The End of an Era - That of The Natural Numbers
in [Logic]
|
Prev: What are deliberately flawed & fallacious Arguments? Sophistry!
Next: sci.lang is not meant for advertising
From: William Hughes on 6 May 2010 10:25 On May 6, 2:22 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > William Hughes wrote: > > On May 6, 1:38 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> William Hughes wrote: > >>> On May 5, 2:38 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >>>> what's the difference between > >>>> your "if GC is true we can show that it is true" and > >>>> my "can show GC true if it's true" in my question to you? > >>> Nothing. However note, I am not claiming that > >>> A: we can show GC true if it's true > >>> A is not yet known and may never be known. > >>> I am claiming that A is my *guess*. > >>> (In detail my guess is that T is sound > >>> and therefore something provable in T is > >>> true (although something true may not be > >>> provable in T) and that GC is provable in T) > >>> The question is not whether my guess is right > >>> or wrong, the question is whether my guess > >>> qualifies as an intuition. > >> I'm probably not much interested in fine distinction > >> between the semantics of "guess" and "intuition". > >> Both sound the same to me in this context. My opinion > >> is that guess and intuition _should be backed up_ by > >> _some_ reasoning, and not some kind of whatsoever-intuition. > >> But intuition is intuition and could be virtually any guessing, > >> anything at all. > > > So the above intuition does qualify as "any > > intuition" and your First Observation is false > > as written. > > > Presumably, by "any intuition" you did not mean just > > any intuition, but an intuition that is "backed up by > > _some_ reasoning". However, this is too vague to allow > > us to determine if an intuition is acceptable. (How much > > is _some_, who decides if the reasoning does in fact back > > up the intuition). Next time, define your terms precisely, > > _before_ you proclaim an end of an era. > > So everything boils down to define term such as "intuition" in > a technical debate? Great! Yes, being asked to define terms happens a lot, especially in a technical debate. Of course "define your terms" can be used to block debate "it all depends on what you mean by 'is'", however, it is reasonable to ask that if a term is used with other than its usual meaning, or if the usual meaning of a term is unclear, a definition of the term be given. The request should be very specific about the term in question, and should include a putative definition of the term and/or examples or things that could be meant by the term. The problem is that while we more or less agree that "intuition" means "educated guess", we do not agree on how to distinguish an educated guess from a guess which is not educated. I get the impression you are using an irregular conjugation of intuition. I have an educated intuition. You have a vague intuition. He has a wild guess. - William Hughes
From: MoeBlee on 6 May 2010 12:02 On May 6, 9:25 am, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Of course "define your terms" can be used to block > debate "it all depends on what you mean by 'is'", (Perhaps you're referring to Clinton? If not, then disregard my remarks here.) Clinton didn't block debate with that comment. Actually, he drew a crucial distinction that needed to be made in the interview. He referred to the fact that use of 'is' is accurate or not depending on what point in the chronology was being referred to. The remark struck people as evasive (which would be his right anyway) and silly. But on appreciation of the actual point in question, the remark was not silly. MoeBlee
From: William Hughes on 6 May 2010 14:08 On May 6, 1:02 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 6, 9:25 am, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Of course "define your terms" can be used to block > > debate "it all depends on what you mean by 'is'", > > (Perhaps you're referring to Clinton? If not, then disregard my > remarks here.) Clinton didn't block debate with that comment. > Actually, he drew a crucial distinction that needed to be made in the > interview. He referred to the fact that use of 'is' is accurate or not > depending on what point in the chronology was being referred to. The > remark struck people as evasive (which would be his right anyway) and > silly. But on appreciation of the actual point in question, the remark > was not silly. > > MoeBlee The statement "It all depends on what you mean by 'is'" is evasive pretty much independent of context. Someone who makes such a comment is not trying to further a discussion. As such, the use of the statement to illustrate the use of a demand for definition ofterms to block debate seems justified. The quote is infamous. However, like many attributions the attribution to Clinton may be false. Clinton may have said this or something similar. I neither know nor care. His remark may or may not have been silly. I neither know nor care. - William Hughes
From: J. Clarke on 6 May 2010 14:00 On 5/6/2010 12:02 PM, MoeBlee wrote: > On May 6, 9:25 am, William Hughes<wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Of course "define your terms" can be used to block >> debate "it all depends on what you mean by 'is'", > > (Perhaps you're referring to Clinton? If not, then disregard my > remarks here.) Clinton didn't block debate with that comment. > Actually, he drew a crucial distinction that needed to be made in the > interview. He referred to the fact that use of 'is' is accurate or not > depending on what point in the chronology was being referred to. The > remark struck people as evasive (which would be his right anyway) and > silly. But on appreciation of the actual point in question, the remark > was not silly. Clinton's problem in that regard was that he was being a lawyer and not a President. I'd have respected him a lot more if he'd just told them "Yeah, I did it, and I'm gonna keep on doing it. Eat your hearts out, losers."
From: MoeBlee on 6 May 2010 14:42
On May 6, 1:08 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 6, 1:02 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 6, 9:25 am, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Of course "define your terms" can be used to block > > > debate "it all depends on what you mean by 'is'", > > > (Perhaps you're referring to Clinton? If not, then disregard my > > remarks here.) Clinton didn't block debate with that comment. > > Actually, he drew a crucial distinction that needed to be made in the > > interview. He referred to the fact that use of 'is' is accurate or not > > depending on what point in the chronology was being referred to. The > > remark struck people as evasive (which would be his right anyway) and > > silly. But on appreciation of the actual point in question, the remark > > was not silly. > > The statement > > "It all depends on what you mean by 'is'" > > is evasive pretty much independent of context. > Someone who makes such a comment is not trying > to further a discussion. As such, the use of the > statement to illustrate the use of a demand for > definition ofterms to block debate seems > justified. But in the particular case of Clinton, his remark was justified. The answer to the question put to him really did depend on what "is" meant (what its temporal sense was). > The quote is infamous. However, like many attributions > the attribution to Clinton may be false. No, it's real. (If I recall, it was something like "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is".) But it was ridiculed unjustifiably. Out of context it sounds like he was just playing games with words; but in the actual context the particular sense of the word 'is' was crucial. MoeBlee |