Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
03-04-2003, 08:04 AM | #21 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Singapore
Posts: 158
|
Rationality
There's a lot I'd like to write here, but I can't afford the time to dump all my thoughts at one sitting, so I'll have to do so in dribs and drabs...
Regarding what "rationality" is, I think it is of utmost importance that we have a working definition of "rationality". One may say that "rationality" means subscribing to arguments that seem to "make sense", but this is the wrong definition, for many bogus beliefs do make sense to certain people. (Indeed, one problem I find with Vuletic's article is that, just like many other writings, it fails to state what "rationality" is.) After thinking about the issue for a while, I arrived at a possible description of "rationality": it has to do with seeking objective truth through objective methods. This notion of "rationality" will seem roughly equivalent to the notion of "skepticism". The next question is then whether Dialetheism (1) agrees with this notion of rationality, (2) is contrary to this notion, or (3) is independent of rationality. The question is not whether any proposition "exists" (since we agree that all propositions exist), but whether a proposition can be "true" and "false", where truth and falsity, intuitively speaking, refer to the interpretation mapping of a proposition on the set { t, f } under a "profane" view of logic (as expounded in Section 3.1.2 on this random link). I'll now try to "objectively" examine the rationality of Dialetheism. It is universally agreed that a proposition is "not true"/"inconsistent"/"irrational" if it logically entails some observable physical phenomenon, but the phenomenon is not observed (after all, even fundamentalists use a similar line of argument against religions other than their own, so it can't get more objective than that). This "unobserved phenomenon" argument is however is just a specialized version of the Law of Non-Contradiction. But what is the justification for preferring the specialized LNC over the general LNC? It's not clear. |
03-04-2003, 09:35 AM | #22 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: US
Posts: 5,495
|
Rationality - from whose view?
Quote:
Consider: Quote:
I still think the trick is understanding what goes on inside the mind. Cheers, John |
||
03-05-2003, 01:54 AM | #23 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Chicago
Posts: 774
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
However, while I can find nothing wrong with your analysis, I hesitate to agree that this kind of analysis has any consequences for the basic assumptions of Logic. As I alluded to in an earlier post, the assumptions and claims of any view are statements. And statements (that are not logically inconsistent) assume the basic "laws" of Logic. These "laws" are not easy to evade. The basic "laws" of Logic are even more fundamental than the axioms of Set Theory. Thus, Set Theoretical considerations cannot affect the basic assumptions of Logic. |
||||||
03-05-2003, 12:59 PM | #24 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: US
Posts: 5,495
|
Measure in inches - you get inches!
Quote:
How about in reality contradictions exist? That is, human beings state things (contradictions) that arise because statements can have different meanings depending upon a) the mind interpreting the statement and b) the point from which that mind views reality. Relativism bites again! Quote:
Why do you mention "adopting" dialetheism? Isn't it just a thinking tool, like logic? Its not like having to believe in a religion. Dialetheism does not necessarily exclude propositional logic as a system (where as the opposite is "True" heehee). Quote:
As to your last comment above I ask "Are all statements either assumptions or claims?" I think it comes down to a convention that reduces to "An accepted fact is considered to be true" - which can be true or false depending upon the observer of the statement. Quote:
Cheers, John |
||||
03-06-2003, 12:03 PM | #25 | ||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Chicago
Posts: 774
|
Quote:
The basic axioms of Logic are only subjectively apprehended (and "discovered") as being characteristics of propositions. They are not subjectively produced apart from any such considerations. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Outside of a "context" that includes mathematical concepts as meaningful, your statement cannot be true. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not sure why that would be the case since the LOI simply states that A is not ~A. How does it follow from that that all truths are equal? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I have to run. |
||||||||||||||
03-07-2003, 08:13 AM | #26 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Singapore
Posts: 158
|
Drib & drab #2
Sorry for the delay...
John Page: Quote:
I think this shows us that Dialetheism has nothing to do with differing "points of view" of different people. All 3 people can clearly see that the vessel is both yellow and green, yet the 3rd person still believes there is a contradiction. In fact, relativism does not even preclude the existence of objective truth, or the validity of the LNC; neither does the absence of relativism preclude Dialetheism. Also, truth can always be expressed in objective terms, as the 4th man has done. Given any bunch of "subjective" truths, we can parameterize the predicates involved with a `point of view' -- e.g. instead of Evil(Bush) "Bush is evil" we have Evil(Bush, Saddam) "as far as Saddam is concerned, Bush is evil" -- and take the union of all these predicates, and thus arrive at an "objective" truth. (Aside: actually I do not understand what the great deal is with relativism/subjectivism vs. absolutism/objectivism. They are not even diametrically opposed. I guess the relativism vs. absolutism hoo-ha is simply caused by a refusal of both sides to properly cast their thoughts in symbolic logic notation -- the whole debate evaporates once we do this.) Since objective truth exists, so an objective notion of rationality also exists. (Here I will say that the 3rd person is being the most irrational, as he is trying to view the world through a dichotomy which isn't.) jpbrooks: Quote:
|
||
03-07-2003, 08:59 AM | #27 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: US
Posts: 5,495
|
Re: Drib & drab #2
Apologies in advance for brief response!
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Cheers, John |
||||
03-07-2003, 09:14 AM | #28 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: US
Posts: 5,495
|
A Dialetheic View of Logic
I still don't see how Dialetheism and logic necessarily but heads. I can no longer resist the challenge of proposing a "Dielethical Logic" even if, of course, such a thing is a true contradiction!!
Let A represent a proposition considered "True" under propositional logioc and ~A represent the contra, "False" The result "True" is derived from or is considered a property of A which we perceive through a brain state represented as {A}. Therefore {A} -> A -> True. For each proposition A there must be (under dialetheism) a brain state {B} under which A is false. Thus {B} -> A -> False. Thus the truth functionality of any proposition depends on the view of the observer which in turn is determined by their brain state. Is this coherent or what? Cheers, John |
03-07-2003, 11:34 AM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Chicago
Posts: 774
|
Re: Drib & drab #2
Sorry for the brevity of my replies but I'm pressed for time.
Quote:
|
|
03-07-2003, 11:45 AM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Chicago
Posts: 774
|
Re: A Dialetheic View of Logic
Quote:
I'll be back later. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|