[Wittrs] Re: The Alleged 4th Premise: Alternate Grounds for the Third Premise
- From: "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 02:36:12 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
> if mathematicians are right about that; then, there are grounds
> unrelated to the CR for believing that the CRA's third premise
> is true
I'll comment here that I find the third premise quite plausible, though
I am not certain it is correct. However, I do not see that the CR
argument itself actually makes a case for the third premise. I do think
it provides a good illustration of the distinction between syntax and
semantics, but it does not provide actual evidence.
Regards,
Neil
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
