Re: virus: Rationality

David McFadzean (
Sun, 09 Mar 1997 14:50:47 -0700

At 11:42 AM 07/03/97 -0500, Reed Konsler wrote:

>You've answered your own question. WITHIN the axioms and definitions you have
>assigned, it is possible to arrive at paradox...but just try floating a
>thread on the
>definitions of the words and abstracts you were asserting, I bet you get some
>heated discussion. In starting this thread I was simply trying to express
>we already know a different way: most arguments come down to definition and

The actual axioms are irrelevant to my point. I'm saying that if you
believe the axioms are true, you will only believe the conclusion follows
logically if you can't imagine the paradox being true. So all logical
arguments are ultimately arguments from incredulity.

>How about a different context. Do you remember doing Geometric proofs in
>High school? Within the "axioms" of geometry such proofs are iron clad.
>we recognize, now, that the universe is non-euclidian. Does that mean our
>proofs were all wrong? A lot of bridges stand based on those
>approximations...but a lot of black-holes violate them. Logic is a

Whether the proofs are wrong or false or useful or not is a separate discussion.

>How convicing is it, though, if I don't accept your input as valid?
>Garbage in...garbage
>out. Most people here are pretty logical...or at least eloquent. Our
>disagreements always
>seems to come down to starting conditions.

Yes, if the participants are rational then it should always come down
to that. Still, they can agree on the validity of the argument because
it is nothing more than a conditional (which seems to be forgotten).
Any logical argument (if valid) says nothing more than if the axioms
are true (including the "laws" of logic themselves) then the conclusion
must also be true. People seem to always forget (or assume) the first
"if" which is all-important.

>And why? Becuase in our gut, each of us knows what the proper "output"
>ought to be.
>We tinker with the starting input variables until we get the output we think is
>"acceptible". That's great, but is it Truth?
>I can't believe that. ;-)

I recently had an insight with respect to Truth involving the application
of Level-3. But it deserves a separate thread.

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus