Thanks. Looking forward to it.
What is a 'workable result?
A result that I can work with without running into problems.
Is 'faith' a valid tool to arrive at truth?
I don´t know. Remember, I don´t even know whether there is such a thing as an „objective truth“. That was where the discussion started, after all.
I personally wouldn´t touch it with a ten foot pole. My main problem would be to determine which claims to have faith in, for starters. There are so many competing ideas out there the holders of which ask me to have faith in them. It´s a preferred method of charlatans, btw. (Don´t mistake me for implying the reverse conclusion. It would be illogical. I personally try to avoid committing logical fallacies to the best of my abilities).
Alright, describe how something, anything 'tastes' witout assuming an absolute standard.
Garlic tastes disgusting to me.
Really? Where is the clear description of what is and is not logical,
I´m not going to give you a lecture in logic101. Just google „logical fallacies“ and you get plenty of sites telling you all the details.
and to whom does it apply?
To anyone who attempts to perform a logical deduction.
Inevitable eh? So it is inevitable that tyou will assume that God exists?
No. It´s not my axiom, after all.
And this reveals the contradiction in your worldview. I am sure that you insist that everyone you deal with use logic.
Sure. I also insist that everyone who talks to me speaks softly.
Would you be fine with a policeman that dealt with you illogically?
No, I wouldn´t be fine with it – but what could I do?
A judge, a doctor, an architect, a cook? You see, you demand logical behaviour, yet say that you do not.
Au contraire, I have explicitly and several times told you that I demand it. But there is a long way between what I demand and what I consider „absolute truth“.
If you want to discuss with me I expect you to do that on the grounds of logic. Since you yourself have explicitly said that you value logic high, I fail to see the problem. If committing a logical fallacy, you are violating your own standards.
If you would insist that we should discuss illogically we could both go our merry ways, and the fact that you committed a logical fallacy would not be a problem for you. I´m not convinced that you will have an easy path in an environment based its considerations on the axiom "logic", but fortunately that wouldn´t be my problem.
Yes.
If so, does that standard of logic apply to what I say, if so, why?
By virtue of the definition of logic. If your statement wouldn´t be meant to be logical, it would remain unaffected by this fact. It would match your standards. I wouldn´t know how to tackle it. However, I could easily and on your grounds refute anything you say once being logical isn´t required in our discussion.
Sure, as soon as you tell me what is logical, and how it applies to what I say.
Well, you yourself have appealed to logic, unlike me even as a universal „law“. So I can´t help assuming that you know quite a bit about it. If you sense that there is a significant difference between what you are referring to as „standards of logic“ and what I refer to, please let me know.
According to which standard of logic?
Hopefully your own. If, however, you don´t consider false equivocation and directly contradicting statements as illogical, I will be able to defend each and everything on basis of your idea of logic.
Why can't contradictory logic be axiomatic?
I´m beginning to doubt that you have the slightest clue what „logic“ and what „axiomatic“ means.
If you want to allow directly contradicting statements and false equivocations in our discussion, just say so. The more I think about it, the more I feel we could have a lot of fun.
But if you had gone into a bank, and the teller handed you 3 cents change for a one hundred dollar bill, would you just walk out and not deal with that person, or would you insist that this person conform to your interpretation of logic?
Actually, I would have had no doubt that he accepted logic as the basis for our transactions just like I do. In the same way I was naturally assuming that you at least attempted to discuss logically. Learning that either of these assumptions was mistaken would definitely come as a surprise. Actually, you are the first person I have ever met who expects others to argue logically but rejects the same standards for himself.
I would feel completely helpless in this situation. What could I possibly do? I mean, I am a pacifist, I don´t tend to force people violently to comply with my ideas. So I guess that „insisting“ won´t help me one bit. As I said, the most reasonable thing to do would be to meet him on his ground and utilize the new gained freedom from logical constraints that he invites me to.
No, that's just it, the teller just assumes a different standard of logic and mathematics than you, and calls it his/her axiom. What would your argument be?
I never had an argument in favour of logic, never claimed nor implied I did. I merely can tell that something is illogical. If someone finds that a good thing, I am empty handed.
Then again, I have a couple of good arguments in favour of agreements. Practical, pragmatic arguments. Probably not convincing to you.
Actually no, in his worldview the correct change is 3 cents for a one hundred dollar bill, again, what's your beef?
I have no beef. I´d be puzzled, amused, confused, irritated, frustrated possibly. You don´t meet someone who refuses to acknowledge the frame of reference of mathematics every day. I´d be interested to learn how he manages to get through life in a society that works from this frame of reference. I´d also be curious whether he would keep to his idea that 3 cents are the countervalue of 100 dollars if the roles are reversed in a different situation.
Come to think of it, I might make a documentary movie about him.
On another note, I´m afraid I can´t afford too many transactions of that sort. Thus, once I will have encountered this, I might make it a habit to
first ask the person opposite how many cents one hundred dollars are in his mathematical system, currency and logic, whenever changing money in the future.
According to which standard of logic, and why does that standard apply to me?
I am assuming that it is illogical to your own standard of logic, and therefore applies to you.
For the umpteenth time: If your idea of logic allows for false equivocations and directly contradicting statements, just say so. In this case feel free to consider the fact that I pointed out a „logical fallacy“ in your reasoning a statement based on the erroneous assumption of a silent agreement.
Then again, if you are planning to establish false equivocations and direct contradictions as parts of the logical approach, all of your arguments so far can easily be wiped away using this very „logic“ you subscribe to.
Make your choice.
