I tend to follow the standard diagnostic caveat that some thing isn't a problem until/unless it *interferes* with one's daily activities. And the dose is the poison. Arrogance (or over-confidence), as Jon pointed out one time can be quite useful and appropriate in some circumstances. (I don't find it "endearing". But I admit it can be useful.) But when it interferes with your understanding, as your insistence about your understanding of logic *does*, then it's inappropriate and not useful.
You are debilitating yourself by this particular over-confidence. I don't think Merle is in the same boat. But I don't have time to respond to her contribution just yet. E.g. here's my favorite definition of logic: "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." On 1/14/21 10:43 AM, [email protected] wrote: > My definition arises from a logician, perhaps the foremost American logician. > I just did a quick run though some dictionary definitions of "logic", and > the one I offer does not seem to be particularly exceptional. I wonder if > the "celebratory" announcement was even written by a logician, given that it > left out the evaluation at the core of saying that an argument is "logical". > Finally, I am startled to be hauled before the court of FRIAM on the grounds > of "arrogance". I would have thought that arrogance was our most endearing > feature. Each of us -- including you, my friend -- feels qualified to > re-examine any doctrine, no matter how authoritative and time-honored. We > are the little lad in the fable THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES. I would not have > it otherwise. Would you? -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
