Russell's paradox and the liar’s paradox are the two that spring to mind. In fact, if I recall correctly, the table of contents in the link, I originally gave, mentioned a case study of the liar’s paradox
I don't know what you're on about. Where did I say you had been dishonest about it?
Since I never claimed you said any such thing, you evidently just don’t know “what you’re on about”.
Not really, no. You say it deals with some stuff but don't really make that demonstration.
Yes, really, yes, I previously wrote about its advantages and limitations, that you simply ignored it doesn’t alleviate that fact. As for demonstrations, you’ve been doing so well at demonstrating it, I figured, ‘why get it your way’.
Sorry, my mistake, what you claimed you ‘didn’t know what that means’ was just the one sentence you did quote from that section of my post.
You are confused. That I accept an answer as such doesn't mean I agree with it.
My answer to your question was “Yes”, thus you have accepted, in accepting that as “an answer as such”, the answer “Yes”. Yet, you assert you don’t agree with it. Thus you have not accepted it as “an answer as such” to your question.
Answer accepted and not accepted.
Much like your assertion of a follow up question that was just the same question, that I just put down to you misspeaking. It is one way weaker paraconsistent logics deal with contractions and inconsistent information, that they aren’t actually a contradiction just a miscommunication. Once the problems of normal language get straightened out the apparent contradiction goes away.
The contradiction of your answered unanswered question appears to be more deliberate, simply because you would like to move on. I don’t think you actually hold that as true either. That’s another way weaker paraconsistent logics deal with contractions and inconsistent information. Compartmentalization, you want to claim you’ve accepted the answer to try to get me to get you to, well, accept the answer or find some other way to dismiss it.
Agree or don’t, it makes no difference. Your agreement or lack thereof is neither a relevant factor to the philosophical approach that actually asks the question you cited nor was it a condition of your question itself.
I’ll leave it to you to quote mine the above and below for individual statements to remark to, as if nothing else was written, at your leisure.
That's a strange question as it seems completely unrelated to anything I've posted.
I sated the relation to your posts, again, in the part of my post that you only quoted a couple of sentences from. Given your apparent predilection to just quote and respond to a sentence or two, as if nothing else was written, not strange at all. You seem really bad at this quote mining stuff.
Hint: don’t ask questions about the parts you want to simply ignore.
I have no idea what that means.
Evidently, though you still do assert the meaning below.
It's patently true because there is no instance of an actual logical contradiction in reality. Philosophers can dream up anything they want but if has no bearing on reality then it's pointless except as a form of entertainment.
Exactly, “there is no instance of an actual logical contradiction in reality”. Therefore, the only way to talk about and question such things is within that realm of thinking that need not have any “bearing on reality”. What you have just ascribed philosophy to be. The question you asked can only be one of philosophy, by your very own assertions above.
Basically, it was just a poorly formed question in response to an equally poorly formed argument. That science must be philosophical because it uses logic. Again, while their original foundations were in philosophy, both have moved well and independently beyond that field.
Heck, if I was going to make such an argument, which I wouldn’t because I don’t agree with such an argument. I probably would have used Karl Popper’s philosophy of falsifiability to show, at least, some more current (1934) connection directly between philosophy and science.
No but it's the simplest and most fundamental one, and you've still not managed to demonstrate your claim about it.
Actually, all of them are equally simple and fundamental. I’d have done it differently as I’ll note below. Again, I’ll leave the demonstrations to you, you’re quite well at showing how contradictions generally get formed and often used, even if you may not hold that contradiction true yourself.
None of which have anything to do with philosophy.
Oh, I’m certain that the Professor of Philosophy Graham Priest and the philosopher, logician, and environmentalist Richard Routley, who both coined the term 'dialetheism', will be dissuaded from their careers by your opinion (though Routley died in 1996). The former, Priest, being the one that formalized that defining attribute of a dialetheistic approach, mentioned before and that you remark to.
For simplicity. And you can't claim that I haven't done that correctly. Imagine the chaos we'd be in if we tried to address several at once!
I certainly can claim exactly that. To better make my point I’ll give a couple of examples, from technology and cosmology. It’s a bit long so there is a TLDR statement at the end of this part.
TV, Philo Taylor Farnsworth designed what became the foundation of video imaging, both camera and display, through inspiration from his youth on a farm. Historically, TV owed a significant part of its functionality to, well, agriculture. A farmer plowing a field, that’s how the electron beam scanned across the phosphorus inner surface of the screen. Creating the image that was produced by the camera in much the same way. Sorry for the technical aspects of this next part, but it is relevant at the end. This was accomplished by two signals. A horizontal sync, that drove the beam across each row and a vertical sync, that drove the beam from one row to the next. Anyone around at those times will recall fiddling with the horizontal and vertical hold controls to get the image right. Basically syncing those signals to each other and to their association to image positioning on the screen, these sync signals were imbedded in the TV signal transmission at some offset from the central tuning frequency. Some 70 years later TV display and capture (CCD for capture) technology moved on, to digital. LCD and LED image elements (pixels) are switched on and off directly. You don’t have vertical and horizontal hold controls on a modern TV anymore. However, TV transmission for a time was still the same analog way, with the sync signals. They were converted to digital imaging data for the TV to display by the TV itself. These days both display and transmission are digital. No more sync signals of the type described. Though, I’m sure analog TVs (transmission and display) are still used in a lot of places. However, the leading edge of TV technology has moved well beyond that original agricultural underpinning of its operation.
The big bang, that the universe had a start has been a foundational claim of many religions since their start. The proposal of a big bounce conjecture (a big bounce has big bangs at the start of each bounce) was written about in a poem by Erasmus Darwin in 1791 and later by Edger Allen Poe in Eureka: A Prose Poem in 1848. While not scientific, Poe’s writing did have implications considered anticipatory of modern cosmology. It was also fundamentally and explicitly religious, in that “Divine Volition” is what overcame the Newtonian gravity (as the understanding was at the time) to force the primordial particle apart, spreading atoms throughout the universe. When Einstein developed his field equations and struggled to make them more static, simply asserting the cosmological constant, a Belgian Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, concluded, from the inherent lack of a static nature of the field equations themselves, that the universe started in a big bang. In fact, deriving what has become known as Hubble's law. This was purely a scientific assertion devoid of all religion. At that point, the start of the universe lost all specific religious implications. Though, some may still contend otherwise.
TLDR: Yes, stuff moves on, but if you are still adhering to those original tenets. They carry with them those origins and implications, agricultural, religious or philosophical, as the case may be. At least as foundations but not necessarily imbuing the whole of the field with those aspects. Particularly if you are addressing and questioning one of those original tenets directly, those aspects come into play.
One of the problems with your approach, besides those noted above, is that you are still holding to that original law, with its original philosophical implications. Unfortunately, the only approach that questions or tries to move beyond that law, that I have found, is also based directly on the philosophy of logic.
Frankly, I would have gone with the law of excluded middle. The drive to move away from that law was, as far as I know, driven by the field of logic itself. Also, people are more generally familiar with the existence of multi-valued and fuzzy logic.
Even without knowing pretty much anything. And this from a person who really thinks that science (especially physics) is - after literature - the best thing this sorry species can show for itself.
