(post deleted by Sky)

Good point.

Although I think it will probably look like Rodney King to the logic police.

(double post)

Not having the advantage of extensive training in formal logic, and being too lazy to look it up for myself, I have a couple questions…

Must a premise be a “known fact”?

By that I mean, can it simply be a postulate that is not itself proven, but is not contradicted by any known fact?

In other words…

“If A were true and B were true, then C would be true.”



Also, what about these two evaluations

All Slobovians have black hair
John has black hair
John could be a Slobovian


Some men have black hair
John is a man
John could have black hair



Are they considered “valid” or not? Or are they not even considered to have anything to do with "logic" at all?

I just had to get post number 1000 in this thread.

Edit: And the first post in "Part 2"

True.

But I’m curious as to where you might think I said that. And if I did, exactly who “We” referred to.

Yes, some of us do.

I don't recall ever taking a crap while sitting on a rock - in these forums.

Ok, I understand that you hold that opinion. And as I said, I have no problem with that.

You’ve stated it as an absolute, but it’s not.

Fact 1: It works for “me” (which is what I said).
Fact 2: It doesn’t work for “you”
Corollary to Fact 2: It doesn’t work for “us”.

So we’re right back at “We think differently” and I don’t see any way to move forward from there other than for one of us to change the way we think. And I don’t think you’re any more likely to change the way you think than I am to change the way I think.



Nope. That’s not what I mean. I mean exactly what I said.

I didn’t say “It works for us”, I said “It works for me.”

I shouldn’t what?

“Mean it is something I am willing to accept”? I don’t, as stated above.

“Be willing to accept it?” No one has given reason not to that is sufficient for my purposes. (And “sufficient for my purposes” is what defines what “works for me”.)

Ok, I can see that. So maybe I should clariy further...

When I think of "viewpoint" I consider it to be an aggregate of accepted information and it's interrelationships. Thus, to me "accepting new information" would be virtually synonymous with "assuming a new (different) viewpoint".

So really, I'm in agreement with you.

Yes, I agree that all those factors can contribute to causing closed mindedness.

I was just looking more toward "definition" than "cause".

Exactly.

I think that "2+2=22" joke is a perfect illustratiion of my point - if one's purpose is "to make a joke", then "the right tool for the job" is illogic.

How would you define “closed mindedness”?

Personally, I define it as “unwillingness to assume other viewpoints” or “unwillingness to look at things from a different perspective”.

Thus sayeth the pot.

Knock, knock. Come out. come out, wherever you are. ("...and meet the young dear who fell from a star" - sung by Glenda, The Good Witch of the North, in The Wizard of Oz.)

Personally, I think the Sci&Phi forum needs ganerality once in a while, just as the General forum needs some Sci&Phi every once in a while.

So please come back out. An hang that cute "Witchy Woman" pic back up while you're at it.

Just a short note on...Considerting that the coriolis effect is always present, "perfectly still" water would be all but impossible to achieve. That is, there would have to be something to counteract the coriolis effect before perfectly still water could exist.

That would tend to support the idea that the coriolis effect has some affect on the swirling of drainwater.

But the math just doesn't seem to add up.

I'm stumped. Not enough accurate data.

EDIT: Regarding "Smiless toilet view of the universe" I'd like to submit for consideration, the replacement of "The Big Bang" with "The Big Flush". as an explanation for the beginning of the universe.

I think we all agree that logic is fundamentally a set of rules. I think we also all agree that it could be described as a tool.

Now with that in mind...

Some people wish to play by one set of rules, and some people wish to play by another set of rules. And no one always plays by one single set of rules exclusive of all others.

Some people use one tool, and some people use other tools. And no one always uses one specific tool exclusive of all others.

But in any case, it is always “purpose” that drives the decision behind “which set of rules to follow” or “which tool to use”.

That is, one always chooses the rules/tools that will assist one in best achieving their purpose.

Comments? Agreements? Disagreements? Firebombs?

(And Nuclear - and we won't mention background radiation from the Big bang, or energy from meteorites entering the atmoshere, or any kind of EM (e.g. light) or gravitational force from extra-solar sources, or...)

Just messing.

If you have a problem with my rules, then make up your own rules, I don't care.


No, I never pay attention to what's happening. I just look for baseless ways to declare that I've lost the argument.

Yeah.

I said "the rules of logic determine truth".

You said "the rules of logic determine truth value".

Now I’m just not up for slogging through that ole semantic swamp. So suffice it to say that, in the context of my intended meaning, I consider the two statements effectively identical, and I recognize and accept that you may not.

So let’s go back to the original statement and response . . .

First of all, I do not identify “first person perspective” with “first person thought process”. To me “perspective” is a static reference point, whereas “though process” is an action. So from this point on, it seems we were talking about two different things.

Secondly, the logic still does not assign any value/use/worth/relevance. If I correctly understand what you mean by “truth value” (as differentiated from simply “truth”) it has no intrinsic reference point outside the structure of the logical process. The only value it can have outside that process is the value the first-person perspective assigns to the logical process itself.

Do you follow me here?