On Sep 25, 5:05=A0pm, Robert Redelmeier <red...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> =A0 I am honored. =A0Two separate replies. =A0I will
> =A0 reply to this one as it appears less incomplete.
>
> Robert Myers <rbmyers...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in part:
>
> > Yes. =A0You are so certain of yourself and of your own
> > judgments and your ego is so powerful that the only way
> > to get through was to attack the main point of defense.
>
> LOL! on a number of levels: =A0First, what makes you believe
> you can "get through" with me? =A0Second, why do you bother?
> Third, why do believe I am actually so certain of my self
> and that my ego is so powerful?
>
Nothing makes me believe I can get through to you. We are all, in the
end, alone with our thoughts. I've persisted only because, for once,
I wanted to stomp on false certainty. Whether I've convinced you or
not is immaterial.
> Personal accusations are almost always laughable. =A0I might
> well appear a certain way to you. =A0What makes you think that
> I see myself this way? =A0Why would I trust your judgement?
> I have a great deal more information about my internal mental
> processes than anyone else. =A0You are just guessing. =A0I _know_.
> You prove yourself an idiot to me, even if no one else. =A0Even if
> you were to guess right, the chances of being wrong are so high
> that one must wonder what the payoff is to venture such a hazard.
>
Here, I confess, I lack the preparation to provide you with the
decisive answer you so richly deserve. Perhaps no one is. You
*think* that the view you have from inside your mind is privileged and
necessarily more accurate than that which could be inferred by other
means.
Countless psychological studies have demonstrated that what people
think they think is at best illusory and contradicted by the evidence
that they themselves produce. Thus, people will proclaim that they
have no racial prejudice and may very well be speaking what in
conventional terms has to be accepted as the truth. Carefully
designed tests, though, can show otherwise. In particular, people are
demonstrably more capable of associating positive words (peace, love)
with one race and negative words (anger, hate) with another.
This reality should be frightening to any thoughtful person. Who
knows what's going on in our brains? How *do* we know if we're sane,
or if we're capable of rational thought or not? Fortunately, I do not
have to rely on self-re****ting or the opinions of random passers-by to
answer either question.
I see no reason to doubt your sanity or your intelligence. You have a
manner of thinking that is common but for which I have little regard.
No need to make a big deal about it, until you start making outrageous
claims about me.
> > Your references to "logic" and "logical arguments" are
> > revealing. =A0It's the sort of nonsense I expect from people
> > who have no understanding of the limitations of logic.
>
> Hooboy: =A0N thinks Y . =A0R thinks Y. =A0Therefore R is N.
> Can you not even recognize your own logical fallacies?
>
That, sir, as the lawyers would say, is a statement of opinion. You
are like people whom I don't respect in a way that I recognize. That
is my opinion, and it cannot be controverted.
> > Both the axioms and the rules of inference are arbitrary,
> > as your most recent post amply demonstrates.
>
> Not quite. =A0Logic most certainly has limitations, but
> it helps one avoid many common errors in thinking.
> Pitfalls you jump into with apparent glee.
>
> > If one party claims owner****p of axioms or rules of inference,
> > logic is no longer one of many possible tools for inquiry,
> > but a tool in defense of the ego, which is how you use it.
>
> I certainly claim no owner****p. =A0I merely attempt to
> follow the rules as best I can. =A0A smear is bad thinking.
>
There are no "the" rules. That's what you don't get. There is an
approach to logical inference that has proven to be immensely valuable
but that isn't unique and cannot be shown to be (even in very
cir***scribed endeavors) to produce results are complete or
consistent. You can invent new rules of inference, but then you
aren't sure if the rules of inference don't themselves lead to new
inconsistencies.
If that's true even in one area of mathematics (and it is), where
statements and claims can be reduced to set-theoretic constructions,
how much worse must the problem be for everyday life, where the
semantic content of nothing is ever precise. If you want to
understand how hard this problem really is, look into defining the
semantics even of computer languages and programs.
You are apparently aware of none of this, so you talk casually, as so
many do, of being logical, as if anyone could ever shown to be. Even
the meaning of a single statement eludes us, without trying to convert
true statements into other true statements without a change in meaning
or introducing error.
In reality, you mean something more nearly like what lawyers mean by
"logic." Listening to lawyers talk about meaning makes me crazy, as
listening to you makes me crazy. Whatever the logic of lawyers is, it
has nothing to do with the logic of mathematicians.
You will go your merry way, nattering on about logic and things you
know nothing about. Why dress it up, though, with talk about
computers and such? Just tune into s****ts talk radio, and you can get
pretty much the same thing. And there will be people who will talk
with just as much certainty about being "logical" and about how other
people are idiots and how the things that they say should be obvious
to "everyone," except perhaps to those who are crazy.
Robert.
|
