Re: Refutation of Bertrand Russell's Barber Paradox
From: G. Frege (no_spam_at_aol.com)
Date: 06/06/04
- Next message: Acme Diagnostics: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Previous message: Acme Diagnostics: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- In reply to: G. Frege: "Re: Refutation of Bertrand Russell's Barber Paradox"
- Next in thread: Peter Olcott: "Re: Refutation of Bertrand Russell's Barber Paradox"
- Reply: Peter Olcott: "Re: Refutation of Bertrand Russell's Barber Paradox"
- Reply: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Refutation of Bertrand Russell's Barber Paradox"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 19:32:26 +0200
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 19:13:37 +0200, G. Frege <no_spam@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't see any particular use for including the truth of the premises
>> in the definition of a sound argument.
>>
> Hmmm... Actually, it's rather the other way round, imho.
>
> Lemmon:
>
> "When an argument is used seriously by someone
> (and not, for example, just cited as illustration),
> that person is asserting the premisses to be true
> and also asserting the conclusion to be true
> /on the strength of/ the premisses."
>
Daryl, said:
"Valid reasoning is truth-*preserving*. It can't tell us what is
true and what is not, it can only tell us that our conclusions
are true *if* our premises are true."
Right. But _why would it be of any importance_ to have that property IF
there were no such things as true premisses? ;-)
F.
- Next message: Acme Diagnostics: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Previous message: Acme Diagnostics: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- In reply to: G. Frege: "Re: Refutation of Bertrand Russell's Barber Paradox"
- Next in thread: Peter Olcott: "Re: Refutation of Bertrand Russell's Barber Paradox"
- Reply: Peter Olcott: "Re: Refutation of Bertrand Russell's Barber Paradox"
- Reply: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Refutation of Bertrand Russell's Barber Paradox"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
