[FRIAM] it's world logic day!

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

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, thompnickson2 at gmail.com 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