Meta-Logical Thinking [Archive]

BeholdTheTruth

18th July 2006, 09:54 AM

Jimbo07

18th July 2006, 09:57 AM

Just for my edification...

What is "meta-logical thinking?" Is it anything like "informal logic?"

drkitten

18th July 2006, 10:24 AM

What is "meta-logical thinking?"

It's another example of Jackel making up nonsensical phrases and then expecting other people to identify semantics for him.

And as usual, he's wrong. Logicians are well-aware of (metaphorically) free-standing logical systems. In fact, they're rather notorious for it. Pratchett et al. had a very good metaphor that they presented in Science of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch, which is that mathematicians have a tendency to build the ground and upper floors of a house and only then do they pour the intellectual foundations. A key aspect of new areas of mathematical inquiry is not whether or not it can be justified theoretically, but whether it yields interesting insights or applications. Look at the historical relationship between Cantor, Russell, and Godel for a good example of building the foundations last. But no one in their right mind woulc consider what Russell did to be "meta-logic" as opposed to "logic."

BeholdTheTruth

18th July 2006, 10:41 AM

Beleth

22nd July 2006, 02:21 AM

One can entertain an idea without believing it, but when one is done one must remember why one did not believe it in the first place.

FireGarden

22nd July 2006, 03:27 AM

FireGarden

22nd July 2006, 03:31 AM

"A mark of an educated man is the ability to entertain (as in forebear to bear weight on) an idea without believing it [to be true]."

The whole basis of proof by contradiction is to see what the consequences are once you assume a thing to be true. The idea that srt(2) is rational is certainly entertained, in the sense you describe, in the proof of the contrary.

BeholdTheTruth

22nd July 2006, 08:20 PM

In maths there is synthesis and analysis.

Think of it as going backwards and forwards between premise and hypothesis trying to find a route that can be called a proof.

As Gauss (I think said) a theorem is like a building. Once it's built the scaffolding necessary is removed and it stands on a firm foundation.

That makes it look like mathematicians are one-way thinkers, but there is a lot of work hidden after the product is complete.

Thanks, that is very helpful.

BTW, if you look at the java program found at the bottom of http://synclecron.com/About.htm, I think you may find an interesting way of generically representing that not always simultaneously backing away from the beginning of a proof, x, and coming towards/to its conclusion, y, if you consider the proof's beginning to be at 1x, Oy and the proof's conclusion to be at Ox, 1y.

blutoski

23rd July 2006, 02:18 AM

Perhaps that is why Aristotle said something along the lines of, "A mark of an educated man is the ability to entertain (as in forebear to bear weight on) an idea without believing it [to be true]."

What Aristotle meant by this was that an intellgent person can understand arguments that criticize his point of view.

An exercise would be to get his students to argue for an hour for one side of a debate, and then argue for an hour for the other side of the same issue. If the student did not give both sides equal credit, he would be failed.

The two benefits are:

you make your own argument stronger by anticipating clever critiques
you may discover you were wrong, and have an opportunity to update your worldview

FireGarden

23rd July 2006, 05:46 AM

coberst

23rd July 2006, 06:40 AM

Jackel says—“ whereas "meta-logical thinking" is like constucting a geodesic dome.”

I can comprehend your metaphor and my first question would be—can you give me an example of what you would classify as a conclusion drawn from “meta-logical thinking”. Logic means principle—does meta-logical mean ‘big-principle’ or does it mean ‘multi-principles’, i.e. multi-logical.

BeholdTheTruth

23rd July 2006, 08:31 AM

Jackel,
Sorry, I don't have time to look at the program and check out its methodology.

In maths, once you have the proof, you hide all the crazy ideas you had and present yourself as a Vulcan. Without this "censorship," maths papers would read like Alice in Wonderland.

Which is why this quote can't see the craziness.

This is written by someone who has learnt maths by rote. A bad system used in schools. At school, the only proof of anything in maths provided by the student is proof by induction. That pretty much is proof by rote. As I remember, the relevant Qs would even start with "Using induction..."

(I went to school in the UK, btw)

You, sir, are a gem.

I did indeed learn math by rote. And have never liked it enough or did well enough in it to satisfy my love for it.

Your very wise words may also explain the methodology that I naively used to come upon the Templix paradigm which is the foundation stone for my Templix technologies such as the Synclecron/HS, that of deducting facts that I knew about the concept of "changing from x to y" until the only things left were just two abstractions... a "going away from" operator and a "coming towards" operator, operating respectively on x and y. And being the odd duck that I am, then operating on those two operators with those two operators; and then (without imposing anything that I knew about math or science, in order to keep my cognitive processing of this "puzzle" as "pure" as possible) wrestling with the question of what the O and 1 tuples "going away from going away from" vs. "coming towards going away from" vs. "coming towards coming towards " vs. going away from coming towards " might mean in the circumstance of going away from x and coming towards y?

E.g., what "OOx" vs. "1Ox" vs. "11y" vs. "O1y' might mean in the abstract case where one has a goal of going away from x, and has an intention of coming towards y -- with in this abstract example, "1" standing for the phrase "coming towards" and "O" meaning "going away from"?

If you ever do have the time, I hope you enjoy how the java program found at the bottom of http://Synclecron.com/About.htm facilitates mentally playing around all the various values of tuple "stepping stones", the possible steps along the path from point of initiation x to point of destination y in what is a very abstract journey from x to y. Alas, so abstract that most people here and elsewhere are unable to "grasp" it, let alone "wrestle' with it the way Jacob wrestled with his image of God -- and only got to see the real God "face-to-Face" when Jacob prevailed.

I.e., when Jacob's false image of God had lost its hold on him and his imagination, with Jacob still holding on to something for dear life, though until he finally saw It, he could not see What It Was and still Is. (Folks, please note that this thread is purposely in the R&P section! : - )

BeholdTheTruth

23rd July 2006, 08:35 AM

UndercoverElephant

23rd July 2006, 09:01 AM

I am inclined to believe that "logical thinking" (the thinking required for insitutionalized science and mathematics) is like placing bricks upon each other while constructing an edifice made of bricks, whereas "meta-logical thinking" is like constucting a geodesic dome. I.e., to me the difference is this: when you construct an edifice made of bricks, each new brick must be supported by at least one previously put in place brick the way each step in logic must be supported by one or more previous steps in logic; whereas meta-logic does not require each step to be supported until all steps are in place in the way that none of the struts of a geodesic provide stability for the whole structure until the last strut is in place.

What you are calling "logical thinking" is called deductive logic and requires an approach to truth called "foundationalism", which depends on asserting some sort of first foundation (usually materialism) upon which everything else is built. What you are calling "meta-logical thinking" is an example of inductive logic and is "anti-foundationalist" or "coherentist".

The main thing you appear to be defending is inductive coherentism against deductive foundationalism.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-coherence/

Coherentism is a view about the structure of justification or knowledge. The coherentist's thesis is normally formulated in terms of a denial of its contrary foundationalism. Coherentism thus claims, minimally, that not all knowledge and justified belief rest ultimately on a foundation of noninferential knowledge or justified belief.

This negative construal of coherentism occurs because of the prominence of the regress problem in the history of epistemology, and the long-held assumption that only foundationalism provides an adequate, non-skeptical solution to that problem. After responding to the regress problem by denying foundationalism, coherentists normally characterize their view positively by replacing the foundationalism metaphor of a building as a model for the structure of knowledge with different metaphors, such as the metaphor which models our knowledge on a ship at sea whose seaworthiness must be ensured by repairs to any part in need of it. Coherentists typically hold that justification is solely a function of some relationship between beliefs, none of which are privileged beliefs in the way maintained by foundationlists, with different varieties of coherentism individuated by the specific relationship among beliefs appealed to by that version.

BeholdTheTruth

23rd July 2006, 09:25 AM

What you are calling "logical thinking" is called deductive logic and requires an approach to truth called "foundationalism", which depends on asserting some sort of first foundation (usually materialism) upon which everything else is built. What you are calling "meta-logical thinking" is an example of inductive logic and is "anti-foundationalist" or "coherentist".

The main thing you appear to be defending is inductive coherentism against deductive foundationalism.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-coherence/

Wow! Cool! Thanks!

BeholdTheTruth

23rd July 2006, 12:34 PM

It's another example of Jackel making up nonsensical phrases and then expecting other people to identify semantics for him.

And as usual, he's wrong. Logicians are well-aware of (metaphorically) free-standing logical systems. In fact, they're rather notorious for it. Pratchett et al. had a very good metaphor that they presented in Science of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch, which is that mathematicians have a tendency to build the ground and upper floors of a house and only then do they pour the intellectual foundations. A key aspect of new areas of mathematical inquiry is not whether or not it can be justified theoretically, but whether it yields interesting insights or applications. Look at the historical relationship between Cantor, Russell, and Godel for a good example of building the foundations last. But no one in their right mind woulc consider what Russell did to be "meta-logic" as opposed to "logic."

Folks, has Dr K erred again? You tell me...
What you are calling "logical thinking" is called deductive logic and requires an approach to truth called "foundationalism", which depends on asserting some sort of first foundation (usually materialism) upon which everything else is built. What you are calling "meta-logical thinking" is an example of inductive logic and is "anti-foundationalist" or "coherentist".

The main thing you appear to be defending is inductive coherentism against deductive foundationalism.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-coherence/

drkitten

24th July 2006, 08:15 AM

What you are calling "logical thinking" is called deductive logic and requires an approach to truth called "foundationalism", which depends on asserting some sort of first foundation (usually materialism) upon which everything else is built.

No, what he's describing is called "axiomatic logic" -- deductive logic dates back to Aristotle and requires no "first foundation" (or materialism) at all.

drkitten

24th July 2006, 08:22 AM

Folks, has Dr K erred again? You tell me...

No. JustGeoff has something of history on these forums for his glib ignorance of philosophical terms. Check out the definitions and history of "deductive" and "inductive" logic and you'll see that he got the labels wrong. Specifically, "foundationalism" dates back only to the late 19th and early 20th centuries with the exploration of paradoxes by Russell, Frege, Cantor, and so forth. If that is supposed to be the origin of "deductive logic," then why do I have textbooks dating from the 18th century on the subject?

But none of this is actually suggestive of an error on my part. I pointed out that mathematicians are well-aware of these "free-standing" system; JustGeoff actually reinforces this by pointing out that it's well-enough established (within logic) to have a name -- "coherentism." (And that label he got right.) But "coherentism" is still logic, not "meta-logic" or whatever your nonsense phrase du jour is.

BeholdTheTruth

24th July 2006, 08:29 AM

No, what he's describing is called "axiomatic logic" -- deductive logic dates back to Aristotle and requires no "first foundation" (or materialism) at all.

Perhaps you and JustGeoff should start a thread about this? BTW, I'm inclined to agree with you.

Jimbo07

24th July 2006, 08:35 AM

"3" + "5" = 10, when "3" is 4 and "5" is 6.

or

2 + purple = up, when "2" is 3, "purple" is 4 and "up" is 7.

I'm still not sure I understand "meta-logical thinking." Is it the way you and I have created examples, that is, completely imaginary?

Can you give a formal example? Can you also give a real-world example? We engineers aren't as bright as scientists and philosophers... we need examples. :confused:

drkitten

24th July 2006, 09:05 AM

Perhaps you and JustGeoff should start a thread about this?

You brought it up. You were the one who leapt on Geoff's statement as though they somehow supported your drivel.

Once again, we see the consequences of your insistence on boarding a bus without checking whether not not it's going to your intended destination?

drkitten

24th July 2006, 09:14 AM

Can you give a formal example? Can you also give a real-world example?

He's looking for support for a silly "chronoastrobiology" theory of his that is philosophically unsupportable, indistinguishable from astrology, and not very well written.

Part of the problem with his theory is that the theoretical "foundations" on which it rests have been shown to be philosophically, culturally, biologically, and historically inaccurate. Under a "foundationist" view of logic, this basically damns it -- there's no way to build a useful theory on false, inconsistent, and incoherent premises. (See several other threads for detailed examination of his claims.)

Under a "coherentist" view of philosophy, you can build a system on any sort of premises you like and justify the premises after the fact by the useful or interesting results that you get (this is also the historical approach taken to set theory taken by Cantor, Frege, Russell, &c). So if he could get the readership of the JREF to agree beforehand that "coherentism" is an equally acceptable philosophical framework, he could avoid all that nasty inspection of the premises of his theory. Instead we would focus on the imaginative and interesting results that he gets from it.

Unfortunately, this approach doesn't work either, mainly because he has no "imaginative and interesting results" -- or indeed, results at all -- from his theories. No more so does he have any promising lines of inquiry to suggest that such results might be forthcoming. (See several other other threads for detailed examination.) So he's basically hosed. Hence his reliance on ad hominems and his insistance to leap upon anything that might suggest an "error" in other people's postings.

As an old lawyer's adage has it : If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If both the facts and the law are against you, abuse the opponent's attorney.

Jimbo07

24th July 2006, 10:34 AM

I think you may find an interesting way of generically representing that not always simultaneously backing away from the beginning of a proof, x, and coming towards/to its conclusion, y, if you consider the proof's beginning to be at 1x, Oy and the proof's conclusion to be at Ox, 1y.

I don't even know what this means.

You've described two piecewise-continuous step functions with inverted values:

1 ----------------------*****************

0 *****************----------------------

------------------------------------------------> t
Birth...........................Marriage.......... ..........Death do you part

Married = { 0 if t < M, and 1 if t >= M
Not Married = { 1 if t < M, and 0 if t >=M

How does describing these functions constitute a proof of anything? :confused:

Under a "foundationist" view of logic, this basically damns it -- there's no way to build a useful theory on false, inconsistent, and incoherent premises.

Under a "coherentist" view of philosophy, you can build a system on any sort of premises you like and justify the premises after the fact by the useful or interesting results that you get

I'm starting to see what the geodesic dome analogy is like:

i) If (X AND Y) Then Z
ii) Z
iii) Therefore: X AND Y

under a 'foundationist' view, X and Y are previously accepted, or internally consistent (or valid under some other examination) premises. Then, under a 'coherentist' view, can X and Y be arbitrary? That is, nobody would re-examine X and Y, unless Z was shown?

If the validity of the premises (which have not been previously validated) are contingent on a demonstration of the conclusion, how is logic violated? Doesn't logic just formalize a path from premises to conclusions, without itself commenting on the truth of the premises?

Under the geodesic dome analogy, both X AND Y would have to be valid for Z. If Z (the last link, or whatever) is shown then it's a step toward validating X AND Y, the dome would fall without either. However, as happens in science, what if the support of Z is really A AND B OR NOT C, and X AND Y only looks like these?

Anyway, I'm being redundant and belabouring the point redundantly like I've done over and over...

:D

hammegk

24th July 2006, 11:06 AM

JustGeoff has something of history on these forums for his glib ignorance of philosophical terms.
And drkitten is a legend in her own mind. :)

Check out the definitions and history of "deductive" and "inductive" logic and you'll see that he got the labels wrong.
Yup, semantic nit-picking is a specialty of many here, and I agree you're good at it.

If you aver you have a PhD in philosophy, or even a Masters, I suggest you ask for your money back. Schools can pour the knowledge in so you can regurgitate and pass exams, but they can't integrate it into a coherent worldview for you.

As to Yalel, did he leave last time on his own, or was he banned? I don't find him in the member list.

BeholdTheTruth

24th July 2006, 11:18 AM

He's looking for support for a silly "chronoastrobiology" theory of his that is philosophically unsupportable, indistinguishable from astrology,

Mine is not a theory, it is a supposition, the supposition that the passage of day and the passage of night might effect our minds and our bodies, and that modern modes of displaying time may be disrupting the operation of our minds and bodies, and that if we were more informed of the passage of day and night in ways not used by conventional clocks and watches, our minds and bodies might operate better than they otherwise now do in today's corporatized cultures and environments. The fact that you keep insisting upon referencing my "theory" is evidence of your compulsive obsession with me and my supposition.

and not very well written.

Admittedly, I do not write well. But at least I do not try to inundate people with torrents of scholarly words and academic references intended to bully people into giving in to ideas of yours no less biased than mine. At least I was able to provide this forum with Dr. John's comments about your quite scholarly adhominem comments about him and the ideas contained in his book as evidence of your own more and more overt inadequacies.

Part of the problem with his theory is that the theoretical "foundations" on which it rests have been shown to be philosophically, culturally, biologically, and historically inaccurate.

There you go (and come) again, saying that I am espousing a theory, when in reality I am merely voicing a speculation.

Under a "foundationist" view of logic, this basically damns it -- there's no way to build a useful theory on false, inconsistent, and incoherent premises. (See several other threads for detailed examination of his claims.)

Under a "coherentist" view of philosophy, you can build a system on any sort of premises you like and justify the premises after the fact by the useful or interesting results that you get (this is also the historical approach taken to set theory taken by Cantor, Frege, Russell, &c). So if he could get the readership of the JREF to agree beforehand that "coherentism" is an equally acceptable philosophical framework, he could avoid all that nasty inspection of the premises of his theory. Instead we would focus on the imaginative and interesting results that he gets from it.

Unfortunately, this approach doesn't work either, mainly because he has no "imaginative and interesting results" -- or indeed, results at all -- from his theories.

There you go (and come) again. I am not espousing a theory, I am voicing a speculation.

No more so does he have any promising lines of inquiry to suggest that such results might be forthcoming. (See several other other threads for detailed examination.) So he's basically hosed. Hence his reliance on ad hominems and his insistance to leap upon anything that might suggest an "error" in other people's postings.

As an old lawyer's adage has it : If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If both the facts and the law are against you, abuse the opponent's attorney.

If one looks at the theads we have engaged in, one will find that ad hominems began with you, and you have hurled far more of them at me than vice versa. I may be as crazy as a coot, but you are a bully, and obviously at least to me an obsessive compulsive one incapable of, for example, admitting here that you have ever made a mistake in thinking. E.g., whynot admit here in this thread that chronoastrobiology is as different as astrology as "going away from x" is to "coming towards y"? Because they are.

BeholdTheTruth

24th July 2006, 11:28 AM

I don't even know what this means.

You've described two piecewise-continuous step functions with inverted values:

1 ----------------------*****************

0 *****************----------------------

------------------------------------------------> t
Birth...........................Marriage.......... ..........Death do you part

Married = { 0 if t < M, and 1 if t >= M
Not Married = { 1 if t < M, and 0 if t >=M

How does describing these functions constitute a proof of anything? :confused:

I'm starting to see what the geodesic dome analogy is like:

i) If (X AND Y) Then Z
ii) Z
iii) Therefore: X AND Y

under a 'foundationist' view, X and Y are previously accepted, or internally consistent (or valid under some other examination) premises. Then, under a 'coherentist' view, can X and Y be arbitrary? That is, nobody would re-examine X and Y, unless Z was shown?

If the validity of the premises (which have not been previously validated) are contingent on a demonstration of the conclusion, how is logic violated? Doesn't logic just formalize a path from premises to conclusions, without itself commenting on the truth of the premises?

Under the geodesic dome analogy, both X AND Y would have to be valid for Z. If Z (the last link, or whatever) is shown then it's a step toward validating X AND Y, the dome would fall without either. However, as happens in science, what if the support of Z is really A AND B OR NOT C, and X AND Y only looks like these?

Anyway, I'm being redundant and belabouring the point redundantly like I've done over and over...

:D

I'll have to ponder your comments for a while as best I can before hazarding any specific comments. But at first glance, I greatly thank you in general for what at least to me seems a very well thought-out analysis.

BTW, before posting this, I read your post again several more times. I think it outstanding in its simple elegance of thought and articulation. I sure hope that you are a teacher, and if so not working at the behest of someone like Dr. K.

BeholdTheTruth

24th July 2006, 11:30 AM

And drkitten is a legend in her own mind. :)

Yup, semantic nit-picking is a specialty of many here, and I agree you're good at it.

If you aver you have a PhD in philosophy, or even a Masters, I suggest you ask for your money back. Schools can pour the knowledge in so you can regurgitate and pass exams, but they can't integrate it into a coherent worldview for you.

As to Yalel, did he leave last time on his own, or was he banned? I don't find him in the member list.

Hi hammegk. :-)

Jimbo07

24th July 2006, 11:35 AM

Mine is not a theory, it is a supposition, the supposition that the passage of day and the passage of night might effect our minds and our bodies, and that modern modes of displaying time may be disrupting the operation of our minds and bodies, and that if we were more informed of the passage of day and night in ways not used by conventional clocks and watches, our minds and bodies might operate better than they otherwise now do in today's corporatized cultures and environments.

I agree with your supposition. I'd think that modern standards of time (in an age of atomic clocks and digital watches) would play with our evolved bodies. A crude example would involve quick flights between multiple time zones. Astronauts have to live by an artifical construction of time, because sunrise/set happens every 90 minutes in their world.

This seems evident without invoking "meta-logical thinking." Are there further implications from other threads?

Admittedly, I do not write well. But at least I do not try to inundate people with torrents of scholarly words

Wouldn't inventing a definition like "meta-logical thinking" be similar?

and academic references intended to bully people into giving in to ideas of yours no less biased than mine. At least I was able to provide this forum with Dr. John's comments about your quite scholarly adhominem comments about him and the ideas contained in his book as evidence of your own more and more overt inadequacies.

Aren't we sidelined if Dr. John and drkitten (or anyone) have personal disagreements? Are you trying to show that drkitten is a bully (probably), wrong (probably not), or both (as all humans have been)?

I may be as crazy as a coot, but you are a bully, and obviously at least to me an obsessive compulsive one incapable of, for example, admitting here that you have ever made a mistake in thinking. E.g., whynot admit here in this thread that chronoastrobiology is as different as astrology as "going away from x" is to "coming towards y"? Because they are.

drkitten may be a bully, but why admit to a mistake in thinking if there isn't one? Chronoastrobiology may indeed be different than astrology. However, as per my functions above, "going away from x" is no different than "going toward y," especially in the case of step functions. You can get the same information from each. Your example proves nothing new.

Now, if you'd successfully shown:

Married = { 0 if t < M, and 1 if t >= M
Not Married = { t2 for all t

You'd really have something!

Wavicle

24th July 2006, 12:09 PM

If you ever do have the time, I hope you enjoy how the java program found at the bottom of http://Synclecron.com/About.htm facilitates mentally playing around all the various values of tuple "stepping stones", the possible steps along the path from point of initiation x to point of destination y in what is a very abstract journey from x to y. Alas, so abstract that most people here and elsewhere are unable to "grasp" it, let alone "wrestle' with it the way Jacob wrestled with his image of God -- and only got to see the real God "face-to-Face" when Jacob prevailed.

For those without the time or inclination to look at this "miraculous" software, here's my 10 word summary:

Prints mouse coordinates in first quadrant of left-handed cartesian plane.

That's pretty much it.

Wavicle

24th July 2006, 12:19 PM

drkitten may be a bully, but why admit to a mistake in thinking if there isn't one? Chronoastrobiology may indeed be different than astrology. However, as per my functions above, "going away from x" is no different than "going toward y," especially in the case of step functions. You can get the same information from each. Your example proves nothing new.

I tried to explain this to him earlier, but he led me to his java app thing. I pointed out that his program allowed for 1x1y and 0x0y. Thus according to this great mind game he has created you can toy with ideas of being simultaneous married and single, or not married and not single. Hardly interesting.

I thought he got over his manic ranting on this issue when I pointed that out. Guess I was wrong.

BeholdTheTruth

24th July 2006, 12:24 PM

I agree with your supposition. I'd think that modern standards of time (in an age of atomic clocks and digital watches) would play with our evolved bodies. A crude example would involve quick flights between multiple time zones. Astronauts have to live by an artifical construction of time, because sunrise/set happens every 90 minutes in their world.

This seems evident without invoking "meta-logical thinking." Are there further implications from other threads?

Wouldn't inventing a definition like "meta-logical thinking" be similar?

Aren't we sidelined if Dr. John and drkitten (or anyone) have personal disagreements? Are you trying to show that drkitten is a bully (probably), wrong (probably not), or both (as all humans have been)?

drkitten may be a bully, but why admit to a mistake in thinking if there isn't one? Chronoastrobiology may indeed be different than astrology. However, as per my functions above, "going away from x" is no different than "going toward y," especially in the case of step functions. You can get the same information from each. Your example proves nothing new.

Now, if you'd successfully shown:

Married = { 0 if t < M, and 1 if t >= M
Not Married = { t2 for all t

You'd really have something!

I am glad that you agree with the possibility of my speculation having some merit. It is amazing to me how so few people here see this speculation my way or yours. Especially considering the brain-power and high levels of education on this forum. It is almost as if the combination of brains, education and skepticism locks most people here and elsewhere into one frozen in orientation school of thought.

Second, please notice that I did not say, "going away from x" and "going toward y". I said "going away from x" and "coming toward y". A very big difference although it seems like merely a little semantic one.

Because the operation "going away from" is quite different, and, indeed, in a way, is "orthogonal" to, the idea of "coming towards". This is because the former operation "going away from" is the epitome of non-direction, whereas, the latter operation "coming towards" is the epitome of directionality.

I am much inclined to believe that this simple distinction beween "going away from x" and "coming towards y" in any change from x to y/exchange of x for y is very fundamental to many areas of mathematics and science and much else in life. But that is only another one of my "odd duck" speculations. :-) If you would like to know more about this, please emessage me so we have no distractions.

drkitten

24th July 2006, 12:39 PM

Because the operation "going away from" is quite different, and, indeed, in a way, is "orthogonal" to, the idea of "coming towards".

Oooh, goody. Another word that Yale doesn't understand. "Orthogonal.'

I now expect a lengthy screed from him about exactly what "orthogonal" means, coupled with a length quotation from a source he found on the web that bears no connection to what his understaning of "orthogonal" is.

UndercoverElephant

24th July 2006, 12:45 PM

No. JustGeoff has something of history on these forums for his glib ignorance of philosophical terms. Check out the definitions and history of "deductive" and "inductive" logic and you'll see that he got the labels wrong.

Err....I don't think so.

The important point being made was about anti-foundationalism and coherentism anyway.

drkitten

24th July 2006, 01:07 PM

Err....I don't think so.

Then what was the difference that Aristotle defined between Prior and Posterior Analytics? Modern scholars (see here (http://www.friesian.com/arch.htm)) gloss this as the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning, as a simple quote from Posterior (http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/a8poa/anal1.html) will evidence:

We must not fail to observe that we often fall into error because our conclusion is not in fact primary and commensurately universal in the sense in which we think we prove it so. We make this mistake (1) when the subject is an individual or individuals above which there is no universal to be found: (2) when the subjects belong to different species and there is a higher universal, but it has no name: (3) when the subject which the demonstrator takes as a whole is really only a part of a larger whole; for then the demonstration will be true of the individual instances within the part and will hold in every instance of it, yet the demonstration will not be true of this subject primarily and commensurately and universally. When a demonstration is true of a subject primarily and commensurately and universally, that is to be taken to mean that it is true of a given subject primarily and as such.

More specifically, the term "inductive logic" and "induction" in general is usually associated with John Stuart Mill and the mid 1800s (A System of Logic is his best-known work on the logic and includes a discussion of this, in the shadow of Hume's famous treatment of the problem in the mid-1700s). GIven that "coherentism" and "foundationalism" are 20th century concepts (one of the "founding fathers," for example, being Bernard Bosanquet), the idea that 20th-century "coherentism" is somehow synonymous with pre-Christian or 17th-century "inductive reasoning" as you suggest is wildly and irresponsibly misinformed.

UndercoverElephant

24th July 2006, 01:29 PM

Then what was the difference that Aristotle defined between Prior and Posterior Analytics? Modern scholars (see here (http://www.friesian.com/arch.htm)) gloss this as the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning, as a simple quote from Posterior (http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/a8poa/anal1.html) will evidence:

More specifically, the term "inductive logic" and "induction" in general is usually associated with John Stuart Mill and the mid 1800s (A System of Logic is his best-known work on the logic and includes a discussion of this, in the shadow of Hume's famous treatment of the problem in the mid-1700s). GIven that "coherentism" and "foundationalism" are 20th century concepts (one of the "founding fathers," for example, being Bernard Bosanquet), the idea that 20th-century "coherentism" is somehow synonymous with pre-Christian or 17th-century "inductive reasoning" as you suggest is wildly and irresponsibly misinformed.

Err, so you missed the second sentence of my second post I suppose? :)

As for your analysis of the inductive/deductive split, I've no idea why you are talking about "17th century inductive reasoning". Inductive reasoning is alive and well in the 21st century and it depends on trying to amass supporting data for a particular conclusion rather than following a rigid deductive line of reasoning. So I think you may have misunderstood what I was talking about. Also, you misquoted me. I did not say that coherentism was synonymous with inductive reasoning.

By the way, if the next post is also aggressive, and full of misquotations, ad hominems and unwarranted assumptions I'm just going to put you back on ignore.

BeholdTheTruth

24th July 2006, 02:17 PM

Oooh, goody. Another word that Yale doesn't understand. "Orthogonal.'

I now expect a lengthy screed from him about exactly what "orthogonal" means, coupled with a length quotation from a source he found on the web that bears no connection to what his understaning of "orthogonal" is.

First Dr. K continues to see chronoastrobiology as astrology. Then she continues to see classical mechanics as not, in some perfectly legitimate way, the origin of both QM and relativity. Now she is incapable of seeing that the operation "going away from" is in any way, shape or form, "orthogonal" to the operation "coming towards" -- btw, folks, note that there are quotes around my use of the word "orthogonal".

Jimbo07

24th July 2006, 02:39 PM

Second, please notice that I did not say, "going away from x" and "going toward y". I said "going away from x" and "coming toward y". A very big difference although it seems like merely a little semantic one.

Because the operation "going away from" is quite different, and, indeed, in a way, is "orthogonal" to, the idea of "coming towards". This is because the former operation "going away from" is the epitome of non-direction, whereas, the latter operation "coming towards" is the epitome of directionality.

It must be a linguistic distinction, because 'going away from' is not orthogonal to 'coming towards.' Choosing A and B for x and y (because we won't get confused if we need to talk about the x axis later) and going 'from' A and coming 'toward' B, from the point of view of A, the divergence of the vector field is always 1. From the point of view of B, the divergence is always - 1. It is the same vector field (If you don't know divergence, we can sidebar later).

I'd frame it this way, linguistically. You claim chronoastrobiology is one thing, while drkitten says that astrology is that thing. Two points of view looking at the same thing. Now, everyone can tell me that this is straining to make an analogy between math and a semantic statement. I'd agree... and that's the caution I give you:

If you don't have all your ducks in a row, don't start invoking terms like: orthogonal, beginning at 1x, directionality, etc. Some of them have particular uses in math. You are going to get (I have been) pounded by people who know better. If you're lucky, they'll try to lead you by the hand, rather than hammering on you.

If you would like to know more about this, please emessage me so we have no distractions.

For the time being, I wouldn't mind keeping our discussion public if for no other reason than that I may need to be corrected at times and would not like to mislead you.

ETA: it looks like there's a fair history between you and drkitten. I haven't properly followed your other threads. You piqued my interest with 'meta-logical thinking,' which for me dredged up an unpleasant memory of a person making a relatively unclever attempt to beat me down with 'informal logic.'

drkitten

24th July 2006, 02:49 PM

It must be a linguistic distinction, because 'going away from' is not orthogonal to 'coming towards.' Choosing A and B for x and y (because we won't get confused if we need to talk about the x axis later) and going 'from' A and coming 'toward' B, from the point of view of A, the divergence of the vector field is always 1. From the point of view of B, the divergence is always - 1. It is the same vector field (If you don't know divergence, we can sidebar later).

I'd frame it this way, linguistically. You claim chronoastrobiology is one thing, while drkitten says that astrology is that thing. Two points of view looking at the same thing. Now, everyone can tell me that this is straining to make an analogy between math and a semantic statement. I'd agree... and that's the caution I give you:

If you don't have all your ducks in a row, don't start invoking terms like: orthogonal, beginning at 1x, directionality, etc. Some of them have particular uses in math. You are going to get (I have been) pounded by people who know better. If you're lucky, they'll try to lead you by the hand, rather than hammering on you.

Tried that. It didn't work. Stupidity I can treat, but willful ignorance and deliberate misunderstanding is chronic, and mostly terminal.

The basic problem is that if you strip the semantic misunderstandings away and try to phrase Jackal's ideas in more normal terminology, you get --- nothing. A few truisms, and a lot of empty phrases with no semantics whatsoever. His fundamental misunderstandings are largely camoflaged by superficial misunderstandings. And so every time Jackal is shown to be relying on idiosyncratic personal meanings and theories from well-established disciplines, he has to change disciplines, because someone who understands what he's saying quickly realizes that it's just truism, error, and gibberish. His only hope is to find someone who does not understand the meanings of words like "orthogonal."

You'll notice that he's unable to actually phrase his claim in any terms other than the analogical. That's because there is no independently expressible content -- and if he tried to present it in straightforward terms, free from the concealing draperies of half-understood science, the truism, error, and gibberish would be all too apparent.

Of course, he could easily prove me wrong by providing precisely that -- a description of his theories and speculations in its own terms, or in terms of definitions that he himself provides and supports. But my expectation is precisely that he cannot provide that.

It's not that he doesn't have all his ducks in a row. I thought that, too -- three sock puppets ago. It's become clear to me that the misunderstanding isn't simply nonlinear ducks, but a total absence of any sort of aquatic birds.

BeholdTheTruth

24th July 2006, 06:14 PM

It must be a linguistic distinction, because 'going away from' is not orthogonal to 'coming towards.' Choosing A and B for x and y (because we won't get confused if we need to talk about the x axis later) and going 'from' A and coming 'toward' B, from the point of view of A, the divergence of the vector field is always 1. From the point of view of B, the divergence is always - 1. It is the same vector field (If you don't know divergence, we can sidebar later).

I'd frame it this way, linguistically. You claim chronoastrobiology is one thing, while drkitten says that astrology is that thing. Two points of view looking at the same thing. Now, everyone can tell me that this is straining to make an analogy between math and a semantic statement. I'd agree... and that's the caution I give you:

If you don't have all your ducks in a row, don't start invoking terms like: orthogonal, beginning at 1x, directionality, etc. Some of them have particular uses in math. You are going to get (I have been) pounded by people who know better. If you're lucky, they'll try to lead you by the hand, rather than hammering on you.

For the time being, I wouldn't mind keeping our discussion public if for no other reason than that I may need to be corrected at times and would not like to mislead you.

ETA: it looks like there's a fair history between you and drkitten. I haven't properly followed your other threads. You piqued my interest with 'meta-logical thinking,' which for me dredged up an unpleasant memory of a person making a relatively unclever attempt to beat me down with 'informal logic.'

Here is the loosely speaking sense of what I mean by "orthogonal" and also a bit later loosely speaking what I will mean by "complementary"....

Let's say that you are moving due east in a speed boat. And let's say that you have a goal of wholly going away from moving due east. And let's say you also have a complementary intention of totally moving in a due north direction.

I submit to you that you are, initially, totally moving in a due east direction that is "orthogonal" to totally moving in a due north direction (which you hope to eventually be moving in.)

Now then let's abstract the above by saying that you are initially 1x (totally moving in an x direction) And that you are intending to be 1y, i.e, totally moving in a y direction, where y is "orthogonal" to x. For example, where moving in a due east direction is "orthogonal" to moving in a due north direction.

Am I making myself clear to anyone other than Dr. K and Mojo, both of whom could not possibly be comprehending even this!