Re: A Manual of Practical Reason

From: Acme Diagnostics (LFinezapthis_at_partpostmark.net)
Date: 01/26/05 

Date: 26 Jan 2005 17:31:06 -0600

"Jeffrey Ketland" <ketland@ketland.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Acme Diagnostics wrote in message
><41f80729$0$32610$45beb828@newscene.com>...
>
>>Why do you need me to become a mathematical logic nail?
>>Is your mathematical logic hammer not working on me?
>>
>> TORKELLING
>> -------------------
>>
>> 1. Become such an academic expert in a topic so devoid
>> of context that contextual reasoning ability is crippled.
>
>First, Torkel Franzen is a widely respected and admired expert on Goedel's
>work, its philosophical interpretation, and related work.

I believe that is implied by "Become such an academic expert in
a topic so devoid of context that contextual reasoning ability
is crippled." Also, it was more-or-less described to me back in
June of 2004.

>Second, posters at sci.logic

..are Usenet posters having fun and discussing things. They are
not publishing in a peer-reviewed venue here. Those venues are
easily available on the web. Posters like to say the web info is
garbage. Well, Duh! Doesn't change anything.

And btw, for Torkel to post something here is a world apart from
Torkel publishing something in a peer-reviewed venue. Our Usenet
personalities are a world apart from our real-world
personalities. Torkel would never get away with this in real life
and you know it. Probably why he's here.

>Third, the topic of Goedel's work is not in any defensible sense "devoid of
>context". It impinges on very deep epistemological problems concerning
>notions such as truth, knowability, proof, abstraction, and the nature of
>the mind, and so on.

That's part of the Goedel context. I give gave Torkel the entire
mathematical logic context, not just Goedel. Who cares? That's
not the meaning of "context" when the word is not qualified to
that topic. I suppose he can change a spark plug too. Whatever.
He is a severely challenged inferencer here in any context
outside of mathematical logic. He can't even do simple
syllogistic reasoning. What kind of logic expert didn't even take
that course? He makes those logic errors over and over.

On usenet you have to demonstrate. Whatever you demonstrate,
that's what you are. Period.

>Finally, in fact, it is you who are privileged that Torkel is prepared to
>try and help you clear up your confusions.

It is you who are confused, as I will demonstrate in a moment.

I have refused Torkel in every way a Usenet poster can be
refused, yet he refuses to be refused and instead trolls my
discussions whenever they include the word "goedel" regardless of
how trivial or irrelevant in context.

Nobody is privilaged to be beaten over the head by a nutty
professor.

Why can't this professor find students in the real world? Why
does he have to chase Usenet posters and sandbag them the way a
professor would sometimes question students enrolled in his
class? I didn't enroll in any mathematical logic class here.

>For an analogy: if you were having a debate about the theory of humanitarian
>intervention, who exactly would you like to have helping you think things
>through? Michael Walzer or Britney Spears? Michael Ignatieff or Abu Musab al
>Zarqawi?

You sure are a funny one to be talking about debating. I already
refuted your stupid implications here:

http://tinyurl.com/48zof

You made no reply that I recall, at least no responsive and
explanatory one. Thus, I see no reason to correct you again
here. Nor am I interested in engaging you at this late date. You
had your chance.

First rule of debating: "Pick the winning side." If you want to
argue that a 650 character description of a complex theory is
exclusively a theory event, and not at all an editing or
inferencing event, then that just means you are a stupid
debater.

Take a hike.

Larry

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Friendly Premises"
    ... Not by Torkel. ... context is not my problem, ... That I specialize in how logic applies to real-world reasoning ... You mullahs think you can know what ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Help in answering news story on refutation of fermats last theorem
    ... I did not complain about your ... >> Torkel Franzen on the other side. ... I suggest tha tistead of plocking sentences out of context, ... > I explained his objection. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Goedel - interesting problem?
    ... >statement of Godel's theorem as you'll get in nontechnical language. ... Probability is integral to inferencing in context, ... Explain the effect of Goedel's theorem to a music major, etc., who has ... If Torkel, read my reply to him just preceding ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: A Manual of Practical Reason
    ... yet he refuses to be refused and instead trolls my ... >how trivial or irrelevant in context. ... your "refusing" Torkel is unjustified because: ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: A Manual of Practical Reason
    ... Become such an academic expert in a topic so devoid ... > of context that contextual reasoning ability is crippled. ... Torkel Franzen is a widely respected and admired expert on Goedel's ... Michael Walzer or Britney Spears? ...
    (sci.logic)