Your conclusions are valid only if you assume the Formal Logic tautology. I can be and not be a practitioner of formal logic at the same time. Neo-Classical Logic is what I have labeled this. It is not Informal because it is all-inclusive of the Classic Logic format without rejecting as non-valid additional and reasonable categories of conclusions beyond only T or F. Classical Logic is actually an informal logic system in itself because of its inherent tautological flaw. But that contradiction is reasonable. Neo-Classical Logic covers all reasonable conclusions which can be reached by any proposition given - a proper classification for all propositions. Yes, I have come across a LOT of Informal (Fuzzy) logic systems. They all dance around the excluded middle without outright denying it. And they don't offer the additional and reasonable conclusive categories.
The only mysticism in concluding x and -x at the same time is if the additional categories (T and F) or (-T and -F) are used inappropriately, when viable investigations and re-stated propositions would otherwise conclude T or F. The question posited on this post does not fall in either of the Formal Logic categories.
I know you don't like it. But contradictions exist. Of course, not all things are contradictions. 100% vs 99.9999% is a contradiction where the only proper categorical conclusion can be (T and F). You can continue attempting to force all 'reason' into only your T or F world. It is proper sometimes; however, other times it can be quite dangerous. Using Absolute distinctions when discussing the very real and very personal psychological sickness that threatens the lives of very real people everyday is acting as a function of the disorder.
Your point "You are 100% for the impossibility of valid certainty. Or are you only 99.9% sure that we cannot be sure?" is YOUR attempt to codify my position into YOUR tautological Formal Logic system - to prove your own axiom.
News Flash !!! Mysticism is alive, well and flourishing in abundance (in the science world as well).
So MCT, my question to you is: Do you think leadership, along with other qualities, should not only require pragmatic but also utilitarian qualities as well?
Truth dangerous, then so be it, but only because there are mystics who don't see it yet.
Contradictions within reality do not exist. Things only appear contradictory at the limits of our perception, which is where their apparent contradictory manner stays. For building knowledge of entities and how they behave within reality, only what you are calling classical logic works and is appropriate. Your brand of fuzzy logic is only good for mathematical models that predict the behavior of sub-atomic particles. It cannot properly be expanded to include entities within reality or things we can validly say we have knowledge about.
Reality is the standard. It is not tautology. Existence---> perception---->conception---->knowledge. That is a straight line, not a circle. Reality is self-evident. If you deny this, then what are we even talking about? Nothing. A mind without a reality is meaningless.
What you are talking about is only valid for induction as we probe the limits of our perception. In the end, to communicate findings to each other with language, we must use concepts that are able to be reduced to perceptual evidence and which integrate within a knowledge base without contradiction. The law of identity must eventually be satisfied. For to verify something that is found with the use of mystical metaphor or probabilistic math, it must be brought into concrete terms and integrated. Mysticism is only good for induction or indoctrination, but it is not, along with metaphor, sufficient to call something knowledge. Mysticism is alive and well, despite the fact that it hampers reason and progress when used for something other than an imprecise tool for coping with what we are unable to reason. If a mystical idea is proposed, it is checked by the law of identity before it is considered knowledge. Proof requires noncontradiction. Any mystical randomness in the sub-atomic realm must be represented by complex math before it can be talked about using concrete concepts that have specific identities, which are only apparent at the limit of our ability to perceive.
Pragmatism as a tool to get something done as a leader chooses the best possible course of action or advice out of different possible hypotheticals, 'sacrificing' some values, to gain others, fine, but as a fundamental principle from which to lead, no. Pragmatism is not proper when dealing with things that simply are one way. I do not compromise on what might be the answer to 2+2. And anyone who does is leading in the wrong direction. A leader that compromises fundamental principles of truth such as the law of identity or the non-aggression principle is no leader. I do not want a little poison with my food, thanks. I do not want a little mysticism with my reason. And as for utilitarianism, the same. Morality concerns individuals, not groups, so the greatest good for the greatest amount is often contradictory. The greatest good for the greatest number of individuals, fine.
Being extreme is not bad in and of itself. It matters what one is extreme about. If they are extreme about reason and the nonaggression principle, then that is not a bad thing. If they are extreme about the divine source of the Qur'an, that is very different. It is having mysticism as a sufficient source for knowledge that is the problem, not intensity of conviction. Even if it wasn't incompatible with reason, you value pragmatism, the end result of having mysticism as sufficient for knowledge serves to blur the line between right and wrong, good and bad. The fact of the matter is, the world actually works in specific ways that are non-negotiable. Ignoring this is bad and can lead to violence.
Faith and the middle ages. Reason and the enlightenment. These don't change because of probability theory or a perceived need to support multi-culturalism. This postmodern crap that started with Plato's magic noumenal world and was supported by Kant's innate ideas is a step backward, despite advances in predicting behavior of small particles, which came from the application of reason, not mysticism. It is not physics that I disagree with, but the false implications mystics draw from the inductive part of learning. And again, remember Ptolemy's superiorly predictive, yet clearly wrong, cosmological model, as compared to Copernicus'. Physics has no business in epistemology.
Ambiguity is a bitch sometimes.
Depends on how you define "god"
Marc, I have been reading your exchanges with MCT and I fail to see how you have made the connection between his world view and his propensity towards violence. Unquestionably a fundamentalist is mindless and acts on the literal word of his good book. But he arrives there by an abdication of reason.
MCT on the other hand is guided by reason. And I assume that his world view would change if there is evidence in the natural world which is contrary to his understanding.
Thank you Glen. And I might add that I think reason leads to the NAP. I am against non-retaliatory force when dealing with other people within society, for good reason. It is irrational and counter-productive.
I am sure MCT is not violent. I take him at his word. However, language is often used which shows a propensity toward an obtuse position drawing closer and closer toward actions - sometimes closer and closer toward violent actions. Just because one uses the word "reason" does not make ones position any more valid. Ultimately it wouldn't matter to me if we were talking about the distinction of 100% vs 99.99999%, some belief in a fictitious god, a fact that exercising improves your health, or even some wacko belief that drinking out of green cups grants immortality. The right to have a belief is fundamentally inherent and not given (by Nature or Nature's God) nor by Governments nor by anyone else. By what I've seen, heard and read of the history of the human condition; it is those who hold the archaic mindset of only T or F which more easily find the enemy in the other camp - because there IS only one other camp. When the guy believing in the power of the green cups gets so absolute about its 'reality', he draws closer and closer to acting out of some need to 'help' others (converting to his camp) AND/OR closer and closer to 'hurt' those he puts in the enemy camp.
I haven't met a lot of agnostics or non-theists who get angry at what others believe. I have met a lot of Atheists who do get angry. My concern is that the anger goes somewhere. Even if there are not near as many Atheists out there doing violence because of his/her knowledge. We know there are religious zealots who do because of his/her belief. There are an overwhelming amount of religious believers who don't do violence because of his/her belief. It makes no sense to me to purport the Extremist Absolute view of knowledge from a tautological Classical Logic framework, taken to the point of a codified Falseness on the claim of the existence of gods, or whatever, unless one is actually trying to establish that 'False' camp in opposition to the only other possible camp out there, True.
Pragmatic and Utilitarian Reason begs for retreat from Absolutism. Language purporting extremism should be a red flag for anyone. If you're going to be a leader and spout off about 'realities' and 'ultimate truths', I'm on guard with anyone using language marginalizing toward ONLY truths or falsehoods.
Though I may live just outside the 100%'er camp, I will not be walled by it, nor participate in building weapons (not even weapons of language), nor will I be a part of appearing threatening in effect scaring those back toward the other camp who might have actually left-off the absurdities of religion with a more acute approach.
Marc, your position is itself absolutist. Your bizarre insistence that it is possible for something to be simultaneously true and false is nonsense on its face, and you are sticking to your story, evidence and argument be damned. It's really difficult to see how you are not guilty of the very thing you are complaining about, especially when you have by far the logically weaker position. That is precisely the problem with fundamentalist religionists. They hold some wacky proposition to be so important that they dismiss anything to the contrary. We have explained to you repeatedly, on this and other threads, why your embrace of contradiction is meaningless and unfruitful, yet you hew to it as religionists do to "revelation". Your embrace of contradiction and subjectivity as "truth" is the dangerous position; it allows any conclusion whatsoever to be drawn and fiercely defended, even to the point of violence.
Jason. I have only talked about my position on this thread and one post which I created. I am not out here trolling, itching to pounce on any poster's position which does not agree with mine. There are those who are [cough cough... MCT] You sir, are not one of those people. As I remember, you and I reached an impasse when you acknowledged the claim of what I call "Objective Reality takes precedence over Subjective Reality". It was at that point we really had nothing left to say. Since I'm not here to try and convert others (rather only to make my presence and position known to those pushing too hard) it appears we remain in the same place we left off... standing staring speechless. But it sure is good talking with you again.
I'm not accusing you of trolling, Marc; I'm sure you really believe what you are saying. But we have discussed this, and your position is logically indefensible and rather completely in the minority. Even religionists usually accept that there can be no proposition that is simultaneously both true and false. They just don't often notice it when they hold such propositions to be true (like the trinity, or Jesus as both god and man), and they are far more likely to accept false propositions as being magically true.
Your embrace of contradiction as logically possible is squarely on the religious side of the debate, since it condemns actual truth to meaninglessness. If propositions can be both true and false, then there is no possible means to determine whether something is true, including the proposition that propositions can be simultaneously true and false. Your position is nonsense on stilts. You need to climb down off those stilts and rejoin reality already in progress. You claim that paradox is part of reality, but that's just surrender in the face of truth claims that are difficult to untangle. Or worse, it's being polite for the sake of getting along with people who are demonstrably incorrect. Well, I'm sorry, but you're demonstrably incorrect here. You don't get to redefine logic so that it no longer functions.
I'm not interested in violence, and I seriously doubt that my insistence that propositions cannot be simultaneously true and false serves as any kind of incitement to violence on the part of others. You want to dismantle reason itself in favor of feel-good hand-waving, and you object when others don't see things your way. You should probably get used to disappointment. I gave your arguments a good hearing, but they simply don't make any sense. Worse, if true, they would make making sense impossible, and invalidate themselves. If you can't grasp this, then you don't understand the very thing you are trying to supplant.
Jason. Thank you for putting in bold the exact statement I was going to quote. Also I must add your previous sentence "Your embrace of contradiction as logically possible... condemns actual truth to meaninglessness." Both of your statements are false.
(1) They assume that my Neo-Classical Logical system DOES NOT allow for conclusions to be made which ARE actually either T or F.
(2) The statements don't stem from the axiom of Classical Logic, they are an attempt to prove the axiom - thus the tautology.
I only need one... One proposition which can be reasonably concluded as both T and F for the whole codified Formal Logic system to come crumbling. We've been over and over this.
Here, allow me to confess. For years I was the proud owner of the label Ontological Solipsist. I was quite confident in the assertion that "Subjective Reality takes precedence over Objective Reality". I can honestly say it gave me the creeps thinking how ANYONE could possibly reason the converse. Isn't the subject the prime requisite for experience, thus identification, thus meaning of identities beyond - the Objective Reality?
Now Jason, if I can study further, adjust my thinking to come to the more reasonable position that Subjective Reality and Objective Reality are inextricably intertwined, I continue to hope someone as reasonable as yourself could as well. But if not, please don't blame me because my arguments don't make sense to you or anyone choosing to only have the "Objective Reality takes precedence of Subjective Reality" point of view.
Marc, you don't understand what I'm saying, and I'm pretty sure you don't really grasp what you are saying. You certainly haven't seen the logical conclusions that follow from your premises. Here it is in a nutshell (again):
Any system of (purported) logic which allows any propositions to be simultaneously true and false is incapable of confirming any proposition to be only true or only false. It's big of you to grant your permission for propositions to be either true or false, but by failing to prohibit logical contradiction from your system, you are also granting your permission for anybody to assert that any proposition is both true and false, because you have no way to assert that they aren't correct.
That's the problem with embracing subjectivity--you have no way to assert that any propositions are actually false. That's why your system isn't a system of logic. Your system ultimately considers all statements to be true. And that is simply gibberish. You think you used to be a solipsist. You still are very much a solipsist. You've just convinced yourself that you aren't because you came up with some "logical system" that you can't adequately define, because in defining it you would see that it fails. And this is indistinguishable in practice from solipsism.
You have no way to say that anything is untrue, and yet you persist in saying that classical formal logic is incorrect. That's just hurtful. Shouldn't you at least be polite enough to say that classical formal logic is both true and false?