The Radical Academy Discussion Forum

Kevin

Dec 24, 07 - 11:04 AM

Richard's Perfect Refutation

RICHARD WRITES Re.
Dec 8th, 2007 - 6:23 PM Re: Ivo's "Surprise" and Normal Confusion (From Definition of Science)

KEVIN (requoted):
"And nobody, other than Ivo and myself, is reading this trivial "junk" anyway."

RICHARD:
I am, and enjoying every word.
****************************************************
RICHARD'S PERFECT REFUTATION:
Let the reading of Ivo and Kevin's argument (by people other than Ivo and Kevin) be symbolized as RoIvK, as in "Reader of Ivo vs. Kevin's argument" (RoIvK). Let "(T)" symbolize a true proposition and "(F)" symbolize a false proposition. Thus Kevin's sentential theses, as determined by a so-called "Aristotelian-Square" of logical opposition of propositions are:



Every one is RoIvK(F)        vs.       NO one is a RoIvK(T)

C                                                 N

    O                                         O    

        N                                 I        

            T                         T            

                R                 C                

                    A         I                    

                         D                         

                    A         I                    

                R                 C                

            T                         T            

        N                                 I        

    O                                         O    

C                                                 N

Someone is RoIvK(F)         &        Someone is NOT RoIvK(T)

IN ESSENCE, Richard "begs to differ", arguing, very simply, that it is TRUE to say that the proposition "Someone is RoIvK" is TRUE because he, Richard, ***IS*** a reader of the argument between Ivo and Kevin. Hence for his "square" the lower left "subcontrary" proposition is TRUE and Kevin's lower left "subcontrary" is necessarily false, given his STRONG premise "Nobody is a reader of the arguments of Kevin and Ivo!" --- with the qualification of "excepting Ivo and Kevin".

So Richard's PERFECT REFUTATION is, very arguably, as follows:



RICHARD'S SQUARE



Every one is RoIvK(F)        vs.       NO one is a RoIvK(F)

C                                                 N

    O                                         O    

        N                                 I        

            T                         T            

                R                 C                

                    A         I                    

                         D                         

                    A         I                    

                R                 C                

            T                         T            

        N                                 I        

    O                                         O    

C                                                 N

Someone is RoIvK(T)         &        Someone is NOT RoIvK(T)

Richard, himself, is the COUNTER-EXAMPLE to Kevin's strong THESIS (No one is a reader of Ivo and Kevin's arguments.), which Kevin claims to be a true thesis. Richard, himself, proves that strong proposition to be false, with his "weaker" thesis, to wit, "Richard (who is "someone") is RoIvK." (TRUE)!

Socrates was "attempting", rather than "doing" the same thing in Athens from about 430 B.C. to 399 B.C., with actual respect to the strong oracular proposition, "NO man is wiser than Socrates!".

One wiser man "would have done the trick.". In truth, one EQUALLY WISE Greek would have actually done the trick. Socrates could have proved the SPECIFIC oracle (about Socrates himself) false and the GENERAL oracle, to wit:- "EVERY wise man is a 'seer' of his own PSYCHE." to be TRUE, once again, for only his own case --- since he couldn't 'see' his own "psyche" or "MIND" in modern terms.

Hence he was "very conscious to himself that he was not wise." as clearly stated in Plato's APOLOGY.

BOTH RICHARD'S refutation and Socrates's argument of THE AP0LOGY, along with Aristotle's 6 written treatises on LOGIC are WHY Mortimer Jerome Adler argues in his little work ARISTOTLE FOR EVERYBODY that requote:

ADLER:
"I cannot EXAGGERATE the importance of Aristotle's rules concerning statements that are incompatible with one another in one of these 3 ways --- through being CONTRADICTORY of one another, through being CONTRARY of one another or SUBCONTRARY to one another. The importance is that observing these rules not only helps us to avoid making inconsistent statements, but also helps us to detect inconsistencies in the statements made by others and to challenge what they say." [ARISTOTLE FOR EVERYBODY; Ch.17; Logic's little Words]

That is exactly what Richard did, above, in his PERFECT REFUTATION of an overgeneralization. He observed a rule of LOGIC.

Merry Christmas to ALL readers of Adler & Aristotle.

Kevin

Richard

Dec 28th, 2007 - 10:18 AM

Re: Richard's Perfect Refutation

Kevin,

It seems to me that interpreting my reply as the "Perfect Refutation" demonstrates the primary reason that philosophical knowledge has not advanced in twenty-five centuries. Has there ever been any philosophical knowledge developed by using 'formal logic'? The best I can tell, the dependence of Philosophy on 'formal logic' is the result of philosophers never understanding the nature of knowledge and how knowledge is constructed. For centuries, philosophers claimed knowledge is 'justified true belief' and is not constructed. Their explanation for the existence of 'justified true belief', as knowledge, has been as a 'haphazard trial and error process over a long period of time'. Philosophers have explained the existence of knowledge this way inspite of the enormous knowledge being constructed by Science. It appears to me that philosophers simply have never understood the nature and construct of knowledge and this explains by Philosophy has no grounding in logic. 'Formal Logic' existences because statements can either contradict or not contradict. It reveals nothing about the methodology of constructing statements that reveal the reality of the 'thing or condition' the statements are about. Thus, for Philosophy to claim credence because of its use of ‘formal logic’ is a sham.

Kevin

Dec 28th, 2007 - 9:08 PM

Re: Richard's Perfect Refutation

Re: Richard's Perfect Refutation

RICHARD writes, quote:

Kevin,

It seems to me that interpreting my reply as the "Perfect Refutation" demonstrates the primary reason that philosophical knowledge has not advanced in twenty-five centuries.

REPLY:
Yes! Perfection can't advance, nor retreat. Perfect is simply perfect. You can't "advance" from perfect. That is truly why philosophical knowledge doesn't "advance". You seem to "object" to perfection, as follows, quote,

RICHARD:
Has there ever been any philosophical knowledge developed by using 'formal logic'?

ANSWER:
Yes. Once the basic Law of Thought was elucidated by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, as well as promulgated at The Academy and Lyceum, that is when philosophical and scientific development began to make progress by leaps and bounds. The first full scale INTEGRATION of mathematics with physics began. Prior to the Academy and Lyceum, geometers and physicists were barely on "speaking terms". That situation arose because GEOMETRICAL ARGUMENTS were employed by Geometers (Who else?) to argue against the so-called "illusions of sense", such as MOTION.

Thus we have Aristotle's records of Xeno's arguments, on behalf of Parmenides's "philosophical theory", to the effect that ALL MOTION and CHANGE is "sensory illusion". Thus, according to Xeno, the moving arrow never hits its target, "because" it must traverse 1/2 the distance to the target; then 1/2 that distance again (1/4), then half that distance again (1/8), etc. etc. For each halving of the previous distance travelled, the moving arrow is essentially "slowing down", by traversing smaller and smaller distances. So, according to an arithmetical argument, involving smaller and smaller FRACTIONS of distance moved, the moving arrow NEVER ARRIVES AT A TARGET.

When people, like Xeno, said "refute this argument", cagey physicists, who KNEW that moving arrows MAY HIT TARGETS if/when archers are skillful enough to actually hit targets, often said things to the effect that:- I KNOW MOVING ARROWS HIT TARGETS, so your argument is ridiculous. Hence, I am leaving this room, since I don't have time to refute ridiculous mathematical arguments.

"Hah!", replied such mathematicians. "You can't refute my argument, so you run away from it."

"Untrue", replied cagey-physicist-types. "If you catch up to me after I leave this room, then you'll REFUTE yourself."

IN SUM:
Geometers were arguing mathematically. But "cagey physicists" were arguing hypothetically. They had no COMMON GROUND before the development of FORMAL LOGIC by Aristotle, who, according to my personal thesis, DEVELOPED formal logic from Socratic "elenchus" and Platonic DIALECTIC, in contrast to the fallacious "dialectic" of Xeno.

Aristotle refuted Xeno by pointing out that arrows in flight do not "slow down" according to the rules of arithmetical fractions. Technically he refuted Xeno by providing a DEFINITION of LOCOMOTION or of VELOCITY as DISTANCE-moved per UNIT-of-TIME.

SHORT ANSWER:
All knowledge; or what you call SCIENCE, below, Richard; has proceeded from and been developed as a consequence of KNOWLEDGE of "formal logic", for there are only two kinds of reasoning, or LOGIC, which are either (1) CATEGORICAL-reasoning or (2) HYPOTHETICAL-reasoning. But HYPOTHETICAL-reasoning, ultimately reduces to CATEGORICAL statements concerning either the antecedents or consequents of HYPOTHESES. That is why your REFUTATION was perfect, on a CATEGORICAL "ground".

You CATEGORICALLY contradicted, and thereby controverted, my fallacious OVERGENERALIZATION to the effect that "NO ONE (other than Ivo and myself) was reading our arguments about science."

I will refute your alleged "philosophical definition of KNOWLEDGE" in the next post, with the help of Plato, Socrates and Theaetetus.

Kevin

	The Radical Academy Discussion Forum Philosophy, Politics, and the Human Condition
Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website

Author	Comment
Kevin Dec 24, 07 - 11:04 AM	Richard's Perfect Refutation RICHARD WRITES Re. Dec 8th, 2007 - 6:23 PM Re: Ivo's "Surprise" and Normal Confusion (From Definition of Science) KEVIN (requoted): "And nobody, other than Ivo and myself, is reading this trivial "junk" anyway." RICHARD: I am, and enjoying every word. ************************************************** RICHARD'S PERFECT REFUTATION: Let the reading of Ivo and Kevin's argument (by people other than Ivo and Kevin) be symbolized as RoIvK, as in "Reader of Ivo vs. Kevin's argument" (RoIvK). Let "(T)" symbolize a true proposition and "(F)" symbolize a false proposition. Thus Kevin's sentential theses, as determined by a so-called "Aristotelian-Square" of logical opposition of propositions are: Every one is RoIvK(F) vs. NO one is a RoIvK(T) C N O O N I T T R C A I D A I R C T T N I O O C N Someone is RoIvK(F) & Someone is NOT RoIvK(T) IN ESSENCE, Richard "begs to differ", arguing, very simply, that it is TRUE to say that the proposition "Someone is RoIvK" is TRUE because he, Richard, IS a reader of the argument between Ivo and Kevin. Hence for his "square" the lower left "subcontrary" proposition is TRUE and Kevin's lower left "subcontrary" is necessarily false, given his STRONG premise "Nobody is a reader of the arguments of Kevin and Ivo!" --- with the qualification of "excepting Ivo and Kevin". So Richard's PERFECT REFUTATION is, very arguably, as follows: RICHARD'S SQUARE Every one is RoIvK(F) vs. NO one is a RoIvK(F) C N O O N I T T R C A I D A I R C T T N I O O C N Someone is RoIvK(T) & Someone is NOT RoIvK(T) Richard, himself, is the COUNTER-EXAMPLE to Kevin's strong THESIS (No one is a reader of Ivo and Kevin's arguments.), which Kevin claims to be a true thesis. Richard, himself, proves that strong proposition to be false, with his "weaker" thesis, to wit, "Richard (who is "someone") is RoIvK." (TRUE)! Socrates was "attempting", rather than "doing" the same thing in Athens from about 430 B.C. to 399 B.C., with actual respect to the strong oracular proposition, "NO man is wiser than Socrates!". One wiser man "would have done the trick.". In truth, one EQUALLY WISE Greek would have actually done the trick. Socrates could have proved the SPECIFIC oracle (about Socrates himself) false and the GENERAL oracle, to wit:- "EVERY wise man is a 'seer' of his own PSYCHE." to be TRUE, once again, for only his own case --- since he couldn't 'see' his own "psyche" or "MIND" in modern terms. Hence he was "very conscious to himself that he was not wise." as clearly stated in Plato's APOLOGY. BOTH RICHARD'S refutation and Socrates's argument of THE AP0LOGY, along with Aristotle's 6 written treatises on LOGIC are WHY Mortimer Jerome Adler argues in his little work ARISTOTLE FOR EVERYBODY that requote: ADLER: "I cannot EXAGGERATE the importance of Aristotle's rules concerning statements that are incompatible with one another in one of these 3 ways --- through being CONTRADICTORY of one another, through being CONTRARY of one another or SUBCONTRARY to one another. The importance is that observing these rules not only helps us to avoid making inconsistent statements, but also helps us to detect inconsistencies in the statements made by others and to challenge what they say." [ARISTOTLE FOR EVERYBODY; Ch.17; Logic's little Words] That is exactly what Richard did, above, in his PERFECT REFUTATION of an overgeneralization. He observed a rule of LOGIC. Merry Christmas to ALL readers of Adler & Aristotle. Kevin Email:** PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Richard Dec 28th, 2007 - 10:18 AM	Re: Richard's Perfect Refutation Kevin, It seems to me that interpreting my reply as the "Perfect Refutation" demonstrates the primary reason that philosophical knowledge has not advanced in twenty-five centuries. Has there ever been any philosophical knowledge developed by using 'formal logic'? The best I can tell, the dependence of Philosophy on 'formal logic' is the result of philosophers never understanding the nature of knowledge and how knowledge is constructed. For centuries, philosophers claimed knowledge is 'justified true belief' and is not constructed. Their explanation for the existence of 'justified true belief', as knowledge, has been as a 'haphazard trial and error process over a long period of time'. Philosophers have explained the existence of knowledge this way inspite of the enormous knowledge being constructed by Science. It appears to me that philosophers simply have never understood the nature and construct of knowledge and this explains by Philosophy has no grounding in logic. 'Formal Logic' existences because statements can either contradict or not contradict. It reveals nothing about the methodology of constructing statements that reveal the reality of the 'thing or condition' the statements are about. Thus, for Philosophy to claim credence because of its use of ‘formal logic’ is a sham.
Kevin Dec 28th, 2007 - 9:08 PM	Re: Richard's Perfect Refutation Re: Richard's Perfect Refutation RICHARD writes, quote: Kevin, It seems to me that interpreting my reply as the "Perfect Refutation" demonstrates the primary reason that philosophical knowledge has not advanced in twenty-five centuries. REPLY: Yes! Perfection can't advance, nor retreat. Perfect is simply perfect. You can't "advance" from perfect. That is truly why philosophical knowledge doesn't "advance". You seem to "object" to perfection, as follows, quote, RICHARD: Has there ever been any philosophical knowledge developed by using 'formal logic'? ANSWER: Yes. Once the basic Law of Thought was elucidated by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, as well as promulgated at The Academy and Lyceum, that is when philosophical and scientific development began to make progress by leaps and bounds. The first full scale INTEGRATION of mathematics with physics began. Prior to the Academy and Lyceum, geometers and physicists were barely on "speaking terms". That situation arose because GEOMETRICAL ARGUMENTS were employed by Geometers (Who else?) to argue against the so-called "illusions of sense", such as MOTION. Thus we have Aristotle's records of Xeno's arguments, on behalf of Parmenides's "philosophical theory", to the effect that ALL MOTION and CHANGE is "sensory illusion". Thus, according to Xeno, the moving arrow never hits its target, "because" it must traverse 1/2 the distance to the target; then 1/2 that distance again (1/4), then half that distance again (1/8), etc. etc. For each halving of the previous distance travelled, the moving arrow is essentially "slowing down", by traversing smaller and smaller distances. So, according to an arithmetical argument, involving smaller and smaller FRACTIONS of distance moved, the moving arrow NEVER ARRIVES AT A TARGET. When people, like Xeno, said "refute this argument", cagey physicists, who KNEW that moving arrows MAY HIT TARGETS if/when archers are skillful enough to actually hit targets, often said things to the effect that:- I KNOW MOVING ARROWS HIT TARGETS, so your argument is ridiculous. Hence, I am leaving this room, since I don't have time to refute ridiculous mathematical arguments. "Hah!", replied such mathematicians. "You can't refute my argument, so you run away from it." "Untrue", replied cagey-physicist-types. "If you catch up to me after I leave this room, then you'll REFUTE yourself." IN SUM: Geometers were arguing mathematically. But "cagey physicists" were arguing hypothetically. They had no COMMON GROUND before the development of FORMAL LOGIC by Aristotle, who, according to my personal thesis, DEVELOPED formal logic from Socratic "elenchus" and Platonic DIALECTIC, in contrast to the fallacious "dialectic" of Xeno. Aristotle refuted Xeno by pointing out that arrows in flight do not "slow down" according to the rules of arithmetical fractions. Technically he refuted Xeno by providing a DEFINITION of LOCOMOTION or of VELOCITY as DISTANCE-moved per UNIT-of-TIME. SHORT ANSWER: All knowledge; or what you call SCIENCE, below, Richard; has proceeded from and been developed as a consequence of KNOWLEDGE of "formal logic", for there are only two kinds of reasoning, or LOGIC, which are either (1) CATEGORICAL-reasoning or (2) HYPOTHETICAL-reasoning. But HYPOTHETICAL-reasoning, ultimately reduces to CATEGORICAL statements concerning either the antecedents or consequents of HYPOTHESES. That is why your REFUTATION was perfect, on a CATEGORICAL "ground". You CATEGORICALLY contradicted, and thereby controverted, my fallacious OVERGENERALIZATION to the effect that "NO ONE (other than Ivo and myself) was reading our arguments about science." I will refute your alleged "philosophical definition of KNOWLEDGE" in the next post, with the help of Plato, Socrates and Theaetetus. Kevin Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com