Are The Rules of Entailment Logical?

creativesoul December 03, 2019 at 06:07 2225 views 4 comments

The question is simple. I deny that they are. The primary goal of logic is to preserve truth. Whether you value coherence as truth or you value correspondence as truth, logical inference must preserve the truth of the foundational belief. These beliefs serve as premisses. The rules of entailment permit the accountant(See Gettier) to change the entire meaning of that which is being taken into account(See Smith's belief). Such changes include dramatically different truth conditions. Thus, following such 'rules' permits a change in both meaning and truth conditions.

Using logical entailment as a means to account for human belief will inevitable change the meaning and the truth conditions of what's being taken into account.

That is an accounting malpractice...

Is it not?

:worry:

Comments (4)

khaled December 03, 2019 at 06:20 #358557 0 likes

It would help if you explained what accountant and account mean instead of (see getteir) or (see smith's belief)

I like sushi December 03, 2019 at 06:21 #358558 0 likes

Logic is limited. Different applications of logical method have different limits in terms of ‘truth’.

Such terms as ‘justified true belief’ is bound up in issues of semantics. A workable ‘gist’ is still workable, but it is necessarily limited. Applied to human life all abstractions are limited in scope and application. Reason/logic/philosophy/linguistics is about means and methods of delineating between every fluid human experiences.

creativesoul December 03, 2019 at 15:59 #358651 0 likes

Reply to khaled

An accountant is one who is taking account. An account is a report of something else. Gettier Case I.

Are you familiar?

Gettier is taking account of Smith's belief.

creativesoul December 03, 2019 at 16:13 #358659 0 likes

Quoting I like sushi

Logic is limited.

I'm denying that the rules of entailment are rightfully called "logical rules", for the reasons given heretofore.