Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!bigfeed.bellsouth.net!news.bellsouth.net!cycny01.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!novia!novia!sequencer.newscene.com!not-for-mail
From: "Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapt...@partpostmark.net>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: "Friendly Premises"
Date: 18 Aug 2005 03:05:02 -0500
Organization: Newscene Usenet News Service, http://www.newscene.com/
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <430440db$0$91635$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>
References: <vcb3bpi9mvu.fsf@beta19.sm.ltu.se>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158


Torkel Franzen <tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote:
>"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapt...@partpostmark.net> writes:

Just tying up lose ends, which needed to await my last post
on contextual reasoning:

>> But you Torkelled the statement out of the "ruminating" post and
>> said it didn't exist in logic.
>
>  I take it, then, that your tireless diatribes are no longer to be
>assumed relevant to anything in logic?

As I explained in my last post:

>>the
>>contextual reasoner is telescoping and switching myriad contexts
>>on the fly. Those who are severely challenged in this area cannot
>>even comprehend such a conversation.

Of course such conversations become "tireless" pretty quick to
the contextual cripple.

>>This liability extends
>>fully into problem-solving and decision making in the real world
>>which is full of context.

Which replies to your comment:

>Your ideas about "accomplishing things and making things work" are
>sadly limited.

That is explained by something an accomplished contextual
reasoner posted in sci.logic a while back:

>>>>As we all know, people who have lost a leg don't want
>>>>it back, they want everyone else to lose one, too.

And this next part:

>>In such discussions, theorists will inevitably try to pull
>>smaller linguistic components out of the larger context. They
>>will pull a sentence out of a paragraph and analyze it as if it
>>were a standalone sentence. They will pull a phrase out of a
>>sentence and analyze it as a stand-along phrase.

explains why you snipped these phrases out of posts
and kept redundantly asking:

>>>What does "true in a set of axioms" mean?
>>>What does "self-proving procedure" mean?
>>>What does "recursive proof" mean?

All of which needed surrounding context to answer.

And this part:

>>Such analysis
>>is useful if language cannot be understood in the larger context,
>>but this is rarely the case. When it is not, analyzing these
>>linguistic components by themselves out of context is a
>>meaningless and fruitless exercise.

Is one reason why I don't snip anything of yours Torkel's.

All this further evidences this distinction between
Premise-Conclusion-Valid logic and
Axiom-Theorem-Proof logic that I've been posting:

>>PCVL has as its primary goal correct real-world reasoning.
>>ATPL has as its primary goal correct foundational mathematics.

There is lots of other evidence. For instance, I haven't even
talked about the terminological confusions I've found in
ATPL. Of course confused terminology results in confused
logic, but that is not so evident in a purely theoretical logic
because of course language is removed from process, and
without context such terminological confusions become
invisible.

For example, the quality of "soundness" in ATPL is much
weaker than it is in PCVL. "Soundness" is the single most
important quality of logic to a real-world reasoner.

Larry