MindForged

Depending on what you mean by "cohere", no I'm not saying that. We can (and have had) theories which were contradictory (early calculus, Bohr model of...

This doesn't make any sense to me. Within modality, to be "possible" simply means to obtain in at least one possible world. Given that "emerging possi...

If you apply a model of theory choice we very well get supporting reasons. If the axioms taken on result in a theory which introduces a bunch of ad ho...

Surely you don’t mean that? The flat earther is not holding a reasoned position. Well, yes, the differences in views come from the different underlyin...

Which it does not exercise for the obvious reason that politicians won't bite the hands that feed them (lobbying, campaign finance, etc.). The example...

I don't think you're really addressing what the OP is talking about and unjustifiably acting as if it is broader than it is. The OP is referring to th...

I should note that despite the following, I wouldn't say I follow a single school of philosophy, I often find myself in agreement with incompatible vi...

I aspire to one day use "pecksniffery" and not feel like an asshole for doing so, lol.

The America and Europe of yesteryear are not the same as today's. "Traditional" isn't synonymous with "correct". I mean, Republicans are fine with the...

It was intended to be a bit tongue in cheek. As I said, OP seems circumspect about their intent here so I more or less agree with you.

We need only go back to 1696 to see that yes, a formal contradiction was provable. The only way, as far as I can see, to say it was just an inability ...

Probably, though the phrasing of the OP was charmingly circumspect (or maybe I'm just cynical and being mean).

Why is that relevant? I certainly never said people intended to create such paradoxes. My point is precisely that the existence of such things are wha...

Basically. There's a clear difference in reasonability between the contradiction in "This sentence is false" and "It's raining and it's not raining". ...

I think you are making a mistake. A direct contradiction that doesn't result from a compelling argument (e.g. some bachelor is married) is not the sam...

I'm somewhat confused as to what you're arguing, and I probably go further than you do on this issue. Surely the classical mathematician agrees that n...

I think you are mixing up points. Earlier I referenced how Russell's Paradox led to a reformulation of set theory and I further said that in spite of ...

In that bit, I was referring to Paraconsistent logic lacking as many practical applications (in comparison to standard maths) that would serve to just...

Well my issue was that even if I'm deploying a formal logic that doesn't mean I will flawlessly deduce the conclusion. People make errors, so knowing ...

It doesn't matter, this is just ridiculous. If someone doesn't know, they can ask or google. It's pointless to expect everything to be explained upfro...

And argument requires structure for anything to come from it, and that structure is inescapably part of "the actual basis of an argument", it's how yo...

Well I didn't misuse it or use it as a short hand for not liking someone's argument. :-)

It's invalid in modern logic systems, it was valid in Aristotliean Syllogistic. It doesn't require omniscience, we simply know that syllogism does not...

"Fallacy" means the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The first two are definitely true, the conclusion is definitely false, and yet Syllo...

Kind of? I'm saying that you could have flawless knowledge of every error in reasoning and still fail to reason perfectly since in practice you will n...

It's just a short hand, it makes no difference. The issue is assuming that a class has members without asserting as a premise that the class has membe...

Let me give an example. In the logic Aristotle developed - known as Syllogistic - an argument with Existential Import was valid. So the following argu...

Well summarized, couldn't have done it better myself. My only quibble is that it's "wrecking logic" only insofar as one already has an idea of what th...

No. Aside from the fact that no one perfectly adheres to rules even if they believe they ought to l, what counts as a logical fallacy is relative to t...

Sure! (This won't hold in standard math obviously) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathematics-inconsistent

(I know this wasn't directed at me but I can't resist) Depends on what you mean by "need". If you aim to prove Logicism then you do need unrestricted ...

No, Aristotle created Syllogistic. Classical logic was invented in the 1870s by Frege. These are not the same system, Classical Logic validates a diff...

Yea, I don't have much issue with Excluded Middle. Then again, I've only passing familiarity with intuitionism. ;) I'm not talking about Russell's Par...

I think I've already articulated my position without recourse to intuitionism. Once you think it over (need not agree obviously) let me know what you ...

Because in the case of A, we have every reason to believe we are in a consistent domain (that of classical mathematics), where proof by contradiction ...

I didn't mistake anything. The paradox resulted from rules that Frege thought were indubitable. And you completely misrepresented what I said. I didn'...

I didn't say the barber shaves two distinct groups P & Q. I said the barber "shaves all and only those who do not shave themselves". That is a conditi...

Dude, I "changed it" A) By mistake, since I gave the classic wording of the paradox and B) the words I changed didn't alter the paradox at all. "All a...

??? Bro, I said it was a paradox on the previous page. I accept Russell's Paradox but I'm an outlier. The Barber Paradox is simple: no such barber exi...

Well said, you articulated it better than me.

That's where the paradox comes from. He ends up having to shave himself and shave those who cannot shave themselves. He can't do both.

The barber paradox splits a town into two distinct groups: those who shaves themselves and those who don't. The barber is proposed to be the one who s...

There is no semantic difference between what I said and what you said. "All and only" will capture the same set of objects as "every".

I'm sorry, but this is like saying it's bad to call murderers evil because you're being intolerant of them. Like, really?

Are you serious? Your OP: I have to assume there's some communication issue here. I accept Russell's Paradox, but the Barber doesn't seem difficult: n...

Because people don't always behave rationally even if on other things they are reasonable. Racism doesn't just drop out of moral character or benefici...

That's is literally what I said. My post: I already said I accept the paradox as a valid argument, but unlike most that's because I accept naive set t...

I'm saying that even as metaphysical dialetheist I do not believe a "barber who shaves all and only those who do not shave themselves" cant exist. Obv...

Do you hear yourself? "Nothing personal blacky, I just believe you're a pest because of your skin color". Who cares if it's personal, people can be ma...

He fits in the group and does not fit in the group, but only in a fiction can it obtain, even for metaphysical dialetheists. To motivate anything more...