Leontiskos

- And I of course replied to your reply. :roll: Again:

I already addressed this in some detail: Phil is a fool. Colourless green ideas sleep furiously. What is the difference between (1) and (2)? The relev...

No, I'm just a guy wondering why I forgot to put you back on my ignore list when I reinstalled my browser. This has now been remedied. I look forward ...

- Yes, I understand what you were saying. It is a form of argumentum ad populum.

I see three basic answers, and at least the first two have already been given: 1. Aristotle was writing about humans. If he had known of a devil speci...

That seems reasonable and uncontroversial. Long-lived religious traditions are perhaps the most pronounced form of collective wisdom available to huma...

You have made it abundantly clear that you will continue to refuse to answer the question of the OP. :ok:

Yes. Given how quickly the Aufklärer recognized this, it surprises me how few see it today.

- So still nothing contentful, about the topic of the thread? Still just talking about yourself? Do you often get stuck in front of mirrors?

Argumentum ad populum, then? Such a weak response does not stand up to the arguments that are found in the OP and in this thread.

The proponent of the "Liar's paradox" wants to say that something like, "This sentence is false,"* represents something that is simultaneously true an...

- You haven't given any arguments for your unfounded assertions. The only thing that got close were some poorly written sentences. Hence my reply:

How so? Try making a real argument, bud.

You <made some unfounded assertions> and then wrote 8 short non-committal replies with more unfounded assertions, all in response to posts that were w...

There is no more ubiquitously conflicting interest than the interest in truth. Consider the Fauci case: Masks are effective against Covid-19. If socie...

The only way to arrive at truth is to desire truth, and those who desire truth as a means to something else do not desire truth qua truth. Scientists ...

I would want to say that the reason science is not knowledge-production is because it is tailored to the economy. Modern science is GDP-production, or...

What I am primarily interested in is the OP. I am sure Russell can speak for himself. Despite the fact that these sentences of yours are not grammatic...

Perhaps you have a habit that you are not aware of. Someone wrote a single post in the whole thread and you managed to misquote that single, short pos...

You are full of vapid nitpicking. But I am glad you corrected your mistake this time. Sure you do. When someone considers the claim, "Colourless green...

There is always an implicit or implied speaker. When you consider a claim like that you are implying the linguistic intentions of the average English ...

It is true that we can treat sentences as objects of predication, but the difference is that the number of words that a sentence contains is a materia...

Yep. :up: Or the so-called "Liar's paradox": "I am lying." "Lying about what? You haven't yet managed to construct a coherent sentence."

Yes, it seems to me that this is just another case of "philosophers" confusing themselves. However you slice it, the intent of the "liar" determines w...

This is very close to the way that Aristotle defends the PNC in Metaphysics IV. Much of this is just a question of what we mean by 'logic'.

Right. The so-called "Liar's paradox" seems quite silly, akin to something a third grader thought up at recess. Me too. :up:

I am thinking of what SEP calls, "Aristotle’s Challenge to the Opponent to Signify Some One Thing." More:

I would suggest actually reading Metaphysics IV.

The examples I gave were: So an example of a second-order rule of discourse is, "Thou shalt not contradict thyself."

Yet if what Aristotle does in Metaphysics IV is correct, then there is a logical law that cannot be breached, namely the law of non-contradiction. Or ...

For example: "If the Baltic sea is salty, then the Eiffel Tower stands." According to material implication this is a perfectly good statement, but acc...

For example, one can assert the material implication (P?Q) for three reasons: P is true and Q is true P is false (and Q is true) P is false (and Q is ...

As I alluded to in the other thread, material implication captures English usage only insofar as it guarantees that if the antecedent is true then the...

If we have a large number of nodes with infinite time then P(I)=O will produce the ideal solution, it will be unique, and in that case what you conclu...

I don't see it this way. I think the phrase, "A does not imply a contradiction," either means, "A implies something and that something is not a contra...

See: So: What is happening is apparently: (P?Q)?R ¬R ? ¬(P?Q) As noted earlier in the thread, a reductio is not representable in the object language, ...

An NP-Complete problem is, among other things, one that has no known polynomial time algorithm/solution. The point being that your P(I) = O is an appr...

Okay, fair enough. :up: I was told to watch it by all sorts of people but never did. :grimace: Makes sense. Yep, and probably also because it is impos...

Right, and this is related to my claim: I believe that given the way formalized logic works, there can be sentences which are formally equivalent and ...

This is really the problem of knowledge as expressed in places like the Meno: Aristotle applies his notions of act and potency to basically say that i...

Metabasis eis allo genos is a complicated topic. I expressed it this way originally: Note that this is a sufficient condition and not a necessary cond...

Yes, I was thinking about this as well.

It seems plausible that: (?^~?) takes on the meaning of <explosion> as the antecedent of a modus ponens (?^~?) takes on the meaning of <reductio-rejec...

Another interesting point goes to natural language. "A?(B?¬B) means ¬A." Compare: (?^~?) means explosion (?^~?) means reductio-rejecton (?^~?) means f...

Banno asked a good question: (i.e. What is the difference between a direct proof like modus tollens and an indirect proof like reductio ad absurdum?) ...

Sorry I misread a quote from above. You are right. You supposed S. You know equally well that ¬P follows. Conclusion: ¬S. You are importing "the axiom...

And note that you supposed ¬P (which is the same as preferring S). Either way its a random pick for the second assumption. The point here is as I have...

Which premise do you think provides us with such information? (S?¬P) does not favor S over ¬P in the case of a contradiction. If a contradiction follo...

I edited that post a bit, perhaps after you read it. For example: I was not trying to say it was.