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                           *
*   *   *   ***********************************************   *   *   *