[FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world

[thompnickson2 at gmail.com]

So, except with respect to my longing for convergence, we agree.  See larding below :

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 1:21 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world

But you said "we may hope to discover and agree upon fundamental principles underlying all logics". I was simply checking that and saying I neither hope for that, nor believe it possible.[NST===>I both hope for it and believe it is ultimately possible.  Most of all, I believe that that faith is essential inquiry.  This is here e disagree? <===nst]   

And the important part of what I expressed was that logic does NOT depend on what we're talking about. It is referent-independent. No semiotic object is necessary. Only the sign and the interpretant are necessary. The object ... the "checkin with the world" is necessary for reason, but not logic. And reason relies on logic, but is not limited to it.
[NST===>Oh, gosh, I guess we do disagree here, too.  But I think you disagree with yourself.  If all logics are relative as applied, what could they possibly be relative TO other than content?? <===nst]

And a third point is that it is NOT subject to any kind of in the long run convergence. Logics are games. They are set up and played and none of them will ever go away. You or I may get bored of one or the other. But they'll all still have their place.
[NST===>And what exactly is their place?<===nst] 

Did you answer my question about birth order? I am preparing an ad hominem argument I and I need some data.  

[NST===>Nick<===nst] 

On 12/1/20 11:08 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> But Glen, I am an anti-foundationalist, too.  I never asserted that 
> logic was the foundation of anything.  It is subject to the same pragmaticist [/sensu Peirceae/] evaluations that are the fate of any conception.  It, like everything else, is the result of accumulations of pattern in experience.  It is a midden, not a foundation.



> On 12/1/20 9:15 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
>> I stipulate that there are many logics.  Certainly as many logics as there are maths.  So, what is true of all “logics”?   A logic is a proposed set of principles of right thinking. Thinking is “right” when it leads to expectations that prove out in the long run.  What thinking is “right” depends on what one  is thinking about.  Some logic’s are more basic, more universal than others.  In the very long run, we may hope to discover and agree upon fundamental principles underlying all logics, a logic of logics, if you ill. But for the foreseeable future what argument is logical will depend on what we are talking about.  

--
↙↙↙ 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/