Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 575
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by chewybrian » February 13th, 2020, 4:18 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
February 13th, 2020, 3:55 pm
lol--you don't have a contradiction via two people disagreeing with each other.
Well, I could be arguing in my spare time."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1878
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by RJG » February 13th, 2020, 4:23 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:This is just gibberish, because it has nothing to do with logic.
Wow, from someone that professes to be an authority on logic, you certainly are ignorant of basic simple logic. -- Do you not understand that ~X=X is a logical impossibility? ...or is this too complex (or too simple?) for you to understand?

No offense TS, but you come across as a "poser".

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1380
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by Terrapin Station » February 13th, 2020, 4:30 pm

RJG wrote:
February 13th, 2020, 4:23 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:This is just gibberish, because it has nothing to do with logic.
Wow, from someone that professes to be an authority on logic, you certainly are ignorant of basic simple logic. -- Do you not understand that ~X=X is a logical impossibility? ...or is this too complex (or too simple?) for you to understand?

No offense TS, but you come across as a "poser".
It's a logical impossibility if X is standing for statements.

"No offense TS, but you come across as a 'poser'"--I'd care a lot more about that if you didn't repeatedly make it clear, in post after post, that you really haven't the faintest idea what the F you're talking about, that you have zero ability to reason and learn anything, and that you simply repeat mantras, probably where you're motivated by something like wanting to retain religious beliefs. You'd need to demonstrate that you're qualified to make judgments in order for anyone to care about the judgments you make.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 6813
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by Steve3007 » February 13th, 2020, 4:43 pm

RJG wrote:And secondly, wouldn't you further agree that if there WERE something that did logically connect "Nothing to Something", then this something is "Something" (and not-Nothing), which thereby defeats the nothing-hood of "Nothing"! In other words, if there were something (hint hint) that connected Nothing to Something, then this something is certainly not-Nothing! Therefore "Something comes from Nothing" is logically impossible; a self-contradiction; an oxymoron.
Terrapin Station wrote:This is just gibberish, because it has nothing to do with logic.
RJG wrote: Do you not understand that ~X=X is a logical impossibility?
Look at the above exchange. I have to ask at this point RJG, can you read? Why do you keep insisting on these irrelevant straw man questions, thinking that the presence of 'X' and a logical operator or two is enough, in itself? Why do you insist that "talk is cheap" and that people should stick to syllogisms, but when your syllogisms are analyized you ignore the analysis and revert either to word salad, as you've done above, or simply ignoring argument altogether and just re-asserting your beliefs?


(I know I know, straw man is my favourite term. But in this topic it does at least seem fitting in more ways than one.)

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1878
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by RJG » February 13th, 2020, 4:49 pm

RJG wrote:Do you not understand that ~X=X is a logical impossibility? ...or is this too complex (or too simple?) for you to understand?
Terrapin Station wrote:It's a logical impossibility if X is standing for statements.
Nonsense, it doesn't matter what X stands for (...it is just a variable!).

If you can't answer this SIMPLE logic question - Is ~X=X a logical impossibility? -- then maybe you can understand why I think you are a "poser" (a pretend know-er of logic).


*******
Steve3007 wrote:(I know I know, straw man is my favourite term. But in this topic it does at least seem fitting in more ways than one.)
Steve, do yourself a favor, and re-look up the meaning of a "strawman fallacy". You are, and have been, using it in the wrong manner.

Also if you can't recognize that ~X=X is a logical impossibility, then we probably need to cease our discussions. If you (and TS) can't understand basic logic, then we are wasting our time.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 6813
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by Steve3007 » February 13th, 2020, 4:55 pm

RJG wrote:Is ~X=X a logical impossibility?
Endlessly falsely claiming that people are stating that the above is logically possible, so that you can attack them for it, is a straw man fallacy.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 6813
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by Steve3007 » February 13th, 2020, 4:58 pm

Also if you can't recognize that ~X=X is a logical impossibility,
And there it is again. Quote somebody making this statement:

"~X=X is logical possible."

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1878
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by RJG » February 13th, 2020, 5:00 pm

So tell me. Is ~X=X a logical impossibility? ...or am I just going to see more obfuscation? You and TS inability to recognize simple logic is very telling.

If you can't recognize that ~X=X is a logical impossibility, then we probably need to cease our discussions. If you (and TS) can't understand basic logic, then we are wasting our time.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 6813
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by Steve3007 » February 13th, 2020, 5:02 pm

Quote somebody making this statement:

"~X=X is logically possible."

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1878
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by RJG » February 13th, 2020, 5:03 pm

Steve3007 wrote:And there it is again. Quote somebody making this statement:

"~X=X is logical possible."
And there it is again! More obfuscation! More running away from answering this question.

Steve it is a simple question -- Is ~X=X logically impossible or not? -- Don't be afraid. -- A simple YES/NO will do.


...any bets Steve won't answer this simple question? ...and will just give us more lip service and obfuscation? ...any takers out there?

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 6813
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by Steve3007 » February 13th, 2020, 5:04 pm

Quote somebody making this statement:

"~X=X is logically possible."

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1878
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by RJG » February 13th, 2020, 5:05 pm

I win the bet!

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 6813
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by Steve3007 » February 13th, 2020, 5:06 pm

Well done RJG. You won the bet. Goodnight.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1380
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by Terrapin Station » February 13th, 2020, 5:13 pm

RJG wrote:
February 13th, 2020, 4:49 pm
RJG wrote:Do you not understand that ~X=X is a logical impossibility? ...or is this too complex (or too simple?) for you to understand?
Terrapin Station wrote:It's a logical impossibility if X is standing for statements.
Nonsense, it doesn't matter what X stands for (...it is just a variable!).

If you can't answer this SIMPLE logic question - Is ~X=X a logical impossibility? -- then maybe you can understand why I think you are a "poser" (a pretend know-er of logic).


*******
Steve3007 wrote:(I know I know, straw man is my favourite term. But in this topic it does at least seem fitting in more ways than one.)
Steve, do yourself a favor, and re-look up the meaning of a "strawman fallacy". You are, and have been, using it in the wrong manner.

Also if you can't recognize that ~X=X is a logical impossibility, then we probably need to cease our discussions. If you (and TS) can't understand basic logic, then we are wasting our time.
~X=X is an "I'm not really familiar with logic" way--and something that we often see from Randroids, with Ayn Rand as a good example of someone who wasn't really familiar with logic but who often liked to appeal to logic nevertheless--of stating a contradiction. Most logics do not have an equals sign as an operator/connective. The standard logical way of writing what you're getting at is ~(P&~P), which is the principle of noncontradiction in traditional bivalent logics.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 6813
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Dorothy's red slippers, and man's ability to understand.

Post by Steve3007 » February 13th, 2020, 5:17 pm

errapin Station wrote:The standard logical way of writing what you're getting at is ~(P&~P), which is the principle of noncontradiction in traditional bivalent logics.
Since I write software for a living (in C based languages), if X was a bool, I guess I'd tend to write something like X = !X.

Post Reply