- Aug 20, 2019
- 10,966
- 12,052
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Would those 'three' principles also be 'true' in the case of someone with a mental illness who's reality is occasionally delusional? If not, how can that be, if the truth really exists independently from the set of all human minds?
I'm not sure what you hope to gain by using these instances as counter-examples. That someone with mental illness might argue that "something is not itself" is no argument against the obviousness of the law of identity. Moreover, as trivial as the law of identity may seem, it is what marks the difference between sameness of meaning and equivocation.
Why do those so called 'principles' then, seemingly, deliberately discard their minds from that set of human minds which actually came up with the meanings of the words they use to communicate?
Before we go off on the "word salads" of others, do you mind trying to help me make some sense out of what you're trying to say here? Principles don't discard their minds, as far as I can tell. When you say "set of human minds" are you referring to intersubjective agreement, possibly?
Scientists do not adjudicate on the meaning of 'truth' based on such opinions, beliefs or truisms. Therefore the meaning of scientific truth is different from what those three 'principles' cite. Science can never test them (as I cited).. yet when a scientist speaks of truth, other scientists recognize what that scientist means .. and its not based on any of those three so-called 'principles' simply because they aren't objectively testable.
As I pointed out, when someone (let's say a scientist) says something and the other person knows what they mean (and let's assume their understanding of what they mean is correct) then the law of identity is working because an equivocation has not occurred. But, more to your point, in general scientists and virtually everybody else functions under the basic assumption that statements are either true or false. Yeah, there are some shady moments when we might say a statement is both true and false, but invariable it will not be both true and false in the same way, and at the same time. And, again, the fact that you understand what I am typing means that you, even with your stated incredulity, use these principles in your everyday thought processes. This isn't rocket science, or even basic science. It's basic logic.
Now, it may be that your assumption that these principles are not objectively testable is a bit premature. I think there is a live debate as to whether the law of excluded middle holds on the quantum level. Heisenberg, at least, seems to have thought it might need to be modified. But, for you and I on the macro-scale of things, either I am now typing on my computer or I am not. It just so happens as I type these words, I am.
Edge.org
What I originally wrote in that post relies on logic. I concur that logic is closely related to those philosophical principles .. yet science comes up with a different meaning of 'true'. Science deals with reality. Philosophy doesn't appear to .. in spite of the thousands of years it has been grappling with its own believed tenets which now apears to be distilled into those three so-called, (useless IMO), 'principles'. They are useless in isolation of science but when used by science's objective method, they then acquire their usefulness (eg: as they are in the math models of physics).
Yeah, now you're equivocating. First, these principles have no relation to science. Now, science gives them credibility. Whatever. Let's be clear, When I brought up the law of noncontradiction in my original post, I was using it in the context of logic. Philosophy is not logic. Philosophers may use logic, and there is a philosophy of logic. But philosophy is not identical to logic. See, law of identity. It just keeps becoming more useful as we go along.
Last edited:
Upvote
0