Quote:
?I fail to see how this is an example of stating an argument in a way that uses ONLY experience divorced from reason. It is an IMPOSSIBILITY. How you don?t see this, is beyond me.
let me try to explain what i'm saying. it's a counter-example. it's like if your argument were "2+2 is always 5" and i gave an example where 2+2=4... it's no different than a scientific appeal to evidence. and empirical evidence is the sole source of knowledge.
logic states that something can be known for a fact from the structure of the statements themselves. i am showing that no, what you need, what is always necessary, is a reference to empirical fact. nothing can be inferred from language itself, since language is can be ambiguous in ways that logic forbids.
Quote:
Let me see if I understand you correctly. If the two contradicting statements:
A) The pencil appears bent
B) The pencil is straight
Are both in reference to two separate times and respects [things?]:
C) When submerged in water at time X
D) When not submerged in water at time Z
That are both objectively the case:
E) Submerged in water
F) Not submerged in water
Then therefore:
Both A and B are true?
Yes, A and B are true ? in relation to C and D. Objectively, the pencil is straight, while the phenomenon of refraction causes the pencil to appear bent when viewed in submerged liquid. This is a non-contradictory statement.
well the statements i'd use are
X) the pencil is bent
Y) the pencil is not bent
because that's a contradiction.
but yes X and Y refer to A and B, respectively.
now, the statements themselves contradict, but their references to reality, so to speak, are true.
from dictionary.com
contradiction
n 1: opposition between two conflicting forces or ideas 2: (logic) a statement that is necessarily false; "the statement `he is brave and he is not brave' is a contradiction" [syn: contradiction in terms] 3: the speech act of contradicting someone; "he spoke as if he thought his claims were immune to contradiction"
the statements contradict "he is brace and he is not brave" is as much a contradiction as "the pencil is bent and the pencil is not bent."
i keep demonstrating that the sole thing that determines whether the statements is false is their empirical grounding, not their logical structure.
Quote:
this means that two contradicting statements can (under certain circumstances) both be true.
Crunchy, my plant in my room is a real, living palm tree. Yet at the same time, it is also a real, living cherry tree.
See, I?ve just made two contradictory statements. However, subjectively they are both true ? to me ? because it is limited to the subject ? me ? experiencing them.
This is the only way two contradictory statements can be ?true?.
i'm not sure what you're saying here.
Quote:
What proper logic states, however, is that two contradictory statements can NEVER be true in REALITY. This is to say, contradictions never exist objectively.
logic states that it is the structure of the statements themselves that yields truth. the empiricist says it is soley and purely the statements' references to reality.
Quote:
the logician's rule of non-contradiction (which states that the statements themselves, ragardless of their particular references to reality, must not contradict.)
REGARDLESS of their particular references to reality? Na-uh. You either need to get better logic textbooks, or seek a better professor, my friend. The Law of Non-contradiction... Ring a bell?
perhaps you don't understand what logic is. logic states that if A is true then notA must be false. the empiricist would say that the truth of A and notA are found solely in their references to reality. the logician says that, simply by having a statement A, and knowing that A is true, one can conclude that notA is false.
the logician fails to understand that logic, as a kind of language, is ambiguous, so it cannot be the source of knowledge. rather language must be judged in each case by its particular references to experience.
Quote:
Crunchy, contradictions don't exist in reality because reality simply is as it is and does not contradict itself.
not so, contradictions exist all the time:
********************************************
********************************************
******** *******
******** A is true and A is false. *******
******** *******
********************************************
********************************************
that's a contradiction that you should be able to plainly see right there, on your computer screen. plainly, that statement is a contradiction; plainly, that statement exists. whether it is true or not is another issue, and can only be determined by the particular references to reality of "A" and "notA".
if you said that reality is consistent with itself, i would agree with that. however, contradiction, in logic, refers to statements about reality, not to reality itself.
Quote:
Only our evaluations of reality can contradict each other. The mere experience alone, of percieving the pencil bent/unbent, however consistently - is not intrinsically contradictory. It simply is as it is.
yes. moreover, i think the better word for this fact is consistency, since, contradiction in logic, refers to statements, whereas consistency for the empiricist, refers to experience.
Quote:
Only our interpretation/evaluations of the information through the senses can be subject to such confusion. Thereafter is where the linguistic contradictions are possible, and where the tool of logic plays its role, for logic and language are inseperable.
plainly the poet who makes a true paradoxical statement is violating the rules of logic. plainly the internet poster who states "yeah right", a double affirmation of its referent, yet also a negation of its referent, is violating the rules of logic.
Quote:
I will reiterate the key points here:
1.)Objectively, contradictions do not exist.
experience is consistent with itself. but objectively, contradictions exist; it's not hard to create one, all one has to do is type a particular kind of sentance on the screen, or say a particular sort of sentance to their friend, and you have a contradiction that exists.
furthermore, contradictions can be true. the reason for both these facts is that contradiction, in logic, refers to some supposed truth that can be found in the structure of statements themselves; this is different than the empiricist for whom individual statements are true only in the ways they accurately reference experience.
Quote:
2.)Reason and experience are inter-related.
this may be the case in practice. yet reason itself yields no truth, because of the many possible ambiguities of languge that do not conform to logic (paradox, double positives being two examples). experience is the sole source of knowledge. for when experience and reason (or any other of example of interpretation) contradict, it is experience that wins out.
Quote:
3.)Interpretation behind empirical experiences or senses can seem contradictory
no mere appearance, the interpretations themselves are truly contradictory, if they conform to the structure "he is brave and he is not brave." for the logician, all that's required for contradiction, is a sentance such as that one, regardless of the way its references experience.
Quote:
- yet this does not equate to there being a contradiction beyond that interpretation.
in logic, a contradiction is a certain kind of statement; to say that logic itself is a source of knowledge implies that by simply encountering a contradiction (a kind of statement), that one can know that the statement is false. yet i have given many examples that show that while reality is always consistent "beyond the interpretation", statements can contradict (ie. follow the form 'he is brave and he is not brave') and yet still be true, if each dox of the paradox (so to speak) accurately references reality.
Quote:
So far, you have said NOTHING that vitiates those core facts.
i've done everything i've been able to, to make my arguments clear and understandable. but i am more than happy to continue to go over my points with a fine-tooth comb, because i'm confident that my arguments are solid and correct.
--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger
Edited by crunchytoast (10/24/05 08:17 AM)
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Prosgeopax 
Silversoul 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
. I think it nicely sums up the central tendencies in Objectivism.
1 2 all )
Trepiodge
RationalEgo
Rahz
Prosgeopax
GoodbyeOrb
Evolving
WhiteRabbitt
Ped