33:29.778-07:002020-06-14T05:33:29.778-07:00StardustyPsyche,
"Science uses scientific rea...StardustyPsyche,<br /><i>"Science uses scientific reasoning,"<br />Which requires logical reasoning, and is thus "folded into the matrix", I guess, whatever that is supposed to mean.</i><br /><br />While this is grossly simplified, logical reasoning is about assumptions and methods of proof, while scientific reasoning is about observations and testing. The very foundation of proof is so anathema to scientists that they often use retorts like 'proof is for mathematics and alcohol'.<br /><br /><i>"It uses mathematical tools"<br />Math is a form of logic, so again your vague statement about "folding into the matrix" is nonsense.</i><br /><br />Outside of your mischaracterization of the relationship between logic and mathematics, anyone who thinks mathematics is about manipulating equations does not understand the field at all.<br /><br /><i>"the principle of explosion"<br />is nonsense.</i><br /><br />It's an artifact of a specific type of logical construction, and no more nonsense than the Axiom of Choice.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.com