Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Saturday, May 04, 05:32:27pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Not Tristram Shandy again... Author: Wade A. Tisthammer [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 03/22/04 10:27am In reply to: Damoclese 's message, "It's a classical logical argument" on 03/20/04 10:25pm >>My response to this argument is that it is non >>sequitur. The argument is invalid (which, BTW, >>wasn't the case with the Tristram Shandy argument, >>since I provided a formal proof establishing its >>deductive validity). If we first travel a half-mile, >>then a quarter, then an eighth etc. it is true that if >>we follow this pattern we will never traverse a mile. >>But we can take different steps (e.g. traversing an >>eighth of a mile each time, rather than cutting the >>distance by half each time). > >I suppose you could, but traveling a mile at the pace >of 1/8 of a mile each time implies you'd have to >travel all those distances smaller than an 1/8 of a >mile first. That's true, but that doesn't imply that you'll never reach the end, unless you actually halve your distance at each step. >This argument isn't a non-sequitor at all. Yes it is, at least the way I constructed the argument: Before one can travel a mile, they must travel half a mile, and before that a quarter, and before that an eighth and so on infinitely. Therefore: one cannot traverse a mile. I request you set up your own premise(s) and conclusion for this argument. >The same goes for your Shandy argument. The premises a >deductive argument rests on can be perfectly sound >inasfar as they are understood, but they fail >miserably where ignorance is concerned, and ignorance >is all too prevalent in the paradox you've provided >with Shandy, although calculus could also >theoretically answer it in the same way it answers >this paradox.(which I find to be wholly unsatisfactory) Perhaps the Shandy argument is flawed. But since it is deductivley valid, the only way it can fail is if one of the premises fail. Perhaps a premise does fail. But that would require some clear and specific justification, not just some vague assertions about calculus, ignorance, knowing the unknowable, or anything of the sort. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date Logic stew Damoclese 03/22/04 3:28pm Invalid logic. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/23/04 8:17pm Invalid validity -- Damoclese, 03/24/04 7:06am How? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/24/04 10:38am Cause -- Damoclese, 03/24/04 3:07pm Effect -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/25/04 12:55pm Your objection is noted but irrelevant -- Damoclese, 03/25/04 1:47pm Speaking of irrelevant, what's calculus got to do with it? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/29/04 12:48pm Calculus -- QUITTNER, 04/ 5/04 1:50pm you oughtta -- Damoclese, 04/ 5/04 3:09pm ...explain yourself. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/ 6/04 10:50am terse answers -- Damoclese, 04/ 6/04 7:41pm Succinct replies. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/ 7/04 11:48pm That's what I'm talking about -- Damoclese, 04/ 8/04 7:44am Really? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/ 8/04 10:07am Watch this -- Damoclese, 04/ 8/04 10:29am I'm watching. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/11/04 9:38pm and oh yeah -- damoclese, 04/ 8/04 10:51am Oh yeah! Kool Aid for everyone! -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/11/04 9:48pm Assuming -- Damoclese, 04/12/04 8:25am Infinity. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/12/04 10:25am heh -- Damoclese, 04/12/04 11:14am Tee hee. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/12/04 4:47pm "one" -- Damoclese, 04/12/04 6:56pm Two -- Wade A. Tishtammer, 04/14/04 1:06pm What's good for the goose -- Damoclese, 04/14/04 5:04pm What other alternatives are there? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/15/04 11:37am Ganders -- Damoclese, 04/15/04 5:36pm Why abandon logic? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/28/04 12:14pm Hiatus over -- Damoclese, 04/28/04 6:53pm Illogical to abandon logic. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/29/04 12:47pm what a bounty -- Damoclese, 04/29/04 2:25pm Of logic. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/ 2/04 3:11pm of intuition -- Damoclese, 05/ 4/04 10:51am Of more logic. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/ 7/04 2:25pm One mistake... -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/15/04 11:40am