Re: Torkel Franzén is dead


MoeBlee wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Then I can only conclude that you believe that (1) some people never
need to use principles of good reasoning, or (2) everyone needs to use
principles of fluid mechanics.

What?! He didn't say there are people who don't need to use good
reasoning. He said that there are people who don't need to learn FORMAL
logic.

Which leaves him one way to escape the dilemma,

What dilemma?

Of asserting either (1) or (2) above).

the one he took: to
deny that the principles of formal logic have any connection with
principles of good reasoning.

Please provide a quote in which Franzen said that there is NO
connection between formal logic and principles of good reasoning.

Yet another apparent straw man - even more apparent, since it's clear
that 'he' refers to Aatu Koskensilta.

My mistake. Yes, it was Koskensilta to whom you referred.

What Aatu eventually said, in
response to the dilemma, was: "Teaching someone to "use" some formal
calculi or other in no way constitutes teaching correct reasoning." Do
you think I'm misinterpreting the meaning of 'in no way'?

Yes, since what Koskensilta said does not entail that Koskensilta
believes there is no conncection between formal logic and principles of
good reasoning. All Koskensilta argued was that teaching formal logic
is not itself to teach correct reasoning;

No; he did not say it "is not in itself to teach correct reasoning"; he
said it "in no way constitutes teaching correct reasoning" - which
clearly sounds to me like mutual exclusivity.

and I take that in a
REASONABLE sense (as opposed to your MOST unreasonable misconstrual)
that teaching formal logic does not ensure that the student will
exercise good reasoning in informal contexts.

What's unreasonable about it? Some mathematicians believe that logical
relations like implication are purely mathematical relations which
correspond to reality no more than, say, the implications of geometry.
I don't see anything unreasonable in infering that Aatu; if he thinks
it's unreasonable, he can tell me that and clarify what he does mean.

He doesn't need you to speak for him.

It is NOT reasonable to
think that Koskensilta thereby claims that there is no connection
between formal logic and principles of good reasoning.

And just why not? Spell out your own reasoning, so we can see the
reasonableness.

You're starting to rack up a list of claims as to what Franzen said,
but in too many instances those claims are without an actual quote of
Franzen provided by you.

Three of those claims - that Frankel raised the issue of PhDs,

See my previous post. YOU mentioned something like. "Not unless he
raised the issue." So, NATURALLY, I asked you say where he raised the
issue. If he did NOT raise the issue, then your remark is utterly
irrelevent

As I've explained, he raised the issue of some people being Subxxxxx,
er, Some People: IOW, people with no aptitude for formal logic, whom he
said are caused to uttering absurdities by exposure to it. I
explained to you how that distinction correlated with holding a PhD:
Franzen did not classify math PhD's as Some People. (Your response to
that, IIRC, being roughly 'whatever'). Is any of that still unclear to
you?

and leaves your charge of a "correlation" with PhDs
unsubstantiated.

As I've told you, my evidence is purely anecdotal: I have yet to see
one post in which he treated a math PhD in the way he treated the
targets of the posts I've submitted so far. That is fully consistent
with my hypothesis. Do you have one - yes, even one - counterexample
to that claim?

that he
discriminated on the basis of PhDs,

Call it a "correlation" not a discrimination.

Call it both; on the completely reasonable hypothesis that Franzen saw
a connection between holding a math PhD and the grounds - perceived
'aptitude' in formal logic - by which he did discriminate.

Fine. You just need to
say EXACTLY what is your claim about a "correlation" (that is, a
correlation that does not manifest as Franzen discriminating along the
lines of that correlation?

I've explained that: Franzen discriminated between SPs (who, he
believed lacked the aptitude for math) and non-SPs. Since it is
reasonable to think he saw a connection between having 'aptitude' and
being a math PhD, it's reasonable to think that he did not treat those
the way he treated PhDs. The evidence so far supports that; in all the
posts and testimony we've looked at, there is no evidence of his
treating a math PhD like an SP.

Is that right? If not, then I don't know
what you're claiming. I just don't know what it is exactly that you
claim about a "correlation" let alone that you haven't shown a
"correlation").

Well, now I've claimed a correlation based on the evidence so far: no
evidene for any math PhDs that Franzen treated like Ist Semester Logic
Student (in thread A), or me (in thread B), or any of the other people
I'll be introducing later.

and now that he made the above
statement - look like claims that you added to the list yourself.

It was my mistake regarding Franzen and Koskensilta. Nevertheless, I
find your characterization of Koskensilta's view to be clearly
unreasonable.

If he thinks they're unreasonable, he can qualify them. I can't see
anything unreasonable about believing that he holds them (or that
Franzen held the same views, l FTM).

Meanwhile, there's also that little matter of your claim that Franzen
"completely ignored" (or whatever exact wording you used) the subject
of the the thread on logic in schools.

Oh? What exactly did he say about logic in schools? You have the
thread: Give us a post in which he said one word about teaching logic
in schools. AFAICS, he completely ignored that topic, and merely used
the thread as a sounding board for his views (which he made clear in
both word and action) about SP's like me.

And you have a really bad habit of too often taking certain things that
people say in the most ridiculous sense you can extract from the actual
reasonable statement being made.

I know you have a different opinion about what Torkel meant when
describec my kind as having no mathematical aptitude. My opinion is
borne out by what else he said to me, and to others who seemed to have
no 'aptitude', like 1st Semester Logic Student (and some other
characters who'll come along later). What is your opinion based on,
except your further opinion that yours are reasonable opinions?

That makes communication with you
laborious at best.

Perhaps. If you just accepted that everything I claimed was
'reasonable', that would make it easier for me, too. But i don't think
that's going to happen any time soon, nor do I see why you would think
it.




MoeBlee

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A short comment on intuition
    ... > stepped separation-ridge as it does not violate my intuition of what it is ... >> effects,in other words the principles of large scale evolution must ... But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is ... >> exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • A short comment on intuition
    ... At first the principles of Earth expansion appears counter-intuitive ... All mathematicians would then be intuitive if they had clear sight, ... exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they ... rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Torkel_Franz=E9n_is_dead?=
    ... 'silliness'; only that knowing formal logic does not cause their ... Are you calling the belief that logic is 'the study of the principles ... of good reasoning' (Johnson, /Fundamentals of Reasoning, Wadsworth ... themselves the principles of fluid mechanics. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Torkel_Franz=E9n_is_dead?=
    ... Not good to allow formal logic to engender confusions that would not ... Are you calling the belief that logic is 'the study of the principles ... of good reasoning' (Johnson, /Fundamentals of Reasoning, Wadsworth ... Why would you even ask whether that is what Koskensilta means? ...
    (sci.logic)
  • =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Torkel_Franz=E9n_is_dead?=
    ... need to use principles of good reasoning, or everyone needs to use ... principles of fluid mechanics. ... it was Koskensilta to whom you referred. ... Call it a "correlation" not a discrimination. ...
    (sci.logic)