|
Dale
|
Taiki, Yes, this sort of thing has happened a couple of times before. Sometimes it has been fun and educational, sometimes it has gotten rancorous and been stopped by a moderator. This time, it seems, it is staying civil (even if a bit heated).
All, As has been noted before by a number of people: Deductive logic can prove ANYTHING.
Deductive logic is entirely dependent on correct premises. One can begin with a wrong premise, and produce an entirely correct argument leading to a conclusion entirely at odds with reality.
That is why logicians call a logical argument "valid" or "invalid", not "right" or "wrong." A "valid" argument is correct in its form, and (IF its premises are correct) yields a result in accord with reality. This, perhaps, is what lies behind Wolfgang Pauli's critique of an idea that he did not agree with: "That is not right. That is not even WRONG!" Pauli was saying that the arguments on which the idea was based, were not valid.
That one can deduce anything by choosing one's premises carefully, simply implies that one must examine one's premises for their truth (their agreement with reality) as part of evaluating the correctness of a valid deductive argument.
This is fun. I'm going to have to spend more time in this part of the forum. Thank you all for keeping this civil: we will all learn more from even a heated (but civil) debate, than from anyone's ranting. And just to make sure: I have seen some spirited statements in this topic, but I have not yet seen any ranting.
|