[Wittrs] Re: In a Logical Proof, Don't Expect Semantics from Syntax!
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 19:41:50 -0000
I am going to let you talk to others for a while but a brief response:
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> >A syllogistic type proof has a logical form but the form is empty
> >without content ...
>
> precisely. a formal proof is a proof that the syntax of that logical
> form is valid.
>
> >and therefore proves nothing.
>
> wrong. what is proved is that a particular sequence of syntactic
> transformations is valid; meaning, done according to the rules.
>
The point of an argument is to prove a claim. The issue here is whether the CRA
proves its conclusions, not whether a certain arrangement of premises would do
so IF they are seen to be true. No one doubts that there are valid and invalid
ways of arranging premises and that some premises have some implications and
others others. But the CRA is an argument about something, i.e., it has what we
have been calling in these discussions "semantics". You can't eliminate the
semantics, lay out the formal aspect of the argument and then declare that the
semantics of the conclusion are proved.
But why am I bothering here with your nonsense?
> >You are confusing form with substance.
>
> no, you are confused. you are still expecting syntactic manipulations to
> generate semantic content (understanding, meaning, intentionality or
> whatever).
>
No, you are doing so in pretending that a formal set of relations implies
anything for the truth or falsity of an actual claim (one that has semantic
content).
> >I think you are so enthused with the idea of "formal proof" that you
> >forget that it's empty by definition.
>
> you are so enthralled by the illusion of getting semantics from syntax
> that you forget that a formal proof is supposed to be syntactic not
> semantic.
>
> Joe
>
You have no idea what logic really is about, do you? You're trapped in some
carryover 17th and 18th century Rationalism, imagining you can produce
substantive conclusions from formal manipulations of terms.
Well, there are still people who think like you do, I suppose, just as there
are still flat earthers and people who think the moon walk was faked. There's
no accounting for such foolishness. Human beings are capable of all sorts of
strange notions.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
