Absurdity of Morality Apart From God

[seer]

No, because by convention, we use classical logic. And according to classical logic, a clear and true contradiction is always irrational.

So don't use classic logic - can you offer a true contradiction?

[Stoic]

So don't use classic logic - can you offer a true contradiction?

Here's one from dialetheism: Contradictions are always false.

"Standard logic gets nowhere against dialetheism by insisting that contradictions are always false, for dialetheism admits this but adds that they are true too." -- source

(I interpret "they are true too" to mean "some of them are true too". Otherwise you have trivialism, which Suber is not talking about.)

[Tassman]

Not the point, yes or no, can science work without the laws of logic being absolute?

Logic is a useful tool of language in general, not just in science. It ensures consistency and prevents errors of false inference - that’s all. Science does not arrive at its models and theories via logic per se. It arrives at them via inductive reasoning whereby it draws general conclusions from evidence, forms hypotheses and verifies or falsifies these hypotheses by testing.

[seer]

Here's one from dialetheism: Contradictions are always false.

"Standard logic gets nowhere against dialetheism by insisting that contradictions are always false, for dialetheism admits this but adds that they are true too." -- source

(I interpret "they are true too" to mean "some of them are true too". Otherwise you have trivialism, which Suber is not talking about.)

I asked for an example of a true contradiction, not definitions. As far as dialetheism: A, Dialetheia exists, ~A, Dialetheia does not exist. Can you demonstrate that this statement is not a dialetheia?

[Stoic]

I asked for an example of a true contradiction, not definitions. As far as dialetheism: A, Dialetheia exists, ~A, Dialetheia does not exist. Can you demonstrate that this statement is not a dialetheia?

No, I just showed that it IS a dialetheia.

[seer]

No, I just showed that it IS a dialetheia.

What? You certainly have not shown a true contradiction, one in nature, like I asked.

[Stoic]

What? You certainly have not shown a true contradiction, one in nature, like I asked.

I don't recall you specifying "in nature".

I'm not sure what a contradiction "in nature" would be. Contradictions are statements (or combinations of statements).

[seer]

I don't recall you specifying "in nature".

I'm not sure what a contradiction "in nature" would be. Contradictions are statements (or combinations of statements).

Why do you think I have been using the example of the sun so often? Linguistic gymnastics like the liars paradox are merely clever rhetorical devices. And can easily be dismissed.

[Stoic]

Why do you think I have been using the example of the sun so often?

I thought you were using statements about the sun as examples.

Linguistic gymnastics like the liars paradox are merely clever rhetorical devices. And can easily be dismissed.

Really? So is the statement, "This sentence is false" true or false?

[seer]

I thought you were using statements about the sun as examples.

So can you offer an example?

Really? So is the statement, "This sentence is false" true or false?

If I use classic logic the sentence is nonsense, Like saying all squares are round. If I abandon classic logic I simply say that it is neither true or false. And you have no rational rebuttable, no logical ground to say I'm wrong.

[Stoic]

If I use classic logic the sentence is nonsense, Like saying all squares are round. If I abandon classic logic I simply say that it is neither true or false. And you have no rational rebuttable, no logical ground to say I'm wrong.

If you use classical logic, you aren't allowed to abandon the law of excluded middle.

[seer]

If you use classical logic, you aren't allowed to abandon the law of excluded middle.

Again, if I used classic logic on your example it is nonsensical because according to the LONC true contradictions can't exist. If I then turn and use dialetheism I can simply claim that the sentence is neither true or false. Again avoiding the contradiction. And with the dialetheism claim you have no rational way of refuting me. I think you get my point Stoic...

[Stoic]

Again, if I used classic logic on your example it is nonsensical because according to the LONC true contradictions can't exist. If I then turn and use dialetheism I can simply claim that the sentence is neither true or false. Again avoiding the contradiction. And with the dialetheism claim you have no rational way of refuting me. I think you get my point Stoic...

Sure. You think the LONC is more important than the LEM. Others might feel the opposite is true.

Who are you to tell them they are wrong?

[seer]

Sure. You think the LONC is more important than the LEM. Others might feel the opposite is true.

Doesn't you sentence also violate the LOEM?

Who are you to tell them they are wrong?

I'm not sure what you are talking about.

[Stoic]

Doesn't you sentence also violate the LOEM?

I'm not sure what you are talking about.

I think it's time to agree to disagree.