WJ

I would like to take this opportunity to say that everyone (the objectivist, rationalist, materialist, complete skeptic, et al) who reads the above quotation, should be impacted by that so-called statement of a 'truth'. The reason it is even a truth (universal I might add) is because of, guess what...,Being!

(Not to mention the logical problem associated with the word 'love'...!)

In that regard, I agree, the law of (non)contradiction is BS. Though I could stand corrected, logic is not a cure-all for the human condition. You have to wonder what the logician's personal life is like, in comparison to his professional-that is?

(ie, does he live a life of 'suspension', or does he make decisions not knowing all the relevant facts? And whichever he chooses to do, why is he comfortable doing so? Is he comfortable being and becoming?)

Clutch

WJ, First, I understand that the General Theory of Relativity is BS, too! Because it isn't "a cure-all for the human condition" either.

Second, your comments on the personal lives of logicians serve only to parade your own ignorance of the field.

[ July 29, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]</p>

WJ

Clutch!

Thanks for your words of wisdom. You may want to hypothetically answer the questions I posited to give you some clues;


"(ie, does he live a life of 'suspension', or does he make decisions not knowing all the relevant facts? And whichever he chooses to do, why is he comfortable doing so? Is he comfortable being and becoming?)"

I believe that if you take to heart what logic teaches (opposites as a way of accurately describing a truth) you will see that you are left with the problem of one thing, or the cause of one thing, or the nature of the one thing by itself. So you are dealing with relationships, not the thing in itself.

I re-state my question to you, what relationship does logic have to your whole Being as a person? Perhaps your ignorance on that subject will rear its ugly head.

Bill

You left out one of the three laws that are frequently challenged on similar grounds, largely because they can each be derived from the other. The three challenged "laws" are: <ol type="1">[*]The Law of Identity (A is identical to A);[*]The Law of Non-Contradiction (either A or Not-A is true because a thing cannot be and not be at the same time); and[*]The Law of the Excluded Middle (A either has the property, B, or it does not have it; no middle ground is allowed).[/list=a]In Classical Logic, as formulated by Russell and Whitehead, these three alleged laws collapse into each other: The defects in these three laws are extensively analyzed by "Floy E. Andrews[,] Professor of Philosophy at Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's NF, where she has taught for nearly thirty five years." Her article on this subject is <a href="http://www.mun.ca/animus/1996vol1/andrews.htm" target="_blank">THE PRINCIPLE OF EXCLUDED MIDDLE THEN AND NOW: ARISTOTLE AND PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA</a>. In it she dissects the problem and demonstrates that these principles of so-called "Classical Logic" all embody a metaphysical foundation of realism that seems unjustified to many philosophers. In 25 words or less, these logical principles cannot be applied in circumstances where the situation has not yet been observed, usually when the situation involves a future prediction of some sort. This is the essence of the anti-realist position of Dummett and his followers, including Michael Luntley, who explained the objection in clear and unequivocal terms in his book <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=692" target="_blank">Language, Logic and Experience</a>.

Since I've actually read Luntley's book, and since I cannot find a flaw in its reasoning (or in Professor Andrews' reasoning, either), I'm forced to concede that these three principles of "Classical Logic" do have exceptions for situations involving unobserved (or unobservable) states of affairs.

As an example of this sort of situation, let me take a simple case out of Dr. Andrews' essay: It seems to me that no matter how carefully you phrase your contingincies in a logical proposition, there must necessarily be some number of unconsidered alternatives that might invalidate any proposition about any future occurrence. And even when something has actually occurred, but the result of the occurrence has not yet been examined (such as the situation with Schrodinger's cat), something might prevent the examination of the result (such as, for instance, our Sun going Nova before the box can be examined), and thus the probability wave might remain uncollapsed for all eternity.

=====

One final word, though. I would never characterize a partially invalid "law" of logic as "BS." It is invalid in certain circumstances, but it is not ALWAYS invalid. Where the results have previously been determined, those three related laws remain valid.

== Bill

Zar

Bill,

Aren't you mixing the problems of pure logic with the problem of induction? It seems like two different issues.

Also, to answer the OP, Aristotle also mentioned in the law of non-contradiction that nothing could be and not be at the same time in the same respect correct? I believe whenever people employ the "yes or no" answer, they seem to mean they have different feelings based on different aspects (respects) of the reality they face. One may still hold some affection for one's brother qua brother, but hate what the brother has done. One can even say they "hate" a partner who left them for someone else, when they really mean they love them (or are very attached to them psychologically) yet are deeply hurt by their loss.

[ July 29, 2002: Message edited by: Zar ]</p>

Synaesthesia

Bill,
Yet the mere use of a bivalent system would not exclude the possibility of other contingencies being brought to bear. Our true/false system could conclude in that case that the coat will not be cut in half because it will have been otherwise destroyed.

(Having made a smart-aleck remark, I will go to bed and perhaps do this thread a bit more justice in the morning. The specifics of different theories of truth is a topic to which I am fairly new, so I have been quite curious about it.)

Clutch

If you want some industrial-strength analysis of this stuff, try a couple of famous papers by Crispin Wright:

"Realism, Truth-Value Links, Other Minds, and the Past"

"Anti-realism, Timeless Truth, and Nineteen Eighty-Four "

Both are in his Realism, Meaning and Truth.

abe smith

I'll use or not-use the laws of logic as I damn please, when & how. Anybody disagrees w/ my doing this is free to have that opinion; and it's not going to affect my behaviours a particle.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

The same word can refer to more than one concept.

Until the intended concept is specified, 'yes and no' can be a pretty accurate opinion, especially if one doesn't have the time (or doesn't feel it's worth the time) to argue over specifics.

Nonetheless, as a firm believer in the Laws of Identity and Non-Contradiction, I can't remember the last time I answered a question using the phrase 'yes and no'.

Keith Russell.

WJ

Keith!

If you haven't answered that type of question/response, does it mean you heven't routinely asked questions about what is entirely possible to know? In other words, what makes one want to obtain knowledge on a particular subject for which one wishes to become knowledgable? It would seem that most of the time it is a direct result of a 'yes and no' response to something, which could in turn be another interpretation for curiousity.

Walrus