home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.cognitive:697 sci.philosophy.tech:4184 sci.lang:8106 sci.philosophy.meta:2649
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!edcogsci!cogsci!rjc
- From: rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
- Newsgroups: sci.cognitive,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.lang,sci.philosophy.meta
- Subject: Re: Commitment to logic; was ...
- Message-ID: <RJC.92Nov19160404@daiches.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 19 Nov 92 16:04:04 GMT
- References: <BxvDqn.8n1@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Nov17.175227.20588@athena.cs.uga.edu>
- <1992Nov17.214321.18500@psych.toronto.edu>
- <1992Nov18.164042.2001@athena.cs.uga.edu>
- Sender: rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
- Organization: Human Communication Research Center
- Lines: 17
- In-reply-to: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu's message of 18 Nov 92 16:40:42 GMT
-
- In article <1992Nov18.164042.2001@athena.cs.uga.edu>, Michael Covington (mc) writes:
-
- mc> Of course it's contingent and is arrived at BY LOGICAL REASONING
- mc> FROM PREMISES. I never said it was analytic.
-
- This can be said of anything for a weird enough logic, so the
- assertion is a little trivial.
-
- The problem is always to come up with a logic that will get you from
- some reasonable premises to `if I walk in front of a bus I get very
- thin' without ludicrous side effects, infinite numbers of frame
- axioms, logical omniscience and all those other fun, fun, fun things
- which give people headaches. I ain't seen one advertised yet.
-
- --
- rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk _O_
- |<
-