Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 8/17/24 5:24 PM, olcott wrote:The process is not sufficiently well defined suchOn 8/17/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:But has nothing to do with what Philosophy thinks of as truth, but of people being closed mindedOn 8/17/24 4:55 PM, olcott wrote:>>>
It is more of a somewhat poorly defined process than it is a defined term.
>
Thinks IGNORANT you.
>
The vast disagreement on very important truths
such as climate change and election denial seems
to prove that the notion of truth lacks a process
sufficiently well defined that it is accessible
to most.
>
We change one key rule of logic and then all of theNote, I said has rules, and different forms of logic have different rules, something that seems foreign to you.>>>>>>
They are generally a learned-by-rote bunch. Philosophy of
logic delves into this more deeply the problem. The
learned-by-rote bunch assumes that learning by rote makes
them philosophers. They tend to push actual philosophers
out by denigrating them in the philosophy of logic spaces.
Wittgenstein had no patience with them.
>
No, you have your never-learned-because-of-ignorance ideas that are just incoherent.
>
It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic
and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference.
Thinks IGNORANT YOU.
>
Wittgenstein said the same thing.
Try to name any logician that has any history of
being open to critiques of the received view and
you will come up empty.
>>>>Your trying to ally with Wittgenstein doesn't really help you, as his ideas were not always accepted, and considered prone to error, not unlike your own.>
>
It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic
and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference.
>
Thinks IGNORANT YOU.
>
Your problem is you reject that logic HAS rules that need to be followed,
Just like I said a learned-by-rote view.
Not any what happens if we change this rule? POV
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.