You Can't Know What's True Until You Understand Logic
Meldon
Bob is tall.
Bob is a man.
therefore
All men are tall.
True or False?
Bob is a man.
All men are tall.
therefore
Bob is tall.
True or false?
hoser1605
First false, second true.
Meldon
Splendid. Second question:
How did you "know" the first one was false?
Chom Noamsky
What if were are a Maasai warrior named Bob and never left the village?
Shrikeback
> Sorry but, that's just the way nature "made" things.
Actually, nature has made things such that you can't
know what's true,period, with or without logic.
> Bob is tall.
> Bob is a man.
> therefore
> All men are tall.
>
> True or False?
>
> Bob is a man.
> All men are tall.
> therefore
> Bob is tall.
>
> True or false?
Both are false, because the premises are false.
Bob is actually a woman genetically. And she's
only tall relative to runty short guys.
Claire
Exactly - it is a false premise to suppose that all men are tall and
as you say tallness is subjective.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
No inclusivity function in the first two statements, but there is in the
last which is supposed to be derived from the previous two.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
The categories for "tallness" and "man" are arbitrarily defined
elsewhere. Maybe you prefer this re-statement
B = T
B = M
Therefore M = T for all M
Shrikeback
wrote:
Sure. Though the word, "truth," in the title
might lead you to expect that we're talking
about all truth. But consider the following
paradox:
If this statement is true, then there is no god.
Clearly the above statement is true, since
the condition does imply the consequent.
The consequent is in fact irrelevant to its
truth, therefore any arbitrary statement is true.
Everthing is true, according to logic, even
the statement, "nothing is true."
Claire
> Claire wrote:
> > On 7 Sep, 19:16, Shrikeback <shrikeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 7, 10:31 am, Meldon <meldon_f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Sorry but, that's just the way nature "made" things.
> >> Actually, nature has made things such that you can't
> >> know what's true,period, with or without logic.
>
> >>> Bob is tall.
> >>> Bob is a man.
> >>> therefore
> >>> All men are tall.
> >>> True or False?
> >>> Bob is a man.
> >>> All men are tall.
> >>> therefore
> >>> Bob is tall.
> >>> True or false?
> >> Both are false, because the premises are false.
> >> Bob is actually a woman genetically. And she's
> >> only tall relative to runty short guys.
>
> > Exactly - it is a false premise to suppose that all men are tall and
> > as you say tallness is subjective.
>
> The categories for "tallness" and "man" are arbitrarily defined
> elsewhere.
Assumed knowledge/accepted wisdom has been a problem with many IQ
tests.
>Maybe you prefer this re-statement
>
> B = T
> B = M
> Therefore M = T for all M
Yes, much better! That algebra though! :-)
> --
> Dirk
>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5- Our podcasts on weird stuff
Bret Cahill
relevant economic issues.
2. employment at will is a free market free trade.
3. the only way to get work done besides employment at will is by
some form of slavery
4. Some form of slavery will always result without free speech on
relevant economic issues.
Bret Cahill
grabber
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7gl1f1F...@mid.individual.net...
> Meldon wrote:
>> On Sep 7, 1:51 pm, hoser1605 <dhha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 7, 1:31 pm, Meldon <meldon_f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry but, that's just the way nature "made" things.
>>>> Bob is tall.
>>>> Bob is a man.
>>>> therefore
>>>> All men are tall.
>>>> True or False?
>>>> Bob is a man.
>>>> All men are tall.
>>>> therefore
>>>> Bob is tall.
>>>> True or false?
>>> First false, second true.
>>
>> Splendid. Second question:
>>
>> How did you "know" the first one was false?
>
> No inclusivity function in the first two statements, but there is in the
> last which is supposed to be derived from the previous two.
The term "inclusivity function" is new to me, but I think you mean what some
people call a universal quantifier - "for all" as in "All ravens are black".
But then it is not true that universally-quantified sentences have to be
derived from other universally-quantified sentences
e.g. "Bob is tall" implies "All non-tall people are non-Bobs" (provided
"Bob" is understood to refer to a unique person)
abelard
you may be both completely logical and completely insane
at the same time...
it is common with people so confused as to be labeled 'mad'..
for a start, the basic assumptions are nutz...but commonly,
from those assumptions the conclusions of the nutter are
often very logical...
if you believe in flying saucers...and believe the government
is hiding the evidence from you...then it can be seen as
a public service to hack into cia computers to expose the
government liars
aristotelian 'logic' is riddled with empirical errors
in your above examples you are using the so-called 'law'
of the excluded middle...in the real world it is extreme ends that
are generally irrationalism...
http://www.abelard.org/category/category.php
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grabber
Dodgy notation. "=" normally denotes a symmetric relation, which is not the
case here. Bob is an example of a tall person, but a tall person is not an
example of Bob. You are better off with set-theoretic (or indeed logical)
notations.
Michael Gordge
> You Can't Know What's True Until You Understand Logic
> Sorry but, that's just the way nature "made" things.
Dumb and typically Kantian, logic doesn't stop the rock falling on
your head, idiot.
> Bob is tall.
> Bob is a man.
> therefore
> All men are tall.
>
> True or False .... or Kantian crap?
Its Kantian crap
> Bob is a man.
> All men are tall.
> therefore
> Bob is tall.
>
> True or false ..... or Kantian crap?
Its Kantian crap.
MG
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Russell and Godel
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Well, symbolic logic, but I can't be bothered to pick out the correct
characters for the "equations".
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Like I just said, that's a step to far for Usenet
Moderator
It was the only evidence of sanity in this thread.
Claire
lol, then there's the bit I miss and before I know it we're
multiplying tallness by pi to draw the circumference of Bob's
head! ;-)
> --
> Dirk
>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5- Our podcasts on weird stuff
THE BORG
"Meldon" <meldo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:965c34c0-2d51-41eb...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
Moderator
whatabunchofpointlessmoronicidiotsdoomedtoprematureextinction
John Stafford
<965c34c0-2d51-41eb...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
Meldon <meldo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Silly wabbit. That's too easy.
Now, why do you think logic (and there are many forms of logic) is
truth? Logic cannot inform us of nature or reality.
It is in your court. If you have time. Oh, I think I hear your mother
calling you for dinner upstairs on the main floor.
Errol
More to the point;
Cliched or just shallow
Sam
What if Bob had a deformed twin brother no bigger then 5 foot?
ZerkonXXXX
> Sorry but, that's just the way nature "made" things.
>
> Bob is tall.
... dreary
All animals are colored plaid
Bob is an animal
Therefore Bob is the color of plaid
Better:
"You Can't Know What's True Until You Understand Logic" because "that's
just the way nature "made" things".
Can logic apply here?
So, Nature made some things things that can never know what is true
because it is possible to both never understand logic and/or be made by
nature without even this potential. Rocks, for instance, can never know
what is true since they can not understand logic, or so they keep
insisting.
Yet it's true rocks exist. Rocks are part of what's true even if they are
incapable of knowing, of understanding and of certain forms of logic. Can
a 'you' who does not understand logic then know a rock as being just not
what's true? Or are all rocks just beyond the scope of all understanding
of this most unfortunate, void of logic 'you' who can not know what's
true?
SaPeIsMa
AKA "Philosophical Masturbation"
SaPeIsMa
"Claire" <claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:eaeae094-1331-44ae...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On 7 Sep, 19:16, Shrikeback <shrikeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 7, 10:31 am, Meldon <meldon_f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry but, that's just the way nature "made" things.
>
> Actually, nature has made things such that you can't
> know what's true,period, with or without logic.
>
> > Bob is tall.
> > Bob is a man.
> > therefore
> > All men are tall.
>
> > True or False?
>
> > Bob is a man.
> > All men are tall.
> > therefore
> > Bob is tall.
>
> > True or false?
>
> Both are false, because the premises are false.
> Bob is actually a woman genetically. And she's
> only tall relative to runty short guys.
# Exactly - it is a false premise to suppose that all men are tall and
# as you say tallness is subjective.
Which goes to show your ignorance of logic
1) Those statements ONLY apply to the problem posed
They are NOT necessarily statements about anything else.
2) In problem 2), the predicate (and NOT a "supposition" as you claim),
that "All men are tall" is NOT a premise
It's a statement made SOLELY for the logical problem given.
Whether it is true or false in the real world has NOTHING to do with
the logical problem posed
Moderator
> "Claire" <claire.easth...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
SNAP!!!! You're fucking awesome!
Claire
> "Claire" <claire.easth...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
Reminds me of that joke about economists...,
Two economists are stranded on a desert island with only a tin of
beans.
One says to the other “let’s suppose we have a tin opener”
Moderator
Wouldn’t that be a joke about philosophers, and economists are shown
to use logic and reason?
If we supposed we had a tin-opener, then we could open the tin,
therefore... let us build a tin-opener. (resolved)
etienne
> Sorry but, that's just the way nature "made" things.
>
> Bob is a man.
> therefore
> All men are tall.
>
> True or False?
>
> Bob is a man.
> All men are tall.
> therefore
> Bob is tall.
>
> True or false?
I will add the tile, it's 3 falsehoods.
Chom Noamsky
"grabber" <g...@bb.er> wrote in message
news:c5epm.30404$tM2....@newsfe23.ams2...
Ah, so how exactly would you render this notation on Usenet? Felt pen, or
practice up on ascii art?
Jackass.
Chom Noamsky
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:pKudnYLlv73t8DvX...@posted.cpinternet...
For a minute there I thought this was Spock talking...
SaPeIsMa
"etienne" <etien...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6e55ae2e-3dc7-477a...@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
Which goes to show that you're clueless about logic
Ask for a refund on your education
You've been cheated
David Johnston
<meldo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Sorry but, that's just the way nature "made" things.
Logic is inherent in itself.
grabber
"Chom Noamsky" <e...@chicken.commm> wrote in message
news:4TFpm.43254$Db2.23067@edtnps83...
People who need to render mathematical notation in ascii usually find ways
of doing so. I'm not at all sure that any form of notation really gives an
advantage here, because the natural language is both precise and concise.
But if you're going to introduce a symbolic notation, it doesn't make sense
to use one that's less precise than the natural languange, IMHO.
> Jackass.
My regards to you too.
>
>
mastermind
Moderator
conclusions are wrong.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/5be10bbc6...
On Sep 9, 5:24 pm, "mastermind" <masterm...@work.now> wrote:
> "grabber" <g...@bb.er> wrote in messagenews:NVUpm.63385$Ne3....@newsfe15.ams2...
>
> > "Chom Noamsky" <e...@chicken.commm> wrote in message
> >news:4TFpm.43254$Db2.23067@edtnps83...
>
> > > "grabber" <g...@bb.er> wrote in message
> > >news:c5epm.30404$tM2....@newsfe23.ams2...
>
> > >> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bru...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > My regards to you too.-
I'm seeking a rational and full explanation why the following
conclusions are wrong.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/5be10bbc6...
Kevin B. Murphy
only one who knows what is true.
--
If you are at war, you should be proud... If you are at peace, you should be
ashamed.
Moderator
Not sure if your reference but, if your quest is virtuous, you can
have well placed hope in your heart and never walk alone.
Patricia Aldoraz
This thread is a fine example of how silly this usenet group can be.
Moderator
wrote:
> On Sep 11, 10:03 am, Moderator <meldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This thread is a fine example of how silly this usenet group can be.
Its also an example of what happens when you post something that's
scary to "them". Its a micro of everything else.
Patricia Aldoraz
What is it about in particular?
etienne
> "etienne" <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Explain to me why the 3 are false, please.
etienne
> "Claire" <claire.easth...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
It changes nothing to the fact that the second is false because of
application of logic on false premises. If you are a prof (I hope not)
and that you use what you provided here in an examination, you will
end in the uncomfortable situation of having to consider that both
answers are actually correct. It not so difficult to find questions
that do not lead to that kind of problems creating an situation in
which the student will have to choose between political bias and
truthfulness in a cursus about logic.
And by the way "All men are tall" *IS* a premise in the second
argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise
SaPeIsMa
# Explain to me why the 3 are false, please.
#
Explained in another post
Premises to a logic problem only apply to the problem
Since you evaluate them outside of the problem, you fail the exercise
Thank you for playing
SaPeIsMa
# It changes nothing to the fact that the second is false because of
# application of logic on false premises. If you are a prof (I hope not)
# and that you use what you provided here in an examination, you will
# end in the uncomfortable situation of having to consider that both
# answers are actually correct. It not so difficult to find questions
# that do not lead to that kind of problems creating an situation in
# which the student will have to choose between political bias and
# truthfulness in a cursus about logic.
#
# And by the way "All men are tall" *IS* a premise in the second
# argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise
You want to split hairs
Enjoy the exercise
Moderator
> "etienne" <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> You want to split hairs
IMO, greater value can be gained from the third post.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/msg/aef1bcbd77ec8b6a
Tim
> On Sep 8, 2:31 am, Meldon <meldon_f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You Can't Know What's True Until You Understand Logic
>
> your head, idiot.
>
> > Bob is tall.
> > Bob is a man.
> > therefore
> > All men are tall.
>
>
> Its Kantian crap
>
> > Bob is a man.
> > All men are tall.
> > therefore
> > Bob is tall.
>
>
> Its Kantian crap.
>
> MG
No stupid, it's Aristotelian categorical logic. So much for your
understanding of Aristotle. P.S. he didn't subscribe to the law of
identity either--you randroids sure are stupid!!!
John Stafford
<c01247d7-0781-4b1f...@z30g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
etienne <etien...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 sep, 16:40, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@HotMail.com> wrote:
> > "Claire" <claire.easth...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > Which goes to show your ignorance of logic
> > 1) � �Those statements ONLY apply to the problem posed
> > � � � � They are NOT necessarily statements about anything else.
> > 2) � �In problem 2), the predicate (and NOT a "supposition" as you claim),
> > that "All men are tall" is NOT a premise
> > � � � � It's a statement made SOLELY for the logical problem given.
> > � � � � Whether it is true or false in the real world has NOTHING to do with
> > the logical problem posed
>
> It changes nothing to the fact that the second is false because of
> application of logic on false premises. If you are a prof (I hope not)
> and that you use what you provided here in an examination, you will
> end in the uncomfortable situation of having to consider that both
> answers are actually correct.
Sorry, but the post in question was a test of Formal Logic and Formal
Logic need not address the natural world. It is contained in itself. A
common criticism of Formal Logic is that it cannot inform us of nature.
It need not, either.
Consider that a free education from 'a prof'.
Michael Gordge
> No stupid,
Speaking of stupid, ewe are dropping context, the topic still existing
between ewe and me is the one ewe ran away from.
YOUR claim was, that with your beliefs you dont bother to check
whether or not they correspond to reality.
YOU stated your "belief" was that your mind was a part and product of
your body (has a material basis) you then claimed another belief of
yours is, that the mind has no material basis.
I pointed out the blatant contradiction, to which you then said, that,
just because ewe have beliefs that doesn't mean ewe have checked them
against reality.
At that point ewe ran away.
MG
Michael Gordge
>
> It was the only evidence of sanity in this thread.
Kantian crap is NOT a sign of sanity, check your premisies.
MG
Moderator
I disagree. They are fruads.
SaPeIsMa
"John Stafford" <nh...@droffats.net> wrote in message
news:nhoj-566348.1...@news.supernews.com...
Ironic that even though it was clearly stated, it was ignored
But it happens on lot on tests as well
One defines strict parameters, and there will always be some who will ignore
them and then come back later to whine that it's "not fair" to be failed
because they ignored the rules.
David Johnston
<meld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>John Stafford wrote:
>> In article
>> <c01247d7-0781-4b1f...@z30g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
>> etienne <etien...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 8 sep, 16:40, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@HotMail.com> wrote:
>> > > "Claire" <claire.easth...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > > Which goes to show your ignorance of logic
>> > > 1) ? ?Those statements ONLY apply to the problem posed
>> > > ? ? ? ? They are NOT necessarily statements about anything else.
>> > > 2) ? ?In problem 2), the predicate (and NOT a "supposition" as you claim),
>> > > that "All men are tall" is NOT a premise
>> > > ? ? ? ? It's a statement made SOLELY for the logical problem given.
>> > > ? ? ? ? Whether it is true or false in the real world has NOTHING to do with
>> > > the logical problem posed
>> >
>> > It changes nothing to the fact that the second is false because of
>> > application of logic on false premises. If you are a prof (I hope not)
>> > and that you use what you provided here in an examination, you will
>> > end in the uncomfortable situation of having to consider that both
>> > answers are actually correct.
>>
>> Sorry, but the post in question was a test of Formal Logic and Formal
>> Logic need not address the natural world. It is contained in itself. A
>> common criticism of Formal Logic is that it cannot inform us of nature.
>> It need not, either.
>>
>> Consider that a free education from 'a prof'.
>
>Two hundred thousand years of human ability to survive a hostile
>environment by innate reason and logic adequately refutes your claim.
And yet for all that time, humans have have plenty of innate unreason
and illogic.
Moderator
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:19:22 -0700 (PDT), Moderator
>
>
>
>
>
> <meldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >John Stafford wrote:
> >> In article
Your claim is incorrect and obviously so. The lack of reason has been
demonstrated in only the most recent of that long history. Let's start
from when centralized decision makers began to serve themselves rather
than the people they were supposed to represent. That's not to say
there wasn't conflict during those 200,000 years, there most certainly
was. But we have never before witnessed fraud on such a grand scale,
which serves so few at the expense of so many. The many, are going to
put an end to it eventually either by agreement or by force.
Let's begin by addressing why the GDP equation rewards vice. What say
you?
etienne
> "etienne" <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> You want to split hairs
> Enjoy the exercise
I don't want to split hair, you respect definitions, period.
etienne
> In article
> <c01247d7-0781-4b1f-bb5d-fa2335280...@z30g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
Formal logic can inform us about nature, it just that it is not
considered as a complete mean of justification or its aim, with
reason.
Formal logic don't contain the condemnation of the application of
reason on false premises ? Serious ?
Do you understand and accept that if you were using Meldon's original
post in an examination, and tryied to evaluate the answers in all
fairness, you will have a problem ? Why motivate "what that cretin
want me to answer, I'm supposed to be tested on logic and the idiot
shot himself in the foot ?" in the mind of your students ? That's a
situation you really should avoid if you want the respect necessary
for your condition.
Messing with questions should be your nightmare as a teacher.
I don't want to harass you, I respect your function and I know it can
be difficult but a teacher of logic is not supposed to behave like an
"artist".
etienne
The warnings and exceptions about logic are part of the matter, you
are a vandal if you don't take the whole together.
etienne
> "etienne" <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> You want to split hairs
> Enjoy the exercise
You are the splitter and consequently, destroyer.
etienne
You separate what should not be separated and then condemn the parts
like an idiot. What is your reason for doing so ?
SaPeIsMa
# The warnings and exceptions about logic are part of the matter, you
# are a vandal if you don't take the whole together.
Who cares if an idiot calls me a vandal
You see, I can do the name-calling thing as well
The fact that seems to confuse you is that in the stated syllogisms, there
is no need for the predicates to be true, real, or in any way related to
nature
In actual fact, in a syllogism, the two predicates can be COMPLETELY FALSE
when compared in nature
For example:
The Moon is green
All green objects are cheese
The Moon is cheese.
Neither of the predicates are true in "real life"
But as a logical syllogism, it does not matter that the predicates are not
true in real life.
Their only purpose is to set up the logical conclusion in THIS and ONLY THIS
exercise
SaPeIsMa
# You separate what should not be separated and then condemn the parts
# like an idiot. What is your reason for doing so ?
Now you're responding to yourself too ?
An idiot conversing with an idiot..
Who would have thought it ....
SaPeIsMa
# You are the splitter and consequently, destroyer.
More name-calling from a loser
You see, I can do this too...
Tim
>
> - Show quoted text -
They are categorical arguments that turn out, after being examined
using the
methods developed by Aristotle, to be unsound.
Moderator
Thank goodness Aristotle wasn't around 200,000 years ago. LMAO
etienne
And apparently, you are either unable to identify a complement for
clarification or are completly dishonest.
Tim
>
> - Show quoted text -
What's so funny?
etienne
Unable to make a distinction between name-calling and accurate
description of reality ?
> The fact that seems to confuse you is that in the stated syllogisms, there
> is no need for the predicates to be true, real, or in any way related to
> nature
I agree, until you ask "true or false ?"
> In actual fact, in a syllogism, the two predicates can be COMPLETELY FALSE
> when compared in nature
>
I agree.
> For example:
> The Moon is green
> All green objects are cheese
> The Moon is cheese.
> Neither of the predicates are true in "real life"
> But as a logical syllogism, it does not matter that the predicates are not
> true in real life.
> Their only purpose is to set up the logical conclusion in THIS and ONLY THIS
> exercise
That changes nothing because the actual question is "true or false ?"
You could have a case if the question was "Does the conclusion is
logically valid in the context of the premises ?"
etienne
If I say that I'm master in applied science, will it ease things ?
Meldon
It would certainly offer a possible explaination for your motives. LMAO
SaPeIsMa
You can even claim that you're a clone of Einstein for all I care
Doesn't change the fact that you can't think your way out of a paper bag
open at both ends.
SaPeIsMa
# And apparently, you are either unable to identify a complement for
# clarification or are completly dishonest.
Actually, since you really aren't doing anything but yapping nonsense, I've
decided to apply some Pavlovian training
I ring the bell, and you yap
Here we go
Ding-a-ling-a-ling....
Roy
>
> - Show quoted text -
A very apt signature for you SaPeIsMa.
==
SaPeIsMa
# Unable to make a distinction between name-calling and accurate
# description of reality ?
Just to clear up the air for the visiting moron.
I'm a Magyar, not a Vandal.
And your ancestors had a prayer that went:
"God save us from the Magyar's arrows."
So when you're calling me a "vandal", you're just doing stupid name-calling
> The fact that seems to confuse you is that in the stated syllogisms, there
> is no need for the predicates to be true, real, or in any way related to
> nature
#
# I agree, until you ask "true or false ?"
#
But since I didn't ask it....
Where does that leave you, dummy....
> In actual fact, in a syllogism, the two predicates can be COMPLETELY FALSE
> when compared in nature
>
#
# I agree.
#
Well, there you go
At least you know something...
You're not as stupid as you've presented yourself so far.
Good on you...
> For example:
> The Moon is green
> All green objects are cheese
> The Moon is cheese.
> Neither of the predicates are true in "real life"
> But as a logical syllogism, it does not matter that the predicates are not
> true in real life.
> Their only purpose is to set up the logical conclusion in THIS and ONLY
> THIS
> exercise
#
# That changes nothing because the actual question is "true or false ?"
I didn't ask any question
I made a statement.
PERIOD, FIN DE LA LIGNE, bub..
# You could have a case if the question was "Does the conclusion is
# logically valid in the context of the premises ?"
So what really happened is that YOU PRESUMED that a question was asked, and
made the mistake of answering your presumption that ONLY existed in YOUR
fantasy.
OUCH !
Doesn't it hurt when you walk into that closed door ?
Moderator
What a crime!
Hungary was shorn of over 72% of the territory it had previously
controlled, which left 64% of the inhabitants, including 3.3 out of
10.7[5] million (31%) ethnic Hungarians, living outside Hungary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon
David Johnston
<meld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And yet for all that time, humans have have plenty of innate unreason
>> and illogic. �
>
>Your claim is incorrect and obviously so. The lack of reason has been
>demonstrated in only the most recent of that long history. Let's start
>from when centralized decision makers began to serve themselves rather
>than the people they were supposed to represent.
That would be the first moment that centralized decision making began.
In fact for most of history, it never crossed the minds of centralized
decision makers that that they were even supposed to be "representing"
those they ruled. Even when they had some kind of representative
government all they were representing was a small minority of the
populace. The "right people". The rest were rabble at best, and
outright property at worst. Not that this was in fact illogical.
After all logic is entirely dependant on the premises you put into it.
And lacking mass communication or even widespread literacy, the degree
to which a civilizations could be representative of its constituents
was limited.
Moderator
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:46:38 -0700 (PDT), Moderator
>
Wow! From the first chiefs right through to Babylon, the central power
served itself exclusively and ignored the well being of the people and
still survived without being killed? (yeesh) I don't deny some
corruption along the way, but to assume central power didn't give a
shit about the people is completely contrary to every example I've
ever seen in the animal world including our own species. That reminds
me of Greenspan claiming the problem is “human nature” implying of
course, that we are inherently greedy while 100,000 years of trade
indicates we were inherently fair. How bizarre! One must question a
person's motives for propogating such a myth.
David Johnston
The welfare of the people was important to the extent that it served
the monarch's power. But of course the important thing was to keep the
alliegiance of the warrior class. Inured to suffering and aware of
the futility of rebellion, most of the time peasants and slaves
remained compliiant.
I don't deny some
>corruption along the way, but to assume central power didn't give a
>shit about the people is completely contrary to every example I've
>ever seen in the animal world including our own species.
Read some history.
That reminds
>me of Greenspan claiming the problem is �human nature� implying of
>course, that we are inherently greedy while 100,000 years of trade
>indicates we were inherently fair.
We didn't start trading slaves because of our inherent sense of
fairness.
etienne
Evidently it does ;p
etienne
I will label you vandal as long as you will be one.
> > The fact that seems to confuse you is that in the stated syllogisms, there
> > is no need for the predicates to be true, real, or in any way related to
> > nature
>
> #
> # I agree, until you ask "true or false ?"
> #
>
> But since I didn't ask it....
> Where does that leave you, dummy....
>
Impersonnal You, cretin.
You are really heavy, will I have to explain everything I say to you ?
> > In actual fact, in a syllogism, the two predicates can be COMPLETELY FALSE
> > when compared in nature
>
> #
> # I agree.
> #
>
> Well, there you go
> At least you know something...
You are completly ignorant and ridiculously weak compared to me, cease
to fantasm about any kind of superiority over me exept in games. And I
use name calling when I think it's justified as a violentless mean of
education, that said, if you prefer to be transformed in a clown, just
tells me.
etienne
John, in case you doupt, I would like an answer to this question.
John Stafford
<fb57c93b-8878-4c49...@o9g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
etienne <etien...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Formal logic don't contain the condemnation of the application of
> > reason on false premises ? Serious ?
> >
>
> John, in case you doupt, I would like an answer to this question.
There are many forms of logic. Formal logic is the most simple. Its
rules are not concerned with the veracity of the premises (as they
relate to the world).
Zeda is a menchza.
All menchzas are katable.
Zeda is katable.
Logic cannot inform us of nature. We bring premises into a true/false
structure, and therein begins the fundamental problem.
It might be immoral or just plain stupid to make false premises, and
that's the matter at hand. Formal logic cannot help that case.
etienne
> In article
> <fb57c93b-8878-4c49-b912-9a028c72f...@o9g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>
> etienne <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Formal logic don't contain the condemnation of the application of
> > > reason on false premises ? Serious ?
>
> > John, in case you doupt, I would like an answer to this question.
>
> There are many forms of logic. Formal logic is the most simple. Its
> rules are not concerned with the veracity of the premises (as they
> relate to the world).
>
Ok, but I still consider there is a potential pedagological problem
with the questions asked. I discussed it with a pedagogue yesterday,
it seems to me that she agreed with me that the historical/
pedagological separation of the matter into submatter should not lead
to the punishement of accuracy.
> Zeda is a menchza.
> All menchzas are katable.
> Zeda is katable.
>
> Logic cannot inform us of nature.
I have a problem with the transformation of a limit into an
impossibility. Maybe we don't put the same weight on "inform" or I
would prefer more subtility with that kind of claim. I would evaluate
it as false too.
Should I read that as "Formal Logic cannot inform us of nature." ?
Currently I hold that "Logic, alone is unsufficient to lead to a
complet understanding of nature".
> We bring premises into a true/false
> structure, and therein begins the fundamental problem.
>
The problem, it's that it is not a true/false structure and I don't
understand why it should be evaluated in such a way when it can be
solved easily by changing the questions ?
> It might be immoral or just plain stupid to make false premises, and
> that's the matter at hand. Formal logic cannot help that case.
The matter at hand, from my point of view, is an other art, education.
I'm more interested in discussing "teaching formal logic" than "formal
logic", am I more or less understandable (english is not my mother
tongue) ?
The matter at hand, from my point of view, is what seems to be a
tradition that maybe need to be changed.
Regards
Etienne
Moderator
I was attempting to show how fundamental logic is to human
understanding. I should have known that sort of thing would not sit
well with the “authorities”. Lol