[FRIAM] AI and argument
Frank Wimberly
wimberly3 at gmail.com
Tue Oct 3 22:21:32 EDT 2017
A useful distinction? When I was working in the philosophy Dept at CMU my
boss was a logician. I asked him if he had heard the story that Bertrand
Russell had fallen off his bike on the Cambridge campus when he realized
that Anselm's proof of the existence of God was valid (argument from
authority). He looked puzzled but then said, "Ah, valid but not sound".
Frank
Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918
On Oct 3, 2017 6:30 PM, "gⅼеɳ ☣" <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hm. My example is simply an argument that I do NOT think succumbs to that
> fallacy. Einstein is a reliable, but not completely unchallengeable,
> authority. And if he is challenged, we can dig into the theory to find our
> own reasoning.
>
> I'm curious if you believe all argument/reasoning can be *accurately*
> formalized? Worse yet, do you believe that all argument can be reduced to
> deduction?
>
>
> On 10/03/2017 05:13 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > Aren't you missing a premise, if you are seeking a valid deductive
> argument?
> >
> > What connects Albert's thought with your conclusion?
>
> --
> ☣ gⅼеɳ
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20171003/de91051c/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list