Cooper says that a formalist, with only formal constraints on his logic
(such as consistensy) is at the mercy of the formalism itself. Such a
formalism is allways a special case, but Cooper warns of the danger that
classical logic is not recognized as such. He calls for a relativistic
evolutionary logic where classical logic only would be justified for certain
special classes of problems. An evolutionary metatheory of logic would
recognize which those problems are.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Jesse Mazer
Skickat: den 10 juli 2006 03:06
Ämne: Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?
Brent Meeker wrote:
> > Brent Meeker wrote:
> >>You misunderstand "population models". It's not a question of what
>members of a species think or
> >>vote for; it's a matter of whether their logic will lead to their
>survival in the evolutionary
> >>biological sense. So the majority can be wrong.
> > Cooper is making valid comments about *something*, but it isn't logic.
> > Logic is what tells us the majority can be wrong
>Cooper is not talking about logic in the formal sense; he's talking about
>decisions, acting. This can be "wrong" in the sense that there is a better
>(in terms of survival)
>way of reasoning.
>I'm not sure that logic in the formal sense can be right or wrong; it's a
>set of conventions about
>language and inference. About the only standard I've seen by which a logic
>or mathematical system
>could be called "wrong" is it if it is inconsistent, i.e. the axioms and
>rules of inference allow
>everything to be a theorem.
If this is all that Cooper is talking about, I probably wouldn't have any
objection to it--but Lennart Nilsson seemed to be making much stronger
claims about the contingency of logic itself based on his interpretation of
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at