Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - babyeatsdingo

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 17
41
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 01:09:54 PM »
And this is why I hate philosophy majors

I studied international business, worked as an analyst for a satellite company and am now heading toward law. I read philosophical stuff when I can.

42
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 01:07:58 PM »
The meaning of QM is debatable, to say the least. How does it relate to my position?

43
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 12:57:59 PM »
Quote
I can say that classical logic is not absolutely valid.

Classical logic must be absolutely valid in order for this statement to be true which means your statement is false.

Consider the proposition P: "classical logic is absolutely valid". I say P is true. You say ~P is true. If you are correct then it must be true that either P or ~P obtains (i.e., law of excluded middle) and must be false that both P and ~P obtain (i.e., law of non-contradiction), which is to say that classical logic is absolutely valid.

44
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 12:52:18 PM »
I say classical logic is absolutely valid, PW. Do you agree or disagree?

I think you get it by now. If you answer you'll probably "say" something like "Bleh" again.

45
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 12:50:20 PM »
Quote
There's an invisible teacup out beyond the orbit of Mars.  No instrument will ever detect it, but it's there, damn you!

Unlike the statement "classical logic is absolutely valid", this statement above may be denied.

46
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 12:43:21 PM »
If I say either A or B must be true and you say "false dichotomy!", you are saying it is not the case that either A or B must true (perhaps you think C is an option), which is to say your objection relies upon the validity of classical logic.

47
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 12:38:07 PM »
Quote
False dichotomy.

False dichotomy depends upon the laws of non-contradiction, excluded middle and identity. Your first clue that this is so is that a false dichotomy is a logical fallacy.

48
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 12:37:13 PM »
Alright.

I say classical logic is absolutely valid. Do you agree or disagree?

There's no need to tell me why you agree or disagree. Just tell me whether you agree or disagree.

49
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 12:31:45 PM »
If you cannot say something is false then, yes, it is axiomatic and necessarily true. You cannot use classical logic to deny classical logic but in order to deny anything you must use classical logic which means classical logic may not be denied.

50
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 12:28:06 PM »
GD:

Focus on this:

"we must affirm the laws of non-contradiction, excluded middle and identity in order to deny or argue against them which means they are axiomatic and necessarily true"

for it is the heart of what I'm saying.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 17