Re: the separation of logic from the application of science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 11/01/04
- Next message: Barb Knox: "Re: and who made God"
- Previous message: David Longley: "Re: the separation of logic from the application of science"
- In reply to: David Longley: "Re: the separation of logic from the application of science"
- Next in thread: David Longley: "Re: the separation of logic from the application of science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 20:25:47 GMT
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 19:38:47 +0000, David Longley
<David@longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>In article <41868cc5.40316979@netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
><lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> writes
>>On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:49:14 +0100, "JPL Verhey"
>><matterDELminds@hotmail.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"patty" <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote in message
>>>news:Izthd.351842$D%.232299@attbi_s51...
>>>> David Longley wrote:
>>>>> In article <emrhd.31831$HA.438@attbi_s01>, patty
>>>>> <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Re:
>>>>>>
>>>>>><http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1rX21CBZbjgBFwq6%40longley.dem
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have been trying to form an response to your post for some time
>>>>>> now and have not been able to do so. The reason for my inability
>>>>>> has just dawned upon me. You have inextricably mixed the mechanism
>>>>>> of logic with the application of science; but unfortunately in my
>>>>>> ontology (here referred to as web) these are quite separate. In my
>>>>>> web, whereas formal logic is an essential tool in the pursuit of
>>>>>> truth, it does not occupy itself with gathering, testing, or
>>>>>> applying data; but begins to operate only when logical objects have
>>>>>> already been assembled. As such there can be no judgments of logic
>>>>>> except as whether its mechanism computes correct consequences from
>>>>>> assembled antecedents. Intensional logics meet that test and
>>>>>> consequently it is a category error in my web to form the kind of
>>>>>> judgments you make in your post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't suppose you could rephrase your post making that separation
>>>>>> explicit so that i could respond to it ... could you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> patty
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The above is gibberish.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you drive down the freeway carelessly, you just drive carelessly.
>>>>> Telling the police that you weren't driving carelessly, you were just
>>>>> using "intensional logic" wouldn't wash there any more than it does
>>>>> here. Look through your post and spot where you abrogate.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is not my choice in this matter. Logic and the application of
>>>> logic have evolved in our culture to be separated. Your analogy is
>>>> appropriate but it does not abrogate my inability to parse the essence
>>>> of your message. I must think within the terms and mechanisms of my
>>>> culture.
>>>>
>>>>> In other words, get a grip (or get treatment - from someone else). As
>>>>> it is, you're doing just what Modlin does - you're writing without
>>>>> taking responsibility for what you write. See his reply to me
>>>>> elsewhere and mine to him. See if you can spot *his* errors, it might
>>>>> help you see your own.
>>>>
>>>> re:
>>>>
>>>><http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=K8-dna5buaCrDhjcRVn-jA%40metroca
>>>>stcablevision.com>
>>>>
>>>> Actually i found Modlin's comments tracked nicely. My only complaint
>>>> would be that he, like you, mixed in too much personal transaction
>>>> with his post. Were these to be rational considerations which we
>>>> discuss, then mixing them with our personal transactions can serve
>>>> only to confuse our reason. Our course were that not the case, then i
>>>> think Verhey's recent response applies. Let us meet on neutral ground
>>>> and duke it out !
>>>
>>>I'd like to hear DL talk without teeth though.
>>
>>Not bad, JPL. lol (lots of laughter).
>>
>>Regards - Lester
>
>Yes bad. What we see above is representative. We see (and there will be
>others, mark my words) is three ignorant fools delighting in parading
>their idiocy rather than desperately trying to do what they have been
>told to do to redress it.
>
>One needn't read Modlin's post or my reply, it suffices just look at
>your collective behaviour.
And you have bad breath.
>You're (incorrigible?) idiots.
Well, at least we're only idiots, David, incorrigible or otherwise.
It's beginning to look very much too stupid to be an idiot.
>PS. Look into NOMS.
ps, David. Instead of us look into PMS for what bedevils you.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: Barb Knox: "Re: and who made God"
- Previous message: David Longley: "Re: the separation of logic from the application of science"
- In reply to: David Longley: "Re: the separation of logic from the application of science"
- Next in thread: David Longley: "Re: the separation of logic from the application of science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
