|
|
#81
09-07-2005, 08:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: txaq007\'s Inescapable Error
"The word "certainties" I took to mean "something that is certain". Not "something that is true". By "certain" I take it to mean something that mathmeticans are certain, or sure about."
So something certain can be false? "Go back to the original quote. See the words "cannot be proved"? I take this to mean "cannot be proved by anyone"." I don't see how this changes your statement? Unless you mean something along the lines of "cannot be proved by anyone at the present time and state of mathematics". But, does that mean that before Peano/Frege no one could be certain that '2 + 2 = 4' (is true)? I will keep it short, since you seem to skip through the various arguments. - Kripke 
|
|
#82
09-07-2005, 09:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: txaq007\'s Inescapable Error
"But txaq007 was saying something much different. He said that the evidence is CONVINCING ie. almost undebatable, that Jesus is the son of God. Well if something is convincing, it would imply that most smart people who saw the evidence would be convinced wouldn't it? But the opposite is true."
You're a pretty smart guy, David. Again I ask: Have you, yourself, taken an objective look at the evidence?
|
|
#83
09-07-2005, 10:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: txaq007\'s Inescapable Error
Nope. Would it change my mind?
|
|
#84
09-07-2005, 10:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: txaq007\'s Inescapable Error
"But, does that mean that before Peano/Frege no one could be certain that '2 + 2 = 4' (is true)?"
Yes. Unless there were already other acceptable proofs. In any case that, and my definition of certainty, are off the subject. You originally thought you had caught me not knowing about Godel's stuff and that was a silly thought on your part.
|
|
#85
09-07-2005, 10:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: txaq007\'s Inescapable Error
Trust me David and save yourself the time. It probably would not change your mind. Plus, we have enough insufferable Christians around. And you most certainly would be (even more?) insufferable - lol.
Oops, did I just give you motivation?
|
|
#88
09-08-2005, 04:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: txaq007\'s Inescapable Error
Once again, I ask you two simple questions and you only answer one of them.
[ QUOTE ] "But, does that mean that before Peano/Frege no one could be certain that '2 + 2 = 4' (is true)?" Yes. Unless there were already other acceptable proofs. [/ QUOTE ] This is obviously ridicolous. [ QUOTE ] In any case that, and my definition of certainty, are off the subject. You originally thought you had caught me not knowing about Godel's stuff and that was a silly thought on your part. [/ QUOTE ] What I find interesting is that in this thread as in numerous other threads David, you start by coming up with some somewhat reasonable claim. But when faced with obvious objections, instead of altering your position you just keep trying to argue that claim by accepting more and more absurd consequences of your claim. This is illustrated in this thread by your first claim that mathematical certainties are provable. This has now lead you to claim that certainties can be false and that noone could be certain that 2 + 2 = 4 is true before Peano wrote down his axioms. These are consequences you now must accept because you insist on sticking to your original claim. But anyone just remotely acquainted with basic epistemology would agree that the above claims are absolutely ridicolous. The same thing happened in the thread regarding formal logic. There you claimed that if everyone was versed in formal logic then many moral disagreements would be dissolved. While there was some truth to your claim, you again seemed to have no valid answer as to which logic was the "right" logic and your analogy between Euclidean and non-euclidean geometry lead you to a relativistic position. I did not assume that you were not acquainted with Godel's results. Neither did I assume that you were not aware that there are many different logics with entirely different semantics. But, it does seem as if you don't fully appreciate the problems you face because of these things. I merely wanted to remind you that in order to maintain your claims you would need some kind of viable explanations of Godel's incompleteness results and in the other thread of what the "right" kind of logic is. I was genuinely interested in hearing how you would answer these questions. But, since you neglected to answer these questions I can only conclude that you have no viable answer, which was also what I suspected. - Kripke
|
|
#89
09-08-2005, 05:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: txaq007\'s Inescapable Error
David, I dont see why you dont just point txaq007 to the "logical fallacy" hand-outs people get for philosophy 100.
Here are some that txaq007 might look into checking out: 1) Subjectivist Fallacy 2) Hasty Generalization 3) Appeal to Ignorance 4) Equivocation class dismissed
|
|
#90
09-08-2005, 05:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: txaq007\'s Inescapable Error
I have no idea what you are talking about. And even your first post strayed from the subject even if I didn't know about Godel.
The original poster was curious if mathmeticians accept things as true even if they can't prove it and the answer for all intents and purposes is no. And you still didn't tell me the name you give to the logic used by Euclid.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
