Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: aeo6 (aeo6_at_cornell.edu)
Date: 03/17/05
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: richard miller: "Re: FLTMA: Verification of "large zero""
- In reply to: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:53:44 -0500
Daryl McCullough said:
> Tony says...
> >
> >Daryl McCullough said:
>
> >> >then I credit that assumption with the
> >> >error in the conclusion.
> >>
> >> If you would actually quote the *entire* conclusion,
> >> then you would see that it isn't an error. It becomes
> >> an error when you misquote it. That makes the error
> >> due to *your* mistakes, not those of anyone else.
> >
> >I left out your premise.
>
> It's not a premise. The statement
>
> "z is between x and y according to ordering R"
>
> is a relationship among *four* things: x, y, z, and R. R is
> not a *premise*. Leaving out R is like paraphrasing
>
> An elephant is the biggest land mammal.
>
> as
>
> An elephant is the biggest mammal.
>
> Leaving out the qualifier "land" changes the meaning of the
> sentence about elephants. Leaving out the qualifier "according
> to ordering R" changes the meaning of the sentence
>
> There are infinitely many naturals betwen 1 and 2
> according to ordering R.
>
> --
> Daryl McCullough
> Ithaca, NY
>
>
Please accept my profoundest apologies. I think you understand now the
realtionship between the absurd conclusion and the absurd ordering now, anyway.
Those aren't natural numbers.
"Land" could be considered as a condition on the statement "an elephant is the
biggest land animal" because it qualifies "animal". It could be in the form, if
an animal is on land, the biggest kind it could be is an elephant. If the
animal is not on land, then the biggest kind is not an elephant. One can say:
IsAnimal(x) and IsBiggest(x) and IsOnLand(x) implies IsElephant(x), in which
case "land" serves as a premise to the conclusion.
-- Smiles, Tony
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: richard miller: "Re: FLTMA: Verification of "large zero""
- In reply to: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|