nah, you don't have the best track record with basic logic and I don't think you're doing a great job of it here. Prove there's the contradiction you said there is

The best track record? Well, when 100s of blind men were shouting out the elephant must look like a rubber pipe standing up after feeling one of its legs accusing one normal sighted man's description of it, what could the sighted man could have done apart from saying - well good luck to youz mate? :)

Nah, I am not going to talk about logic with you again. You need to learn it yourself. I think I said enough on the tautology and contradiction. Nothing more to add to it.

I think I said enough on the tautology and contradiction. — Corvus

Mr denying the antecedent, I think I agree.

Mr denying the antecedent, I think I agree. — flannel jesus

Nothing to do with that. It was about pointing out your premise was irrelevant to the conclusion.

Your track record with basic logical errors has everything to do with that. I recall, perhaps you've forgotten.

No, you are wrong. I recall everything. You were just shouting out riding on the crowds of folks supporting you whatever you said.

And you were insisting everyone else was crazy except you. No! Corvus must be right! It must be logical to deny the antecedent! Yeah, I'll take the crowds of philosophers over just standing on my lonesome committing logical atrocities.

Obviously you forgot everything about it.

If you bring in irrational premises to the conclusion in the argument, then it doesn't get accepted in higher standard of logic. That's nothing to do with denying antecedent. You are quoting something you saw on the internet, and making your slogan for logic.

I can vouch for @Corvus, he is an excellent metaphysician. Maybe his skills as a logician are not comparable to those of an Analytic philosopher, but he's excellent as an Empiricist philosopher.

Quine's issue about synonymy doesn't apply to logical truths. — J

Good point. Logical truths are true in every interpretation, so they are supposedly safe from Quine's criticism. One consequence of that is the rejection of de re modality.

It might be worth taking a close look at Reference and Modality post Naming and Necessity. There is a tension here, to be sure, and Quine was correct that folk will try to smuggle Aristotelian-style essences in on Kripke's back. I'm pretty sure we can have our cake and eat it, since rigid designation and referential opacity occur in different contexts. It's a worthy topic.

Thank you for your kind comment, Arcane Sandwich. As you rightly pointed out, I am not a logician at all. I have read only a book or two on Elementary Logic books a long time ago. So I don't talk much about logic usually unless the topic requires logical explanation by its nature for clarification.

I tend to try to rely on my own reasoning rather than the formal methods on my logical reasoning in most cases. However when the topic is about something I read from the textbook, I also try to utilize them accordingly. They are all basic elementary level, of course.

OK, FJ, going to back to your initial point, you claimed my argument is made up of a bunch of paradoxes. If you could point out exactly which part of my argument are paradox and explain the reasons why they are paradoxes, then I will try to clarify them with you, if you would like me to.

you claimed my argument is made up of a bunch of paradoxes — Corvus

I don't think I said that. Here's the quote of mine I managed to find: "It's easy to make a paradox out of false statements. Corvus is a human and he's not a human. If I allow myself false statements, then voila, I can produce a paradox at will."

I didn't say it's made of a bunch of paradoxes, I said you produced an apparent paradox, trivially, by just making false statements and claiming they're true by definition.

If I allow myself false statements, then voila, I can produce a paradox at will." — flannel jesus

That is not false statements in the rule of logical proof. If I could recall it correctly, you can make up the molecular statements from atomic statements using the connectives for assumption under the rule of addition, elimination, MP and MT etc. These steps are needed to come to the required proof of conclusion.

We were talking about the Morning star and evening star. Which part is false statement in the argument?

I didn't say it's made of a bunch of paradoxes, I said you produced an apparent paradox, trivially, by just making false statements and claiming they're true by definition. — flannel jesus

I thought your point was the argument is from the paradoxes made up randomly with the false statements or something like that. So if contradiction is introduced for the steps of logical proof, then you claim it is a paradox, because false statement is made up and added. To my understanding, that was not a claim from someone who knew anything about logic.

Reductio ad absurdum is the most used method of logical proof from the ancient times. You call it making up false statement from paradox didn't make sense to me at all.

mate what the fuck are you talking about?

To my understanding, that was not a claim from someone who knew anything about logic. — Corvus

What does this mean? Have you lost your mind? You are so far out of touch with the English language that we literally cannot have a rational conversation.

What does this mean? Have you lost your mind? You are so far out of touch with the English language that we literally cannot have a rational conversation. — flannel jesus

That is a simple plain English. It means what it says.

you're not comfortable in the language which is why you trip up so much in basic communication about logic. There's nothing to say to you. You don't understand the words you say. I might as well argue with a pigeon.

Well, do so. I am not stopping you mate.

It might be worth taking a close look at Reference and Modality — Banno

Do you mean the essay in From a Logical Point of View?

http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Quine%20-%20Reference%20and%20Modality.pdf

Yep. New thread, maybe. Although given the present state of the forums it would probably turn into yet another thread about Heidegger and god.

Yep. New thread, maybe. Although given the present state of the forums it would probably turn into yet another thread about Heidegger and god. — Banno

Seems like someone doesn't understand Bunge and science.

OK. (My copy has an inscription from WVQ's son to his teacher which reads, "Miss Ellis -- These essays are of a kind I never had to write for you and in fact they are by a different Quine. The author is my father. Douglas B. Quine, '64". Wonder what Miss Ellis made of it . . . )

Nice. Do you have the actual hard copy?

Oversimplifying, Quine fusses over the sentence "Cicero has six letters", and how we can get from that to "Something has six letters". The thing that has six letters is a word, not Cicero. He suggests treating modal sentences in a similar way, as substitutionally opaque. He want to do this becasue he dislikes the supposed ontological implications of other approaches.

But I don't think possible world semantics has the dire consequences he envisions, and specifically, the sort of essentialism it invokes is ontologically inert.

This not by way of an argument but an outline.

Do you have the actual hard copy? — Banno

Well, a paperback reprint. But it is signed by WV Quine as well.

This not by way of an argument but an outline. — Banno

Understood. It'll be fun to look it over and then read some Kripke, as you suggest. I never took Kripke to be talking about essences per se; if I use the rigid designator 'that apple' I am certainly not claiming to reveal anything ontologically important about it. But it does get complicated with names, and it's fair to ask whether Kripke isn't backing into a doctrine about essences when it comes to possible-world semantics. Anyway, I'll review.

I never took Kripke to be talking about essences per se — J

Yep. The mention of essence is a response to recent interest hereabouts, mostly amongst a small group of Thomists. A discussion of necessity here will probably the obliged to address less than clear ideas of essence.

Our concern here is that tautology is often thought of as necessity. Filling that out is a topic in itself.

Yep. The mention of essence is a response to recent interest hereabouts, mostly amongst a small group of Thomists. A discussion of necessity here will probably the obliged to address less than clear ideas of essence. — Banno

I'm interested in essence, and I'm not a Thomist. Understand, Banno, that there's a holiday in Argentina called "Spanishness Day", as in, "The Day of the Spanish Essence". I do not celebrate it myself. But understand that the discussion about essences has a lot to do with who I am, and the circumstances that I live in. I don't take any of this lightly. That's why I don't agree with Analytic philosophers when they speak so lightly about essences.

Peace be with you, friend.

I'm interested in essence, and I'm not a Thomist. — Arcane Sandwich

Then I wasn't referring to you.

Then I wasn't referring to you. — Banno

Gavagai, and all of that jazz?