Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Question for Ruth  
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:24:03 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

> In article <10292318.55799.2407@kcbbs.gen.nz>, Hakki Kocabas writes:  
> >if women have a different form of life and have developed different   
> >language than men, then why shouldn't they have their own logic of their   
> >language ?  
> >don't you see that even the common word for both language of men and   
> >women such as "pr*ck" has different use in corresponding languages ?  
> >|-| /-\ |-< |-< |||  
> >  
>   
> Ludwig's my hero, but I think the argument needs expansion. Here's a  
  
who's that? I wanna bust that buddy...  
  
> related argument against an imaginary interlocutor who identifes logic  
> with formal systems.  
  
identifies logic with formal systems ?!  
who's that? I wanna bust that buddy...  
  
> Even in formal logic, there are different systems. There's Principia  
> Mathematica and Hilbert and Ackerman's book. There's natural deduction  
> systems and axiomatic systems. There's modal logic, intuitionist  
> systems, and so on. Closely related, there are different schemes for  
> axiomatic set theory, and there is Robinson's infinitesimals. Why the  
> differences? What role do these variations play in the work of  
> logicians?  
  
if I was a woman, I would be more than proud to invent a deduction system  
for women's language only...  
did you say 'natural' ?!  
is that mean that they grow in the wild, my greenie-boi!  
  
> More interestingly, look at the differences between the proofs that  
> mathematicians (and logicians!) do, and the proofs that logicians study?  
  
yeah look at them, like you look at the trees..  
  
> Could the logicians' proofs play the same role in the development of  
> math that the proofs mathematicians actually use? Can all the  
> proof-schemes that mathematicians use be captured in a formal system?  
  
ask this to Russell..  
  
> Are all such schemes currently formalized in some current system or  
> another? How do you know? Don't theorize, look.  
  
How do you know ? Don't dream, read...  
  
> Mathematicians generally have opinions on theorems that they have not  
  
opinions on theorems ??!!  
  
> yet proven, for example, Fermat's last theorem, or P = NP. They can  
and one of these days they will re-prove it....  
if Fermat was an italian girl-mathematician wouldn't she play a different  
trick on us ?  
  
> even offer arguments to convince one another of the truths of theorems  
  
truths of theorems ?!  
  
> without proof. Think of applied mathematic, such as dynamical systems,  
  
without proof ?!  
  
> where proofs are far away for many properties in which many believe.  
  
many believe ?!  
  
> Think of probabilistic proofs. What is the logic behind these  
  
logic behind ?!  
  
> arguments? Is there only one?  
>   
> Of course, not everything is math. What sort of arguments do scientists  
  
thank God not !  
  
> use in other fields? Do we thereby get many logics? Does formalization  
> and axiomatics help? Think of rational mechanics, and then think of Von  
  
did I hear 'rational'  
  
> Neumann's axiomatic treatment of quantum mechanics? Did the latter not  
  
axiomatic treatment of quantum mechanics ?!  
my, my, my....  
  
> set the field back 50 years until Bell explicitly examined the problems  
> Von Neumann hid? What is logic here, and how can it help, if at all?  
  
If they were hidden by Von Neuwomann, wouldn't that be different...  
'What is logic here' ? you tell us ...  
  
> And what sort of arguments do people use and find convincing in everyday  
> life? Once again, are there not many logics? Does the logician have any  
> role to play in studying such arguments?  
   
> I think the above is fairly suggestive that there may yet be a femenist  
> logic to develop. I do believe that the problem of how formal logic does  
> and should relate to more informal arguments is a worthy and almost virgin  
> field. I think math would be a good place to start, but the tools of  
> investigation, history, sociology, and anthropology, are unfamiliar to  
> many logicians.  
>   
>                                       Robert Vienneau  
>   
> P.S. If we are going to engage in essentialism, is the logic developed  
> in John Maynard Keynes' _A_Treatise_On_Probability_ therefore  
> "homosexual logic?"  
  
if you must be homosexual to understand the workings of their language  
then the answer is yes?  
   
> P.P.S. I tend to read Marx as a Ricardian not-always-correct  
> mathematical economist. Thus, I either translate the Hegelese to  
> English, discard it, or, at best, treat it as interesting sociological  
> comments. Would many current-day logicians regard Hegel as at all  
> worthwhile?  
  
King Lear: "I'll teach you the differences."  
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy