[FRIAM] AI and argument
Frank Wimberly
wimberly3 at gmail.com
Tue Oct 3 23:07:06 EDT 2017
>But to the extent that we were talking about logic, is not logic the
formalization of good thought?
Not necessarily. For instance: "If A then B implies A" is logically valid
but most people would feel that it's stupid thinking. "Every statement
implies a true statement" is true if you look at the truth table but this
illustrates the difference between propositional calculus and natural
language. I suspect you mean sound reasoning by "good thought".
Is that responsive to your question?
Frank
Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918
On Oct 3, 2017 8:52 PM, "Nick Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Well, as a Peircean, I am certainly NOT allowed to believe that all valid
> logic is deductive, so Got Me There!
>
> But to the extent that we were talking about logic, is not logic the
> formalization of good thought? So, then, it behooves one who would claim
> that an argument is logic to formalize it. So, in which logical world (if
> not deductive logic) does the statement that Einstein is usually right lead
> directly, without an intervening premise, to the conclusion that I should
> provisionally believe him. I think the argument IS deductive (in this
> case) and that the suppressed premise is that I should treat all people who
> are usually right provisionally as authorities. (i.e., as people to be
> believed until contrary evidence teaches us otherwise. )
>
> n
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 6:30 PM
> To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] AI and argument
>
> 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
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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/20171003/46a9e3ee/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list