> There is a claim that folk-science is an empty-headed version of true
> science...however, logicians take note as the claim is instructive:
>
> Irrespective of the subject matter, the claim is logically incoherent.
> It asserts that a value judgement can be made between two unique systems
> based on only one of them! In this case the systems happen to be
> science[lore] and folk[lore], and the value assertions are cast in
> favour of science [lore].
>
> This mistake - declaring a value disjunction between two systems, is
> engineered by the employment of a third, but unstated, system that
> assymetrically maps values to the two elements. These allow value
> judgements to be made in favour of one or other element of the binary.
> This logical hiccup has been called the logic of the priviliged binary
> (or the logic of supplementarity).
>

> On Jan 14, 5:00 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:

>> There is a claim that folk-science is an empty-headed version of true
>> science...however, logicians take note as the claim is instructive:
>>
>> Irrespective of the subject matter, the claim is logically incoherent.
>> It asserts that a value judgement can be made between two unique systems
>> based on only one of them! In this case the systems happen to be
>> science[lore] and folk[lore], and the value assertions are cast in
>> favour of science [lore].
>>
>> This mistake - declaring a value disjunction between two systems, is
>> engineered by the employment of a third, but unstated, system that
>> assymetrically maps values to the two elements. These allow value
>> judgements to be made in favour of one or other element of the binary.
>> This logical hiccup has been called the logic of the priviliged binary
>> (or the logic of supplementarity).
>>

> The third system, although unstated, is pretty obvious, it's which
> system gets the answer right most often. Thus when folk science says ...

> There is a claim that folk-science is an empty-headed version of true
> science...however, logicians take note as the claim is instructive:
>
> Irrespective of the subject matter, the claim is logically incoherent.
> It asserts that a value judgement can be made between two unique systems
> based on only one of them! In this case the systems happen to be
> science[lore] and folk[lore], and the value assertions are cast in
> favour of science [lore].
>
> This mistake - declaring a value disjunction between two systems, is
> engineered by the employment of a third, but unstated, system that
> assymetrically maps values to the two elements. These allow value
> judgements to be made in favour of one or other element of the binary.
> This logical hiccup has been called the logic of the priviliged binary
> (or the logic of supplementarity).
>

> Ed wrote:

>> On Jan 14, 5:00 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:

>>> There is a claim that folk-science is an empty-headed version of true
>>> science...however, logicians take note as the claim is instructive:
>>>
>>> Irrespective of the subject matter, the claim is logically incoherent.
>>> It asserts that a value judgement can be made between two unique systems
>>> based on only one of them! In this case the systems happen to be
>>> science[lore] and folk[lore], and the value assertions are cast in
>>> favour of science [lore].
>>>
>>> This mistake - declaring a value disjunction between two systems, is
>>> engineered by the employment of a third, but unstated, system that
>>> assymetrically maps values to the two elements. These allow value
>>> judgements to be made in favour of one or other element of the binary.
>>> This logical hiccup has been called the logic of the priviliged binary
>>> (or the logic of supplementarity).
>>> ...