Yeah, I saw it. Like I said, it quantifies uncertainty. I understand how that can be important in, and only in, mathematical expressions of logic, where you need to quantify as much as possible for precision.
Jonny, are you honestly stating that the only time we need to define uncertainty is in formal logic?
Does not formal logic define the inherint truth in our propositions and arguments as we use them in everyday discourse?
Do we not make administrative decisions that require a complete certainty regarding our environment? (case in point the war in iraq)
If you developed it into a formal logic, you'd just end up with ternary logic, I would think.
not so, and allow me to explain. Formal logic just analyzes the truth inherent in the structure of the proposition, i.e. self refrential. The person who applies the proposition is not relevant. In OS 0 1 2, it is highly relevant, it is refrential to the self, or point of view. It includes the observer. This is pretty powerful stuff when you get it. It's makes it much easier to strategize things when you have to deal with the complexity of human behavior.
I use it all the time in discussions, and people wonder how these discussions always become what they are, and when I explain they are perfect examples of this princaple, they dont believe me, even though in my eyes, thier own behavior is my proof!
I think you are simply complicating what isn't a very complicated concept.
with all due respect, I think that is because you do not yet understand the princaple. If you understood the princaple, I think you would come to find that I am simplyfying something that is really complex, human behavior.
It's not hard to acknowledge uncertainty or lack of knowledge when talking about whether a claim is true or false.
your're right, it's not hard, but we fail to do so time and time again. I gave the examples of this failure to Randi and The war in iraq as examples.
It only becomes a problem when you start writing out the formal problems, because it's nice to have a way to account for uncertainty in a more rigorous way to avoid weird undefined problems.
formal problems in logic or math do not cause worry or upset as much as the conflict of idea does globally. Uncertainty is an 'issue' that all of us face as human beings, it's uncomfortable to deal with, and all of us, and I mean all of us, from me, to you, to Randi, to whomever, make very critical errors when faced with uncertainty. We cloud perception when we confuse the third value with our opinions, spreading further confusion and delusion.
BF
That Wiki article isn't sourced very well though, could you link to a more coherent, sourced definition?
). No matter how patiently and slowly I explained why his "proof" was wrong, he stubbornly refused to see it. 