Philosophers and Logicians: what's wrong with this sentence?:
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Call for papers: TMFCS-10, USA, July 2010
Next: 3162 x 3.14 = 9928 Re: proof of unique solution to e^(pi)(i) = -1; #498.1 Correcting Math
From: John Jones on 8 Mar 2010 19:04 A philosopher-logician is a grammarian, a bard. So, as philosopher-logicians, tell me what's wrong with this sentence: "I certainly do not accept the fact that Sir Patrick was influenced by the timing of the leadership election."
From: Kevin on 8 Mar 2010 19:31 On Mar 8, 6:04 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > A philosopher-logician is a grammarian, a bard. So, as > philosopher-logicians, tell me what's wrong with this sentence: > > "I certainly do not accept the fact that Sir Patrick was influenced by > the timing of the leadership election." Logic is a part of philosophy but to put logic into perspective, I think it would pay to make a distinction between what is 'logic' and what is 'rational'. A placeholder until something better comes around might be that it is logical to have hope for no reason but not rational.
From: John Jones on 8 Mar 2010 19:38 Kevin wrote: > On Mar 8, 6:04 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> A philosopher-logician is a grammarian, a bard. So, as >> philosopher-logicians, tell me what's wrong with this sentence: >> >> "I certainly do not accept the fact that Sir Patrick was influenced by >> the timing of the leadership election." > > Logic is a part of philosophy but to put logic into perspective, I > think it would pay to make a distinction between what is 'logic' and > what is 'rational'. A placeholder until something better comes around > might be that it is logical to have hope for no reason but not > rational. Logic tackles the behaviours of physical objects and rationality tackles the behaviour of cultural objects.
From: Kevin on 8 Mar 2010 20:08 On Mar 8, 6:38 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > Kevin wrote: > > On Mar 8, 6:04 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >> A philosopher-logician is a grammarian, a bard. So, as > >> philosopher-logicians, tell me what's wrong with this sentence: > > >> "I certainly do not accept the fact that Sir Patrick was influenced by > >> the timing of the leadership election." > > > Logic is a part of philosophy but to put logic into perspective, I > > think it would pay to make a distinction between what is 'logic' and > > what is 'rational'. A placeholder until something better comes around > > might be that it is logical to have hope for no reason but not > > rational. > > Logic tackles the behaviours of physical objects and rationality tackles > the behaviour of cultural objects. Hmm... I tend to think of logic as that aspect of what we communicate which is not persuasive. Our logic must agree before either one of us can 'persuade' the other concerning our morality... What is rational can relate to culture... An example I can give is that: It is not rational for Russian atheists to claim a belief in God, even if there is proof that they do believe in God... Mostly, though, I doubt that skeptics know what they are talking about when it comes to what is rational. What is rational is complicated.
From: Marshall on 8 Mar 2010 21:32
On Mar 8, 4:04 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > A philosopher-logician is a grammarian, a bard. So, as > philosopher-logicians, tell me what's wrong with this sentence: > > "I certainly do not accept the fact that Sir Patrick was influenced by > the timing of the leadership election." Well I don't know from philosopher-logicians, but I have an objection to the sentence. If the speaker labels "Sir Patrick was influenced by the timing of the leadership election" as "fact" then he has expressly accepted it. So it doesn't make any sense for him to say he hasn't. Marshall |