<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.quotation, li.quotation, div.quotation
{mso-style-name:quotation;
mso-style-link:"quotation Char";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
font-weight:bold;
font-style:italic;}
span.quotationChar
{mso-style-name:"quotation Char";
mso-style-link:quotation;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
font-weight:bold;
font-style:italic;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=quotation>"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."<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Oh, surely this is a more heterodox definition than the one I offered. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Glen, I have to say this: You are <b><i>at least</i></b> as arrogant as I am, <b><i>and I love you for it</i></b><i>. <o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoPlainText><i><o:p> </o:p></i></p><p class=MsoPlainText>So there, <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Nick <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ???<br>Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 1:26 PM<br>To: friam@redfish.com<br>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] it's world logic day!</p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>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."<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>On 1/14/21 10:43 AM, <a href="mailto:thompnickson2@gmail.com"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>thompnickson2@gmail.com</span></a> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> 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?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>--<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>↙↙↙ uǝlƃ<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>archives: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</span></a> <o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>