| Subject: This is how it seems to me |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/19/04 11:18am
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Blinded by overzealous emotion." on 03/19/04 10:09am
It seems to me that you two rascals are simply fighting two different battles. On one hand, we have Wade asserting that his argument is sound as long as the conclusion logically follows from the premises and the premises are good. This is true. In the system of deductive arguments that we humans have created, Wade is operating nicely.
On the other hand, we have Damoclese, who seems to be approaching it from a more practical standpoint, by which I mean he feels that if he agrees that this is a sound argument, he must also be agreeing that what the argument says has to be true in reality.
As I see it, Wade's argument is sound and coherent, but this does not in any way imply that I must agree that his conclusion must be true in reality. His conclusion is true within the parameters of deductive arguments, and it is wise to remember that humans invented this system of thought. Although I generally think it is a good system, our thinking can never shape reality. We can only discover what is already there. And, as we all know, when it comes to hazy issues such as infinity (and beyond), things on paper and even in our minds often fail to deliver clear results.
Perhaps it would help for Damoclese to admit that Wade's argument is sound, which I think he believes, but to clarify that this does not create in him a need to believe that this must be true in reality.
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
