SUO: Re: Logic & Programming Languages
Seth wrote:
> [Menzel wrote:]
> > Exactly right. And since identification is utterly irrelevant to logic,
> > if Seth thinks otherwise he is clearly in need of some education. That
> > might be blunt, perhaps, but it's the simple truth.
>
> Well if you can show me how we can do logic without substitution of
> identicals,
OK, just confine your attention to propositional logic or predicate logic
without the theory of identity.
> then I will concede that identification is irrelevant to logic.
You are still confusing the logical issue of identity with the
episemological problem of identification. These are distinct, orthogonal
issues. Identification is irrelevant to logic because, well, it's not
logic. It's epistemology. Or maybe psychology.
> In a more serious vein, certainly the methods of logic have been isolated
> from the content of its symbols: in a binary system p <=> ~~p regardless of
> what p stands for.
No, it precisely because logic is all about content -- the meaning of the
logical constants -- that the above is valid. Logic doesn't assign any
fixed meaning to sentence variables and the like because they are not the
objects whose meanings are at issue. Again, I would recommend that you
actually study some logic before you continue your theorizing.
> But I don't believe this isolation necessarily serves us
> well, for when we apply the certain methods of logic, we must abandon our
> methods of grounding our symbols, and when we are creating and grounding of
> our symbols we have no certain methods of logic. Classical logicians pride
> themselves on this separation;
I'm not at all sure what you mean by "grounding" symbols, but if it means
something like "giving our symbols meaning", then what you say is patently
false. Logic, again, is all about meaning, albeit with respect to a
restricted class of expressions. Your claim about classical logicians is
just plain silly.
> > If I'm right, then Seth is wrong. I'm right. Therefore, Seth is wrong.
>
> About what?
You seem to have missed the joke -- though the point was serious.
> The form of your logic is impeccable, yet it is irrelevant.
It is ironic that you don't seem able to see how all of your own
arguments depend on the validity of classical forms of reasoning. (See,
for example, the very first line in the message to which I'm responding.)
-chris
--
Christopher Menzel # web: philebus.tamu.edu/~cmenzel
Philosophy, Texas A&M University # net: chris.menzel@tamu.edu
College Station, TX 77843-4237 # vox: (979) 845-8764