Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Racoon
I think you made a good point on values. But you need to define those values a little more clearly.
What if I said something like "Trees are Big" ?
|
I usually think of the "value" as "usefullnes". Like infomation, that can be used to predict the future, is pretty usefull.
"Trees are Big" would be a logical stamenet to you, if you had only ever seen big trees.
If I had seen "small" trees then i would say...that it is a false statement.
I could never convince you bye arguing, unless you agree to a premise(s) that can be used to logical show it to be false.
Like this:
premise 1: "A tree can be big"
premise 2: "A tree can be smal"
we could then compare the statments and conclude that the statment "Trees are Big" is false
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Racoon
as for Logical arguement, it needs a structure.
premise &
conclusion
|
This is included in my definition.
You argree to a "max (or minimum) value statement" (premise) and you use comparativ logic to get "logical statement" (conclusion)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tormod
If I say "vacuum is the absence of matter" then what sort of understanding have I provided?
|
A definition is a true statement
If I agree that your statement is a definition. then i get the understanding that is your statement. The knowledge.
The closer a definition is to being true the better the understanding is.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tormod
I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that if we agree upon the limits of logic, we will know what is true and what is false?
Or are you saying that we can reach a concensus?
|
If i understand you correctly...concensus
"consensus" is the same as "agreement"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Racoon
Now, why would a consensus be interesting?
|
Usually people doesn't do stuff unless it agrees with em.
