Lettre ouverte aux Professeurs Levitt, Sokal et Bricmont
yapasdequoi
Ne trouvez-vous pas que la "logique paraconsistante"
soit tout aussi éloignée du vraisemblable que n'importe quel
dérèglement de la pensée post-moderniste? Et s'il en est ainsi,
pourquoi avez-vous gardé le silence à l'égard de ceux, surtout
en Australie et en Belgique, qui au nom de la logique,
enseignent aux jeunes gens de bonne famille, qu'un énoncé
puisse être vrai et faux (en même temps et dans les mêmes
conditions)?
Or, cette doctrine irrationnelle serait-elle moins
à déplorer pour être sortie des gueules de logiciens de hautes
sphères? Si non, pourquoi n'avez-vous rien trouvé à répondre
et à reprocher aux prédicateurs de l'inconsistance logique? Ne
serait-ce parce que lesdits poseurs sont appuyés par les hauts
dirigeants de l'Association of Symbolic Logic et les éditeurs
de _Logique et Analyse_ et _Mind_? (Piston qui leur a valu
deux congrès mondiaux en quatre ans)
Étant donné que la maladie dialéthique a acquis droit
de cité dans la logique mathématique, comment allez-vous y
prendre, ô braves guerriers de la Science? Avouerez-vous que
les prédicateurs de l'inconsistance logique sont des charlatans
de la plus basse catégorie? Inculperez-vous les vôtres de
décadence mathématisante, pour avoir baissé leurs frocs
(beaucoup pour du fric) au service de ce néfaste mouvement?
Ou trouverez-vous quelque prétexte pour justifier un dévergondage
de l'esprit que vous auriez vite fait de calomnier s'il avait
été de souche post-moderniste?
Cordialement
Spartacus
Yvan Pierre
ou l'autre question, malgré mon ignorance du sujet.
yapasdequoi wrote:
> Chers Professeurs:
> Ne trouvez-vous pas que la "logique paraconsistante"
> soit tout aussi éloignée du vraisemblable que n'importe quel
> dérèglement de la pensée post-moderniste? Et s'il en est ainsi,
> pourquoi avez-vous gardé le silence à l'égard de ceux, surtout
> en Australie et en Belgique, qui au nom de la logique,
> enseignent aux jeunes gens de bonne famille, qu'un énoncé
> puisse être vrai et faux (en même temps et dans les mêmes
> conditions)?
Merci de me donner quelques noms d'apôtres du post-modernisme qui
défendrent la "logique paraconsistante". Je me souviens de Lacan qui
pour décrire "l'incompréhensible" usait d'un langage incompréhesible.
>
> Or, cette doctrine irrationnelle serait-elle moins
> à déplorer pour être sortie des gueules de logiciens de hautes
> sphères? Si non, pourquoi n'avez-vous rien trouvé à répondre
> et à reprocher aux prédicateurs de l'inconsistance logique? Ne
> serait-ce parce que lesdits poseurs sont appuyés par les hauts
> dirigeants de l'Association of Symbolic Logic et les éditeurs
> de _Logique et Analyse_ et _Mind_? (Piston qui leur a valu
> deux congrès mondiaux en quatre ans)
Et oui, les seules forces sont les forces sociales.
>
> Étant donné que la maladie dialéthique a acquis droit
> de cité dans la logique mathématique,
Si ce que vous dites est vrai, c'est une fameuse régression.
> comment allez-vous y
> prendre, ô braves guerriers de la Science? Avouerez-vous que
> les prédicateurs de l'inconsistance logique sont des charlatans
> de la plus basse catégorie? Inculperez-vous les vôtres de
> décadence mathématisante, pour avoir baissé leurs frocs
> (beaucoup pour du fric)
Le pognon est assurément LE moteur du moment.
> au service de ce néfaste mouvement?
On n'écoute que ce qu'on a envie d'entendre.
>
> Ou trouverez-vous quelque prétexte pour justifier un dévergondage
> de l'esprit que vous auriez vite fait de calomnier s'il avait
> été de souche post-moderniste?
>
> Cordialement
>
> Spartacus
Les adeptes de la contradiction ont toujours été très nombreux, sans
donner d'exemples trop choquants pour certains, disons que la solution à
l'empoisonnement par "contradiction" est le cloisonnement du cerveau.
Une technique qui a fait ses preuves propablement depuis le tout début,
lorsque l'humain est arrivé sans mode d'emploi, sans manuel explicatif
de son environnement. Il a dû inventer ses propres encrages afin que
son imaginaire puisse se reposer sur quelque chose.
Aujourd'hui, je dirais "auto tromperie".
Je dirais que le champs d'application de la logique à deux valeurs est
ridiculement petit et je ne m'étonne donc pas trop du succès que
pourrait rencontrer les "tentatives" de "généralisation".
Au plaisir
Yvan
yapasdequoi
> Si je puis me permettre de faire quelques commentaires et de poser l'une
> ou l'autre question, malgré mon ignorance du sujet.
>
> yapasdequoi wrote:
>
> > Chers Professeurs:
> > Ne trouvez-vous pas que la "logique paraconsistante"
> > soit tout aussi éloignée du vraisemblable que n'importe quel
> > dérèglement de la pensée post-moderniste? Et s'il en est ainsi,
> > pourquoi avez-vous gardé le silence à l'égard de ceux, surtout
> > en Australie et en Belgique, qui au nom de la logique,
> > enseignent aux jeunes gens de bonne famille, qu'un énoncé
> > puisse être vrai et faux (en même temps et dans les mêmes
> > conditions)?
>
> Merci de me donner quelques noms d'apôtres du post-modernisme qui
> défendrent la "logique paraconsistante". Je me souviens de Lacan qui
> pour décrire "l'incompréhensible" usait d'un langage incompréhesible.
Voici une définition:
Dialetheism - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/
A dialetheia is a true contradiction, a statement, A, such that both
it and its negation, A, are true. Hence, dialeth(e)ism is the view
that there are true contradictions. Dialetheism opposes the so-called
Law of Non-Contradiction. By Graham Priest, from the Stanford
Encyclopedia.
Cordialement
Spartacus
Yvan Pierre
not become a dialetheism follower. I beleive that any theory with real internal
contradictions (not pseudo contradictions which are only paradoxes) is worth nothing. But
I said "I believe" and that is the start of great distress (or deviation).
So, up to now, "I think" that the non contradiction is linked to the arrow of time. But
clearly, a newtonian condition does not need a relativictic approach but relativity is
experimentally checked.
I mean that inconsistent theories are empty (for us), we have no access to any
"information" that could be stored "over there", and as long as we have no evidence of any
link, we are daydreaming like chidren. In relativity we the Micheal and Morley experiment
(and others). In the quantum world, nothing so far. I remember some attempt to invent a
modified topology of the space-time at atom level. I did not read any result in the news
papers so far.
Anyway, I like your crusade against intellectual bandits. But who is sincere and who is
lying? A Swiss Professor (forgot his name) wrote in one of his books that a friend of him
being a very good Theorethical Physicist wrote different contradictory theories on some
subjects, and according to the results of the on going experimentation was pulling the best
model out of his drawer .
yapasdequoi wrote:
> Cordialement
>
> Spartacus
Au plaisir
Yvan
JRStern
Dear Professors: Don't you find that " logic paraconsistante " is
quite as far away from probable as any disordered state from the
post-modernistic thought? And if it is thus, why did you keep silence
with regard to those, especially in Australia and Belgium, which in
the name of logic, teach with young people of good family, that a
statement can be true and false (at the same time and under the same
conditions)? However, would these irrational doctrines be less to
regret to have come out of the mouths of logicians of higher realms?
So not, why didn't you find anything to answer and reproach to the
preachers logical inconsistency? Wouldn't this be because the
aforementioned layers are supported by the high leaders of Association
of Symbolic Logic and the editors of _ Logique and Analyzes _ and _
Mind _? (Piston which was worth to them two world congresses in four
years) Since the dialethic disease acquired right of city in
mathematical logic, how you take there, ô warlike brave men of
Science? Will you acknowledge that the preachers of logical
inconsistency are charlatans of the lowest category? Will you accuse
yours of decline mathématisante, to have lowered their frocs (much for
fric) with the service of this harmful movement? Or will you find some
pretext to justify a licentiousness of the spirit which you would
quickly have made calumniate if it had been of post-modernistic stock?
On 22 Jul 2001 01:00:45 -0700, yapas...@excite.ca (yapasdequoi)
wrote:
Lionel Bonnetier
> http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr
> Will you accuse
> yours of decline mathématisante, to have lowered their frocs (much for
> fric) with the service of this harmful movement?
100% countersensical and 200% nonsensical.
Auto translation is always so funny :)
Eray Ozkural exa
heard that there are works to account for partially inconsistent
systems. The translation of babelfish looks quite good by the way. :)
It is I think a legitimate study in logic to consider the logics where
consistency is not strictly required, however I can't comment much on
this subject since I'm not familiar with such logics. A friend at
kuro5hin.org referred me to a description of para-consistent logic,
but I doubt they are revolutionary or have any use in AI.
On the other hand, I do think that humans are capable of coping with
the "informal" notion of inconsistency. As it is often the case that a
detection of inconsistency leads to new insight or that we can reason
in a domain where there are small contradictions here and there. :)
Regards,
__
Eray Ozkural
JRS...@gte.net (JRStern) wrote in message news:<3b5ef4f4...@news.gte.net>...
James Whitehead
<y.pi...@skynet.be> writes
>I beleive that any theory with real internal
>contradictions (not pseudo contradictions which are only paradoxes) is worth
>nothing.
B is defined as "the least integer not nameable in fewer than nineteen
syllables" ?
--
James Whitehead
Yvan Pierre
I say the truth?" or the B. Russell set paradox. In formal mathematical logic,
if I remember (very long time ago) it is possible to "dissolve" those kind of
paradoxes. I was not impressed then, because it was acting on the context and
not to the problem "as such".
Anyway, I feel incompetent for the moment in the subject.
But what I meant by "worth nothing" is especially referring to physical outputs
of things that can be measured. I would call that "reality" only the set of
measurements (in the sense of engeneering, physics, chemistry and so on), which
is, I conceal, very narrow.
My opinion about the semantical paradoxes is that they may arise simply because
human language may have the same roots as animal "languages". This would explain
that our language is not designed for abstraction and so, abstracts theories and
on a sort of flaw. This statement can be supported by many experimental
evidences of the human "communication"
Let us observe that the disctintion between true and false exists only in our
imagination, because in the real world, false things do not exist. Remember (if
you know it) René Magritte's painting "ceci n'est pas une pipe" meaning this is
not a pipe.
But also true, in classical mechanics, Lagrangian or Hamilton Jacobi formulation
may give real information based on virtual things (unreal).
Sorry for the improvisation
Yvan
James Hunter
Yvan Pierre wrote:
> That is one of unlimited exemples of semantic paradoxes, like "if I say I lie, do
> I say the truth?" or the B. Russell set paradox. In formal mathematical logic,
> if I remember (very long time ago) it is possible to "dissolve" those kind of
> paradoxes. I was not impressed then, because it was acting on the context and
> not to the problem "as such".
>
>
> My opinion about the semantical paradoxes is that they may arise simply because
> human language may have the same roots as animal "languages". This would explain
> that our language is not designed for abstraction and so, abstracts theories and
> on a sort of flaw. This statement can be supported by many experimental
> evidences of the human "communication"
Natural language is designed for abstraction.
The most horrendous semantical error is asking
logicians, philosophers, or simple wankers like
Russel anything about *abstraction* though.
James Whitehead
<y.pi...@skynet.be> writes
>That is one of unlimited exemples of semantic paradoxes, like "if I say I lie,
>do
>I say the truth?" or the B. Russell set paradox. In formal mathematical logic,
>if I remember (very long time ago) it is possible to "dissolve" those kind of
>paradoxes. I was not impressed then, because it was acting on the context and
>not to the problem "as such".
>
>Anyway, I feel incompetent for the moment in the subject.
>
>But what I meant by "worth nothing" is especially referring to physical outputs
>of things that can be measured. I would call that "reality" only the set of
>measurements (in the sense of engeneering, physics, chemistry and so on), which
>is, I conceal, very narrow.
>
>My opinion about the semantical paradoxes is that they may arise simply because
>human language may have the same roots as animal "languages". This would
>explain
>that our language is not designed for abstraction and so, abstracts theories and
>on a sort of flaw. This statement can be supported by many experimental
>evidences of the human "communication"
Are you saying then that mathematics and logic are "natural languages"?
as they seem to be the root of the paradox...
>
>Let us observe that the disctintion between true and false exists only in our
>imagination, because in the real world, false things do not exist. Remember (if
>you know it) René Magritte's painting "ceci n'est pas une pipe" meaning this is
>not a pipe.
well it wasn't a pipe - surly the real world is full of falsities - the
man who mistook his wife for a hat, the hover flies in the garden at
this moment lying to everyone that they are dangerous! sheep in wasps
clothing, cosmic inflation - a trick to get a free lunch? the real world
is MAYA.....?
>
>But also true, in classical mechanics, Lagrangian or Hamilton Jacobi formulation
>may give real information based on virtual things (unreal).
>
>Sorry for the improvisation
>
>Yvan
>
>
>
>James Whitehead wrote:
>
>> In article <3B5EF0D8...@skynet.be>, Yvan Pierre
>> <y.pi...@skynet.be> writes
>> >I beleive that any theory with real internal
>> >contradictions (not pseudo contradictions which are only paradoxes) is worth
>> >nothing.
>>
>> B is defined as "the least integer not nameable in fewer than nineteen
>> syllables" ?
>>
>> --
>> James Whitehead
>
--
James Whitehead
orangie
>My opinion about the semantical paradoxes is that they may arise simply
>because human language may have the same roots as animal "languages
oof. "animal language" is ok, but how do you know that animal's confusion
isn't a language problem? (if "language" is the manipulation of symbol?)
the paradox is really that we can make a false statement. evidently animals
are capable of misleading. yes?
but, is the "animal" a lizard or a chimp?
best wishes,
mike
Yvan Pierre
James Whitehead wrote:
No, all that exists including mistakes and wrong interpretations is true. We are not
playing on words. Something untrue can only be produced by the imagination. I can
imagine to go through a wall, it will never be a truth (exept in the mind of King
Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. The distinction true-false is abstract.
Animals are cheating (lying) by making simulations to survive predators, this is only
seen as lies in an abstract produce by the imagination, ours. An animal cheating is
only inducings behaviour.
>
Yvan
Yvan Pierre
orangie wrote:
I would give any precise definition of language, not even knowing what is meant
by the word "information".
An "error" can only be defined in perspective to objectives and thus in a
"abstract theory" how simple and naive it might be.
I would not go too deep in the foundations of natural languages. The books I
have read about Pragmatics did not seem very convincing to me.
A linked subject : someone said that Humans maintain social cohesion through
language but animals do it through chemistry. I think that is wrong : Humans
do it also through chemistry, by drinking, smoking and probably through their
body odor (feronomes).
Now think of statistics on overweighted people, anorexy problems, drinking
problems, smoking problems (drugs). So, our internal tools are not of the best
quality. Quite probable that our natural language device is also a bit too
weak? It would make an exception.
Yvan
sam
you seem confused
it feels good
i know
or is it the other way...
dang
now i forgot
Yvan Pierre
>
>
> you seem confused
> it feels good
> i know
> or is it the other way...
> dang
> now i forgot
yes, it is confused. I just wait for someone to give me a clear definition of what is an
"information". If you can, you are welcome.
But you are right, it's a kind of bad improvisation, no time at all to put everything down
properly.
Anyway, some fundamentals don't need many pages.
Last things I forgot to mention (indeed) about animal "language" and ours. One most
important things about the way of using a language have be written by Pierre Bourdieu, in a
difficult way I must say. Language has much to do with domination and social statuts.
Also, what I mean by "animal language" = anything ultra basic like "ennemy", "friend",
"food" etc. Those features are still there. Don't you ever had that a good friend of you
got totally disconnected in the middle of a relaxed conversation (about to fall asleep)
even if you put much enthousiam : it might have been a normal reaction to the friendly
tonality which desabled the alert systems of your friends.
Well Folks, I'll stop chatting for a while.
By the way, I just started reading "Wild Minds, what animals really think" by Marc Hauser.
Penguin Science.
Yvan
sam
thats funny that an animal of limited scope would write a book 'explainig it all' about animal
brain
yapasdequoi
>
> Dear Professors: Don't you find that " logic paraconsistante " is
> quite as far away from probable as any disordered state from the
> post-modernistic thought?
Dear Professors Levitt, Sokal and Bricmont,
Isn't "paraconsistent logic" as far removed from reality as the
most far-fetched of post-modernist hokum? If so, why have you kept
silent regardng those who allow that a proposition may be both true
and false (at the same time and in the same respect)?
Is this irrational doctrine any the less to be deplored because
it issues from the mouths of influential logicians? If not, why
haven't you censured those responsible for this irrationalist hype?
Could it be because their backers include the Association of Symbolic
Logic and the editors of _Mind_ and _Logique et Analyse_?
Ô warriors of science: what will you do, now that the dialethic
disease has taken root in mathematical logic? Will you recognise that
the apostles of inconsistency are the vilest of charlatans? Will you
indict your own kind for mathematical decadence, for having gotten in
bed (many for grants) with the henchmen of this nefast movement? Or
will you find some pretext for justifying an intellectual
licentiousness that you would have lost no time in repudiating had it
been indulged by post-modernists?
Cordially,
Spartacus
Yvan Pierre
Yvan
James Whitehead
Which is exactly what nature does - the angler fish, those mantis's
which resemble leaves are playing tricks on the imagination of their
victims.
> I
>can
>imagine to go through a wall, it will never be a truth (exept in the mind of
>King
>Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. The distinction true-false is
>abstract.
>Animals are cheating (lying) by making simulations to survive predators, this is
>only
>seen as lies in an abstract produce by the imagination, ours.
or their victims - the question is are they aware of their fooling the
victims - say when the angler fish vibrates its "bait", well it looks
like the same thing a human angler.
> An animal
>cheating is
>only inducings behaviour.
>
>>
>
>Yvan
>
could we even push this into the realm of non living forms, what is
truth to sub-atomic particles, in certain respects they demonstrate
behaviour which resembles psychological data...
--
James Whitehead
Yvan Pierre
creationism either) I like the idea "Imagination is in Nature" but I don't know wht
it implies : Lamarck's idea's? Or the molecules are much older than we think? Unknown
feedbacks...
To speak about subatomic world in analogy with the macromolecular world of life seems
very audacious. It is not because there is a continuity relation between A and B
that you may conclude A = B. Otherwise we are all liars.
We desperately need a crucial experiment. But of course, no new experimentation is
possible without "thinking" of it before. I feel that we observe Nature much better
than ever.
The case of the electromagnetic field that has been so well described by Maxwell
equations is very interesting in that respect. There has been a lot of stupidities
stated about electricity (including by Nexton himself) and in the19th Century ,
things were setlled with an amazing speed. Feirabend makes the assumption that
stirring imagination in all directions might be a necessity for the reality
unvailed. So, let's continue with no shame.
James Whitehead wrote:
Yvan
la lutinerie
> That is one of unlimited exemples of semantic paradoxes, like "if I say I
lie, do
> I say the truth?" or the B. Russell set paradox. In formal mathematical
logic,
> if I remember (very long time ago) it is possible to "dissolve" those kind
of
> paradoxes. I was not impressed then, because it was acting on the context
and
> not to the problem "as such".
>
our
> imagination, because in the real world, false things do not exist.
Remember (if
> you know it) René Magritte's painting "ceci n'est pas une pipe" meaning
this is
> not a pipe.
>
Aussie Kookaburra hits the spot
And for a schilling you get a lot !
--
-- Lutin
" A man loves Nature in the morning for
her innocence and amiability, and at
nightfall, if he is loving her still, it is for her
darkness and her cruelty." G.K. Chesterton