Re: An argument against modus ponens

george wrote:
george wrote:
I said *IN LOGIC*, DUMBASS.
On Sep 17, 5:36 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
No, it makes no difference whether objects are in or out of logic,

No, obviously, it DOES make a difference.
If we were talking about knights, rooks, and pawns, it would make A
VERY
big difference whether our framework was chess OR SOMETHING ELSE,
the point being that all of these words MEAN SOMETHING DIFFERENT
OUTside
of the chess context FROM what they mean inside it.

X, or
banana-matuzi-wallop land. They don't have properties.

In logic, they do.

No, I wouldn't bother arguing with me there. Just accept it, and it'll be a mercy to you.

THAT IMPLIES that THESE objects ARE being presented IN A FRAMEWORK
OF LOGIC,
No it doesn't imply anything.

IT DOES SO TOO.
IF *I* SAY THAT *I* AM presenting these objects in a logical
framework, then that's
how *I'M* presenting them and there isn't *** THAT YOU OR ANYBODY
ELSE CAN
do about it.

You may of course choose to reject the framework, but then, there is
simply
nothing to talk about, ESPECIALLY if the framework IS LOGIC and the
SIGN ON
THE DOOR TO THE ROOM *SAYS* sci.LOGIC.

Do you think that a 'rejection' of a framework must be made on logical grounds? Are there meta-frameworks (also known as)?
.

Loading