Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
Again, you must have slept through your logic course. The truth or falsity of your premises has nothing to do with the validity of your argument -- the website you quoted me says just the same thing[1]. You clearly just don't understand what I'm saying about H2O and water -- it's definitely controversial whether or not water is defined as H2O, or, if not, why has there been so much ink spilled over Twin Earth.
|
Twin Earth is a hypothetical situation where the definitions
are different.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
It's just a misuse of logic of the grossest sort to say "Even if it's logically impossible it might be possible, b/c you might be wrong about it's being logically impossible." Of course. But in that case, it's not logically impossible.
|
I wasn't saying that the logical conclusion reached using your assumptions was logically flawed, but that it does not necessarily tally with real life.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
Second, proving something to be logically impossible doesn't require premises. '4 = 5' is logically impossible. I can prove it just using definitions of 4 and 5, and I doubt I'm mistaken about what 4 and 5 mean.
|
"These are called premises, and are the assumptions the argument is built on;"
The fact that 4 and 5 are the numbers you think they are, are your assumptions and your premises. If I assume that 4 is actually what we call 5, then your logical argument would be true. Making a statement and then just claiming it to be true based on nothing is working against logic itself.
willravel, I will not be taking any shit from someone who lists "Intelectual Conversation" (sic) as one of his hobbies.