Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---

On 11/6/2024 10:45 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:

On 04/11/2024 14:05, Mikko wrote:

[...] The statement itself does not change
when someone states it so there is no clear advantage in
saying that the statement was not a lie until someone stated
it.

     Disagree.  There is a clear advantage in distinguishing those
who make [honest] mistakes from those who wilfully mislead.

That is not a disagreement.

     I disagree. [:-)]

Then show how two statements about distinct topics can disagree.

 

        You've had the free, introductory five-minute argument;  the
half-hour argument has to be paid for. [:-)]

 

        [Perhaps more helpfully, "distinct" is your invention.  One same
statement can be either true or false, a mistake or a lie, depending on
the context (time. place and motivation) within which it is uttered.
Plenty of examples both in everyday life and in science, inc maths.  Eg,
"It's raining!", "The angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees.", "The
Sun goes round the Earth.".  Each of those is true in some contexts, false
and a mistake in others, false and a lie in yet others.  English has clear
distinctions between these, which it is useful to maintain;  it is not
useful to describe them as "lies" in the absence of any context, eg when
the statement has not yet been uttered.]

 There is another sense in which something could be a lie.  If, for
example, I empatically asserted some view about the minutiae of medical
surgery, in opposition to the standard view accepted by practicing
surgeons, no matter how sincere I might be in that belief, I would be
lying.  Lying by ignorance.
 

That is a lie unless you qualify your statement with X is a
lie(unintentional false statement). It is more truthful to
say that statement X is rejected as untrue by a consensus of
medical opinion.
This allows for the possibility that the consensus is not
infallible. No one here allows for the possibility that the
current received view is not infallible. Textbooks on the
theory of computation are NOT the INFALLIBLE word of God.

Peter Olcott is likewise ignorant about mathematical logic.  So in that
sense, the false things he continually asserts _are_ lies.
 

*It is not at all that I am ignorant of mathematical logic*
It is that I am not a mindless robot that is programmed by
textbook opinions.
Just like ZFC corrected the error of naive set theory
alternative views on mathematical logic do resolve their
Russell's Paradox like issues.
(Incomplete(L) ≡  ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x)))
When True(L,x) is only a sequence of truth preserving operations
applied to x in L and False(L, x) is only a sequence of truth
preserving operations applied to ~x in L then Incomplete(L)
becomes Not_Truth_Bearer(L,x).
This is not any lack of understanding of mathematical logic.
It is my refusing to be a mindless robot and accept mathematical
logic as it is currently defined as inherently infallible.

-- Andy Walker, Nottingham.
    Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
    Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Peerson

 

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer