Banno

Again, you do not have to be here. You do not have to make this thread about me. You could even read the article that this thread is about, and addres...

Good. Notice that in the rest of that introduction she is rejecting this nihilist argument, by suggesting that laws of logic may not have to hold in c...

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Then perhaps I haven't followed your question. Again, true/correct is not my choice of terminology. A logic might be appropriate rather than true. Hen...

Sure. See Dialetheism. For Aristotle it was “the most certain of all principles”, apparently. I wouldn't use it unless under duress...

I disagree. Counterfeit money is counterfeit from the get go, having not been manufactured in a way that grants it legitimacy. There's your problem, r...

Seems so. Various systems offer alternatives. I could go along with your suggestion as a way-point, but not as a conclusion. If the argument is sound ...

Sure. So long as the vast gap between the moral worth of an adult human and that of a cyst is recognised.

No, Leon. If you are going to use the claim to reject there being contradictory logics, then you have given primacy to PNC. You may be right, but True...

The inference depends on accepting PNC. The article mentions goes into this in some detail, but doubtless you will not read that, either. The only dog...

Can I suggest having a look at the discussion in the article that this thread concerns? Section 1.2, concerning the interpretation of logical laws. "S...

Where you used it to adjudicate over logics: You are not here to addressing the topic of this thread, by your own account. You do not have to be here,...

Which is just to give primacy to PNC, and so to beg the question.

That'd be logical nihilism. What is being suggested is logical pluralism. You might try 1. If we have discursive knowledge, then there are true/correc...

Language.

I'm not keen on evolutionary teleologies.

...mostly shows how poorly folk hereabouts deal with logic.

Indeed, it's not much better than "Here is a hand. If you hold my hand up before us both, and say "here is a hand", and I disagree, that would put an ...

If you like. "Natural logic" will collapse into "formal logic" as soon as you take it seriously. The "rationalisations we make" are the very subject o...

I'd only used "foundational" in response to posts here. Even in propositional logic, axiomatic systems are but one of many, and in those systems there...

That "exactly" is again a pointer to essentialism. What gives someone moral worth need not be a single characteristic or even a given group of charact...

@"Bob Ross" has dragged the discussion back to essentialism again. "It's human, so you mustn't kill it", ignoring capital punishment and war and eutha...

Those supposed foundations are addressed in the Russell article. Few implementations of propositional logic start with modus ponens. It's most often j...

Just the shortest path between two points. So pick two points on a sphere, draw the shortest line, then extend that. The result is a great circle. The...

Interpretive monism to go with logical monism - the One True Understanding of Lewis Carrol. I prefer Martin Gardiner's analysis. Besides, I haven't sa...

Hence @"fdrake"'s pointing out the inadequacy of @"Leontiskos"' definition. A great circle is the longest possible straight line on a sphere. No midpo...

"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried, As he landed his crew with care; Supporting each man on the top of the tide By a finger entwined in h...

Yeah, I agree. Links form here to a whole lot of other stuff.

Ok, then: A blastocyst is not a human being. The blastocyst is alive. It can be considered as a seperate entity - it might be moved to another host, f...

Yes, indeed. If god does not exists, our prayers would be answered by Un, and hence it is false that if there is no god your prayers will not be answe...

There's the nub. It looks circular...

I have a predilection for Feyerabend over Lakatos, but Feyerabend's view is difficult to maintain.

No. I'm glad you dropped in, at Leon's invitation, I think? It wasn't I who engaged in necromancy - that was @"frank". And you do not have to be here,...

If it makes you uncomfortable, stop tromping on my bridge. I had thought the example, Euler’s formula, a bit obtuse. But perhaps Lakatos chose it so a...

I'm enjoying this discussion. I'd like to pause in order to draw attention to the similarities between the insistence here on euclidean space and Leon...

@"Leontiskos" as student Delta:

So it's bits of applied logic and ontology and model theory and metalogic. Fine.

I agreed with But that's cheating, of course. "Monster barring" in Russell's terms.

Nice post. Importantly, doing this would not be wrong, as such. It's just one approach amongst many. The error here, if there is on, would be to presu...

Cognitive biases are odd things. A good example of how re-thinking how we phrase the apparent paradox can provide new insight. We have "This sentence ...

I'm finding this hard to follow - is your claim that the argument is invalid? It isn't. Seems Leon addressed this.

I see your point now. Unfortunately perhaps the only answer is reliance on good judgement.

A quick look at the Open Logic Project will show you how logic grows, tree-like, each system depending on, but slightly different from, the others. It...

I'll take your word for that. The difference here is the rigour introduced by formality. In particular, the argument is not subjective, nor deriving f...

The chart shows that the expression you are using is not a commonplace. That's all. Seems to me that it remains unclear what "material logic" is. But ...

Nice. That's the sort of playfulness we get by adopting these considerations. I can't help you with re-defining smoothness for Taxicab space, but sinc...

Consider: https://i.ibb.co/MgYqqb2/image.png

Yep. :roll: Yep. It isn't anything to do with probability.

:wink: Yep. Unfair advantage. Think on i. \sqrt -1 isn't a thing except it is. What would we get if we just assumed a perfectly round square circle wi...

Still makes no sense. What's an "inversion fallacy" in this context? Do you think that the argument is denying the antecedent? It isn't.