Re: "Friendly Premises"


"George Dance" <georgedance04@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Acme Diagnostics wrote:
>>
>> demonstration that "proof" is not equivalent to "Self-proving
>> procedure" that occurs in Torkel's (reduced) assertion:
>
>I think you misunderstood what I managed to prove here: not that
>Shobe's statement was incorrect, but that his and Torkel's original one
>could not both be correct - which leaves Torkel the options of either
>denying Shobe's statement, or retracting his original one.

Yes of course. Thanks for correcting me.

("LOD" = level of description)
>> The LOD for "proof" is "formal deductive logic in English"
>> The LOD for 'self-proving procedure' is "English"
<snip>
>> The two terms cannot be equivalent if there is a change in
>> LOD.
>
>I'm going to continue, in the discussion with Torkel (and Shobe, should
>he choose to respond) with the hypothesis that Shobe is correct and the
>two terms do mean the same thing; but I'll point out that my argument
>goes through, even if there are some 'self-proving procedures' that are
>not logical proofs and vice versa, as long as there are some things one
>can point to that are both.

Well, Torkel's assertion was a universal, so it is refuted if
they can be the same in just one case. But I only had to
demonstrate that 'self-proving procedures' described one "logic
concept." It seems you'll have to demonstrate that there is at
least one proof that qualifies as a 'self-proving procedure.' I'm
sure there is, but I'm unqualified to argue it. I leave it up to
you.

Re: LOD, Two things in different LODs can refer to the same
thing, e.g. a proof, especially if the one in the lower LOD is
a proof. <g> I think a formal deductive proof would qualify,
since that seemed to be Shobe's context that you can demonstrate.
If you were to put 'formal deductive proof' in Torkel's
assertion, I think it would be just as absurd.

<snip>

>> The LOD for 'Flower" is "English."
>> The LOD for 'bloem" is "Nonsense."
>
>My own belief (which I haven't bothered to check) is that 'bloem' is
>actually Dutch (for flower). Which means you'll have to modify your
>refutation below. Pace "Austin Powers in Goldmember", Dutch and
>nonsense are distinct concepts.

Hehe! No tulips here in Florida. <g>

>> Again, this whole line of reasoning, presented for George's
>> (or anyone's) review, is speculative.
>> Larry
>
>I'm glad to see you thinking this through, even though (IMO) you got a
>couple of things wrong.

Ok. Hope any distinctions along the way help.

>I already have, as well; I don't mind you
>jumping and correcting me in turn, of course. (Just don't save my
>errors in a file and continue to repost them for years, a la
>Torkelmada. 8)

Yours aren't nearly as entertaining as his. <g>

I'd just like to share my opinion with you that Torkel's has
reverted to pushing his terminological dogma here, since
everything else has failed. But since that dogma is a loser too,
it really doesn't matter whether he expands on his "intensional"
and "informal" comedy or not. I'd ignore it (or have fun with
it), but maybe you're willing to pull it out inch by inch in
XX "silly" posts. <g>

I've argued all aspects of that dogma with D.L. already, but more
significantly a few excellent arguers like Bill M0dlin, and so
far my arguments have stood. No "Bill M0dlins" in Torkel's
"priesthood" that I've seen.

Larry
.