 | | Re: Critical Thinking —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) He didn't say that, exactly. He said every "meaningful" (paraphrasing) true claim is falsifiable and then proceeded to show why non falsifiable claims don't help us in our understanding. (...) Good point but while you're thinking about that, (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Critical Thinking —Jeromy Irvine
|
| | | | | "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G4wp09.635@lugnet.com... <snip> (...) The author is stating something he believes is a fact. Last time I checked, that's a claim. So, is the author's claim meaningful? If not, let's (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Critical Thinking —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeromy Irvine writes: <snip> Think about Goedel and whether the author's statements are part of the system they describe or not. They aren't. But since you won't do that thinking... When I put meaningful in quotes I was (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Critical Thinking —Kevin Bannister
|
| | | | | | | (...) you sure? :) all that i know about goedel comes from douglas hofstadter's book 'goedel, escher, and bach: an eternal golden braid', but the impression i got from that was that there isn't a clear answer. of course it's been a while. ;) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Critical Thinking —Steve Thomas
|
| | | | | | Mr. Pieniazek: (...) true (...) When Mr. Irvine challenged the author's statement as being (apparently) self-defeating, you responded with: (...) I (...) The question, with this in mind, can be put as follows: Is the author's statement -- "[E]very (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Critical Thinking —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) I might well be. In fact he well may be right that if this is a claim, that it's subject to its own test, and may well fail it. But I'm not sure that I agree that this particular yardstick has to be able to measure itself. That, I think, may (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Critical Thinking —Steve Thomas
|
| | | | | | (...) able (...) system (...) Even "meta-information" must be logically consistent. The trick is that most axioms probably do not refer to themselves, but if they do (as the statement in question appears to fall within its own scope), they must pass (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Critical Thinking —David Low
|
| | | | (...) <just going off on a tangent here> Why should we privilege rationalism as a source of understanding? And if we should, should it be the only type of insight that informs our understanding? --DaveL (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
