Olivier5

More than one person have said it.

Clear, as defined by Popper himself, is equivalent to 'not using more complex a language than the problem at hand requires'. In other word, clear = cl...

Nobody can understand everything. Nevertheless his contribution was gigantic, and go well beyond reframing the scientific method. It included an in-de...

It also explains why Popper managed to understand so much on his own, and open the way to Kuhn in the process.

:fire:

Life is too short, and I tend to find SEP unreliable.

A bit confusing now... It seems to me that you just said that paraconsistent logics exclude the LNC, then you backtracked. But if the backtracked vers...

I mean a permanent or semi-permanent man-made structure for the purpose of allowing folks to pass over a river (usually) or another obstacle, by walki...

I suppose this is the main advantage of dissociating the two. Coming back to the topic at hand, I do have a question after all: has anyone tried to bu...

I'm not saying it is. In fact I am saying it isn't. If it was, you wouldn't be too good at it. Still grateful for the clue though.

We started this discussion two or three days ago though.

Too slow, rather. You could have said a long time ago: "you must mean the LNC, because the LEM does not actually rule out contradiction."

No need, you're not a very eloquent writer. It would take you ages.

It was just different, but logically equivalent in a system where both laws are in force, so it matters not. In fact I still think it is more elegant ...

I've lapped all this stuff years ago. The LEM was presented as I said, with an exclusive or. Honest mistake.

I think I got the point you're making, which is -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that the LEM is different from the Law of Non Contradiction in that the ...

And that would not contradict the LEM?

So anything of the type P & -P?

You mean, one by one?

You're stonewalling now. I'll leave you to it...

So how many folks are we talking about?

You are trying to bullshit yourself here. Read the article and quote the part where they say that "we're all going to get immune from covid eventually...

It's fine to quote articles but to call untold numbers of semi-mysterious people criminals is not.

I've already explained it to you. Bis repetitas: 1) variants are a big factor. This thing keeps mutating and one may develop an immunity for one varia...

Because you don't want to take my word for it. What else could you possibly do to verify the claim? Ask me to write more and more stuff that you will ...

The argument is that you are borderline paranoid when you speak of untold numbers of semi-mysterious criminals like that, and that such talk is unheal...

Don't take my word for it. Ask any qualified medical doctor if your article claims that we will all become immune to covid eventually. I am confident ...

'We all becoming immune' means what it means: that at some point in the future we will all be immune to covid. Aka herd immunity. But your article mak...

Del

In many ways, one of which is the constant emergence of new variants, another the finding is limited to period of 8 months after infection. Yet anothe...

"Durable memories up to 8 month" <> everybody becoming immune. The Trump trope is precisely in this 'herd immunity' bs. Who is 'they' in that sentence...

The way I read it, you painted a whole lot of people as criminals. Nothing in this article says anything about "all of us becoming immune naturally", ...

I have neither the time nor the appetite to dig through the whole stack but this is the kind of heavily paranoid stuff I am talking about: And where d...

And then the interesting question (for me at least) becomes: in which types of contexts does it apply, and in which types of contexts does it not appl...

Wonderful. So now, how would you write down the proposal that we allow contradictions in mathematics, syntactically and semantically? What sort of axi...

You have in my view spread wholesale condamnations of governments, the medical establishment, the media and the likes, that were totally unfounded. Th...

Why yes, we are all amateur philosophers anyway, even those of us who are professional mathematicians. And there is no subject matter that philosophy ...

I think such a position is easy to rebut, in that it is a self-referencing negative statement structurally identical to the liar's paradox, or to "thi...

It's not about a paradox here or there. Rather Wittgenstein's idea was to happily welcome logical contradictions in mathematics. I agree it will never...

And yet that could happen if they thought that the max compressive resistance of their concrete is say A, but also 2*A, and also 329*A. If we allow co...

What claim are you talking about?

Yes yes yes but all this assumes that if the tensive strength of this material is X, it is X. It is not something else than X. There's only one correc...

But if this point, whatever its merits, has nothing to see with what Wittgenstein was saying, why do you bring it up in this thread?

Are you now saying that spreading unfounded doubts is problematic?

Yes to this, a universal rule. Statements and propositions are always made as part of a context, in a very real i.e. local, human sense of who says it...

Well then why did you say that it had nothing or little to see with the LEM, pray tell?

I would think this part is unwarranted, in the sense that life is already semantic. Our physical bodies are semantic. The really hard problem to me is...

Alright. And how would you write down Wittgenstein's proposal that we should happily welcome contradictions in mathematics, syntactically and semantic...

Okay so it's fine to doubt big pharma and the government but not you, for some reason.