Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!hplabs!hpda!hp-sde!hpfcdc!hpfclp!nancyk From: nancyk@hpfclp.SDE.HP.COM (Nancy Kirkwood) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: this is philosophy ??!!? Message-ID: <7390005@hpfclp.SDE.HP.COM> Date: 5 May 88 16:23:18 GMT References: <1588@pt.cs.cmu.edu> Organization: HP SDE, Fort Collins, CO Lines: 46 nancyk@hpfclp.sde.hp.com Nancy Kirkwood at HP, Fort Collins Come now!!! Don't try to defend "logical consistency" with exaggeration and personal attack. > Just when is an assumption warranted ? By your yardstick (it seems ), > 'logically inconsistent' assumptions are more likely to be warranted than ^^^^ > the logically consistent ones. It's important to remember that the rules of logic we are discussing come from Western (European) cultural traditions, and derive much of their power "from the consent of the governed," so to speak. We have agreed that if we present arguments which satisfy the rules of this system, that the arguments are correct, and we are speaking "truth." This is a very useful protocol, but we should not be so narrow as to believe that it is the only yardstick for truth. The "laws" of physics certainly preclude jumping off a 36 story building and expecting not to get hurt, but physicists would be the first to admit that these laws are incomplete, and the natural processes involved are *not* completely known, and possibly never will be. Nor can we be sure, being fallible humans who don't know all the facts, that our supposed logical arguments are useful or even correct. "Reality" in the area of human social interactions is largely if not completely the "negotiated outcome of social processes." It has been a topic of debate for thousands of years at least as to whether morality has an abstract truth unrelated to the social milieu it is found in. > Since logical consistency is taboo, logical errors are acceptable, > reality and truth are functions of the current whim of the largest organized > gang around ( oh! I am sorry, they are the 'negotiated ( who by ? ) outcomes > of social processes ( what processes ? )') how do you guys conduct research ? Distorting someone's statements and then attacking the distortions is not an effective means of carrying on a productive discussion (though it does stir up interest :-)). -nancyk * * * *********************************************** * * * * "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, * * than are dreamt of in your philosophy." * * -Shakespeare * * * * *********************************************** * * *