virus: Logic and Purpose

Reed Konsler (konsler@ascat.harvard.edu)
Sat, 1 Nov 1997 02:16:17 +0100

>Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 08:40:52 -0700
>From: David McFadzean <david@lucifer.com>
>
>At 07:53 PM 10/26/97 -0000, Robin Faichney wrote:
>>> From: David McFadzean[SMTP:david@lucifer.com]
>>>
>> ...And the V.P. was enlightened.
>>
>>Great story! What's the message?
>
>Reed is defending faith by defining it such that faith in
>a god is not different in kind from a scientist's logical
>assumptions, even when the latter is based on evidence.
>I hope my story illustrates the invalidity of that sort of
>argument.

I'm afraid I don't get it.
Could you define "logical assumption" for me?

My dictionary says this about "assumption":
1) The act of assuming
2) A statement accepted or supposed true without proof or demonstration
3) Presumption or arrogance
4) (Logic) A minor premise

When you say "logical assumption" do you mean 4) "a minor
premise"?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
To add to the list of definintions let's add:

Assumption:
A statement accepted or supposed true without proof or demonstration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------

All assumptions are unrational.
If an assumption is rationalized, it ceases to be an assumption.
It is not possible to make a rational argument without assumptions.
In any rational argument, it is not possible to rationalize all assumptions.

Therefore all rational arguments contain assumptions.

In other words:

Logical arguments are based on faith.

QED. :-)

Reed

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------