From: lerner@cs.columbia.edu (Michah Lerner)
Subject: Re: logic? (was Re: Anti-Orthodoxy (was Re: ...))
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science
	<1992Jul27.224055.26806@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Jul30.122824.9843@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
	<1992Jul30.200932.15332@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:07:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.200932.15332@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) writes:

>Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
>Path: cs.columbia.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ncar!uchinews!quads!rivk
>From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
>Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
>Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
>Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
>References: <1992Jul27.183841.657891@locus.com> <1992Jul27.224055.26806@midway.uchicago.edu> <1992Jul30.122824.9843@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
>Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:09:32 GMT
>
>In article <1992Jul30.122824.9843@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul27.224055.26806@midway.uchicago.edu>
>>rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Jul27.183841.657891@locus.com> hayim@locus.com (Hayim
>>>Hendeles) writes:
>>
>>>I've talked to them. They are not applying logic; they are applying
>>>faulty mechanisms, the same as if you tried to multiply by adding ten
>>>to both sides instead of by taking one of the numbers a repeated number
>>>of times determined by the other number. The GIGO effect applies here
>>>in spades: if you use incorrect math, of course you're going to get results
>>>that are trash.
>>
>>>Choosing one's premises is a trick in itself. I mostly go by a couple of
>>>rules-of-thumb already mentioned (Occam's Razor and the like; Humian
>>>skepticism; my own sensory perception, a few other things) to try and
>>>pick the ones that seem most probably true. This is always a risky
>>>business; as most of the pure skeptics have demonstrated, probability
>>>is a highly subjective concept, but there's no alternative, so I do my
>>>best, as you do, as everyone does. I suspect you and I have different
>>>opinions on what base premises are probable, but not as far different
>>>as, for example, eithe rof us have from the Christians.
>>
>>This paragraph basically negates the high minded description of the
>>logical process you use.  You simply cannot deny the emotional
>>component involved in choosing what to call Jewish premises.
>>
>>As you say: "GIGO."
>>
>>This (from a "meta" logical perspective) in turn, denies any lack of bias
>>in the logical system.
>
>No; bias in picking what you're going to apply the system to does not
>imply bias in the system. The logical component doesn't determine what
>is true and was never meant to -- it determines what necessarily follows
>from or conflicts with something else in the system.
>
>If you're trying to add eight and six, the fact that you did not instead
>chooose to add five and twelve may mean that you get a different answer
>but in no way reflects on the quality of your arithmetic.
>
>>>>In conclusion, it was human logic that brought upon us the Inquisition,
>>>>Nazisim, and hosts of other evils. 
>>
>>>My Truth by Blatant Assertion meter just broke from input overload!!
>>>Where in the h--- did you get *that* little concept? Back it up or drop
>>>it, please -- *now*.
>>
>>Trivially simple using your own methodology.  While I might be willing to
>>grant that they did use "flawed logic," that need not be the case.  All
>>you need is to choose different basic premises and as flawless a logical
>>system as you could want and you could get to the same conclusion as you
>>would with flawed logic and/or flawed logical abilities.
>
>Sure you can. But in that case it's the premises that are at fault, not
>the application of logic. What Mr. Hendeles was asserting was that it
>was *the logic itself* -- "it was human logic that brought us..", which
>is patently untrue, as logic can't get you anywhere you didn't start to
>begin with.

This whole  business of  "first-order-predicate-Judaism"
is silly, but if  you insist  upon  seeing it this  way,
then  realize that  one  could devise  a truth-restoring
logical  system (for  example the use of parity  bits is
one such form,  and there  are  mult-level  logics which
maintain  consistancy even in  the face of contradictory
data, and  there are  truth  maintenance  systems  which
"handle" contradictory statements).  So, we  may  -- for
purposes  of discussion -- accept Mr. Hendeles assertion
"it WAS human logic that brought us..."  since the logic
(if we call it  that)  could  have means  to verify  its
conclusions.    At   least  on  a  level  of  historical
activity.

Moreover,  it  was  human  behavior,  with  its  blatant
rejection of Torah and  Mitzvah, with  its  hedonism and
theft,  which  has been tracked  time-and-again  to  the
decline in social structure and subsequent human misery.
Why did  this happen?   Was there  a  so-called religous
practice which  endorsed such behavior?  Might  one have
to do with the other?  Could  it be that if you start to
break G-d's laws  that he might have people violate your
laws? 

>
>>By the way, is there a Hubris meter next to the broken "Truth by Blatant
>>Assertion" meter?  If so, what's it reading after your statements on your
>>own logical abilities?  Has your book even replaced Quine's?
>
>Mr. Saal, you don't need to be capable of doing advanced calculus in
>order to be completely sure that your ability to do basic arithmetic
>is solid. If I'm faced with something like (A V ~A) =~T, I know it's
>wrong the same way tha if I'm faced with 2+2=5 I know it's wrong; and
>although I did work with one of Quine's better students, I don't need
>that to get the easy ones.
>
>>Sam Saal      homxb!saal OR saal@homxb.att.com
>
>	 -Nora
>
>

Your  attempt to discredit the  issues by  contriving  a
resolution  theorem prover  has no aplicability  to  the
matter at hand.  However, it  follow your point, if  you
do not accept and follow the easy mitzvahs (and  I'm NOT
saying thaat  you personally do  not) how can you expect
to perform the "harder" ones?  If a "religous authority"
does not  learn and follow the  mitzvahs,  how  can  she
claim to teach others?

--
/M
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish