Hi,
"herbzet"
gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:47F57A2B.99353553@gmail.com...>
...
> You needn't belabour the point; please give a clear example of a
> discrepancy between "the structure of logic" and "the structure
> of everyday language" so I'll know what you're talking about.
>
> Btw, what's "ad acta"?
Latin for "placed in the archive (preferably (to be forgotten) forever)".
>
....>
> I look at your post and indeed see:
>
> "First of all, the label "material conditional" is something of a
> misnomer,"
>
> I guess "material conditional" means pretty much the same as
> "material implication"?
I intended to refer to the same, yes. (That cat is probably out of the bag:
I'm not much of a practicing logician,
which extends into nomenclature as well. )
>
> "because the conditional is anything but material, it is utterly formal."
>
> This last would require some explication (to me, at least), and I'm afraid
> the rest of your post doesn't really clear things up for me.
It is also not much of a point to belabour; your first reply made things
clear.
To not appear overly shirking:
That part of the discussion harkens back to Schopie, who in his Berlin
Lectures discusses tha nature of truth, and ascribes it four categories,
the first being formal or logical truth, and the second empirical truth, or
"truth-of-content", i.e. "material" as opposed to "formal".
My bringing that in probably may have led to unwarranted terminological
confusion;
OTOH clarity of taxonomy was one of the issues raised by Immortalist..
>
> I believe that I'm discussing the question introduced by the OP. I'm
> not sure what else you may be discussing.
This may be due to my faulty english, but I'm used to "discussion" meaning
debate, i.e. dialogue.
I don't know how ex cathedra you're authorized to speak, such that when you
assert that you've "already mentioned the sort of research that is needed
here", that this is a last word to which there cannot and shall not be any
gainsaying; if that is the case, I'll simply excuse myself - or if there is
an unspoken "IMO" somewhere, permitting comments and even opposing points of
view.
As it happens, I also believe that I'm discussing the question introduced by
the OP, so that may not be the decisive distinguishing mark.
...
> Wacko. Plural: wackos? wackoes? wackii?
Thx.
I've always associatied it with the whack that brought about the brain
damage in the first place.
....
> Fine questions, and certainly deserving of discussion on a board called
> sci.logic. They should not, however, be allowed to drag down every
> technical examination of logical principles, and I think this discussion,
> as framed by the OP, falls under this category.
Thx; and I agree that specifics shouldn't be drowned in cheap commonplaces
of vague scepticism,
which I can see my last line of answers might tend to; and it isn't meant to
be anything but a defense of philosophy of logic as opposed to "applied"
logic, so to speak. It was merely in reply to the also rather universal
proposition tha logic is the most rational of al undertakings.
...
>
> I generally go along with Lesniewski -- there is only one logic.
Also an interesting topic, worthy of its own thread.
Sorry,
> I don't have a cite offhand.
Taking your word for it.
>
...
> Ok. But all I wanted there was the simplist, obvious answer.
Educators tend to want that.
> Due to an inadequacy in teaching (or understanding), material implication
> is confused with logical entailment. Formal logic clearly defines
> these distinctly.
Thx.
>
> "Validity" is a technical term I wouldn't use just here. The "material
> conditional" (material implication) has a rigorous definition. It is
> what it is. (Yes, I know, that can be said of anything.)
I think I got that now, yes.
T
