To all
No, and if we are ever able to speak of "design logic" (human
reasoning), we must dispense with a mechanical universe, and embrace the
uncertainty of the "real" world, i.e., quantum mechanics.
We have been arguing FROM first principles for a very long time, and
every so often the sciences (that discipline we have been following
slavishly) shift the goal posts ... a matter of, oops, we were wrong,
but this time we have access to the truth.
The fault does not entirely lie with the sciences, but with the
humanities, who culturally insist on an absolute and certain world, and
do so for one reason only: the control of power.
I hold no brief for this argument, on the contrary - the only argument
that is humanly defensible is the argument TO first principles - the
only logic to be found in any context is the logic that can be justified
by the living (autopoietic) situation ... as the tenets of
sustainability would have it, first, do no harm.
Johann
Johann van der Merwe
HOD: Research, History & Theory of Design
Faculty of Informatics and Design
Cape Peninsula University of Technology
South Africa
>>> "Filippo A. Salustri" <[log in to unmask]> 06/20/11 1:35 PM >>>
Sorry, but from what I recall, all forms of logic, including epistemic
logics, logics of knowledge, etc, depend foundationally on 1st order
pred logic in terms of soundness, etc.
Is that not the case?
Cheers.
Fil
On 20 June 2011 02:00, Don Norman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Terry
>
> You want us to reason using Predicate first-order logic? How quaint.
How
> very 19th century. And early 20th.
>
> I refuse to be bound by an arbitrary mathematics that was invented and
> codified but that does not reflect reality. Modern logicians are aware
of
> this, hence the invention of all sorts of new logics, such as
> non-monotonic logics.
>
> Logic covers deductive reasoning. But science advances by induction
and
> abduction. Good luck with that. new facts sometimes contradict old
ones
> (hence the requirement for non-monotonicity). You are preaching a
very old
> fashioned view of science.
>
> I, as a card carrying cognitive scientist, firmly believe that logic
is a
> form of mathematics, not to be confused with human reasoning. Modern
> logicians agree: see
>
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology/
>
> And if you really want to see a fascinating, and very influential
recent
> argument about rational argument and human thought, see the recent
treatment
> in the Brain and Behavioral Sceinces.
>
> Mercier, Hugo and Sperber, Dan, Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an
> Argumentative Theory (June 26, 2010). Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol.
> 34, No. 2, pp. 57-74, 2011. Available at SSRN:
> http://ssrn.com/abstract=1698090
>
>
> Here is the New York Times readable coverage
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html
>
> And here is the official publication. Probably available for free via
your
> university library.
>
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1698090
>
> Don
>
--
\V/_
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer
This e-mail transmission contains confidential information,
which is the property of the sender.
The information in this e-mail or attachments thereto is
intended for the attention and use only of the addressee.
Should you have received this e-mail in error, please delete
and destroy it and any attachments thereto immediately.
Under no circumstances will the Cape Peninsula University of
Technology or the sender of this e-mail be liable to any party for
any direct, indirect, special or other consequential damages for any
use of this e-mail.
For the detailed e-mail disclaimer please refer to
http://www.cput.ac.za/email.php or call +27 (0)21 460 3911
|