Prove that God doesn't exist.

[Gipper]

Or they can teach all philosophical schools of thought.

Teaching something does not necessarily amount to practicing it, now, does it? We are talking about institutions of LEARNING. There really is no other way to learn except through a free-for-all dialectics of ideas.

Yes. Unfortunately, many the p-schools don't teach anything at all. The dumbing down of America has been most successful. How else could liberalism survive and thrive?

And even though most p-schools suck, the teachers and their unions continue to demand ridiculous salaries, benefits, tenure, etc....which is pushing many state governments into bankruptcy. They refuse to accept even modest cuts...much like the Ds and Obama with the Federal budget.

The teachers unions must be busted up.

 

[RoccoR]

numinus, Dr.Who, et al,

This is becoming a most interesting dialog.

Hmm? Not sure I did that right? Does "not either true or false" = "not true or not false" IF not then have to write it:

G: The sentence is not either true or false
H The sentence is not true
I: It is something other than true or false

What would that be?

(COMMENT)

You'll have to teach me here. Can I assume that the dillemma is not induced by either:

• The self limiting states that there is and can only be the two states:
  
  [*]TRUE
  [*]Are we saying that if we don't agree in evidence that something is FALSE, then it must be TRUE.​
  [*]FALSE
  [*]Are we saying that if we don't agree in evidence that something is TRUE, then it must be FALSE.​

• Is there something else besides the states TRUE and FALSE? Is this one of those cases where we assume to few alternatives.

Or they can teach all philosophical schools of thought.

Teaching something does not necessarily amount to practicing it, now, does it? We are talking about institutions of LEARNING. There really is no other way to learn except through a free-for-all dialectics of ideas.

(COMMENT)

Are you sure this is correct.

Another solution is that one merely assumes the principle of bivalence to the statement -- the excluded middle. The more popular alternative to binary logic is involves three possible truth values -- true, false and unknown. there are also finite-valued and infinite-valued logical systems.

(COMMENT)

Yes - the old "bi" trick. But that doesn't solve the equation.

The assumption of a third state ad populum would create the possibility of a third alternative; but then what proves the third alternative? Do we elemination TRUE and FALSE and by default select OTHER?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[numinus]

​

(COMMENT)

Are you sure this is correct.

It is my opinion based on my understanding of the principle of separation of church and state. The key words here are -- 'the state's coercive force'. Neither can the state wield it against an individuals right of thought nor a group of people impose their view on others by using it.

​

(COMMENT)

Yes - the old "bi" trick. But that doesn't solve the equation.

The assumption of a third state ad populum would create the possibility of a third alternative; but then what proves the third alternative? Do we elemination TRUE and FALSE and by default select OTHER?

Most Respectfully,
R

I was referring to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-valued_logic

In logic, the semantic principle of bivalence states that every declarative sentence expressing a proposition (of a theory under inspection) has exactly one truth value, either true or false.[1][2] A logic satisfying this principle is called a two-valued logic[3] or bivalent logic.[4][2]

In formal logic, the principle of bivalence becomes a property that a semantics may or may not possess. It is not the same as the law of the excluded middle, however, and a semantics may satisfy that law without being bivalent.[2]

The principle of bivalence is studied in philosophical logic to address the question of which natural-language statements have a well-defined truth value. Sentence which predict events in the future, and sentences which seem open to interpretation, are particularly difficult for philosophers who hold that the principle of bivalence applies to all declarative natural-language statements.[2] Many-valued logics formalize ideas that a realistic characterization of the notion of consequence requires the admissibility of premises which, owing to vagueness, temporal or quantum indeterminacy, or reference-failure, cannot be considered classically bivalent. Reference failures can also be addressed by free logics.[5]

 

[Dr.Who]

numinus, Dr.Who, et al,

This is becoming a most interesting dialog.

​

(COMMENT)

You'll have to teach me here. Can I assume that the dillemma is not induced by either:

• The self limiting states that there is and can only be the two states:
  
  [*]TRUE
  [*]Are we saying that if we don't agree in evidence that something is FALSE, then it must be TRUE.​
  [*]FALSE
  [*]Are we saying that if we don't agree in evidence that something is TRUE, then it must be FALSE.​

• Is there something else besides the states TRUE and FALSE? Is this one of those cases where we assume to few alternatives.

​

(COMMENT)

Are you sure this is correct.

​

(COMMENT)

Yes - the old "bi" trick. But that doesn't solve the equation.

The assumption of a third state ad populum would create the possibility of a third alternative; but then what proves the third alternative? Do we elemination TRUE and FALSE and by default select OTHER?

Most Respectfully,
R

IN focusing on the "bi" state and the third alternative you have focused on an important matter related to the original question:

Is logic logical? If there is a third, excluded middle, and if it is unknown, then we cannot say that logic is logical. We have to say is there may be an unknown aspect that shows it to be ilogical.

In fact, unless we know what the "other" is we cannot know that logic is logical.

Numinus: you said that there are logical systems built on these in betweens. Are they fleshed out and coherent?

 

[numinus]

Yes. Unfortunately, many the p-schools don't teach anything at all. The dumbing down of America has been most successful. How else could liberalism survive and thrive?

And even though most p-schools suck, the teachers and their unions continue to demand ridiculous salaries, benefits, tenure, etc....which is pushing many state governments into bankruptcy. They refuse to accept even modest cuts...much like the Ds and Obama with the Federal budget.

The teachers unions must be busted up.

I'm a bit inclined to accept that as far as education is concerned, it ought to be more like a business transaction between the school and its client. A student ought to want to learn and put his money to this effect. In this way, he gets the best education possible for his money.

However, I also believe that ignorance is a social evil which the state must address.

 

[numinus]

IN focusing on the "bi" state and the third alternative you have focused on an important matter related to the original question:

Is logic logical? If there is a third, excluded middle, and if it is unknown, then we cannot say that logic is logical. We have to say is there may be an unknown aspect that shows it to be ilogical.

In fact, unless we know what the "other" is we cannot know that logic is logical.

Not at all. It just means that there are certain propositions that can be made in a logical system who's truth-value are unknown or undecidable within that system.

Numinus: you said that there are logical systems built on these in betweens. Are they fleshed out and coherent?

Its called many-valued logic. The more popular, as I said is the ternary (three-valued) logic. Quantum mechanics is ternary in a sense that there are certain quantities that are simply unknown beyond a certain limit.

 

[PLC1]

Or they can teach all philosophical schools of thought.

Teaching something does not necessarily amount to practicing it, now, does it? We are talking about institutions of LEARNING. There really is no other way to learn except through a free-for-all dialectics of ideas.

They do teach comparative religions. It's part of the sixth grade curriculum in California.

How effective it is I'm not sure. I remember asking a group of sixth graders what religion they were, knowing that they left school early once a week for Catechism. Are you Muslim Christian, Hindu, or what?

Yep. You guessed it. No idea.

 

[numinus]

They do teach comparative religions. It's part of the sixth grade curriculum in California.

How effective it is I'm not sure. I remember asking a group of sixth graders what religion they were, knowing that they left school early once a week for Catechism. Are you Muslim Christian, Hindu, or what?

Yep. You guessed it. No idea.

I'm sure that is the best way to get an education.

No idea could mean they are in the process of forming their own world view. If that is the case, then the school did its job. We form, discard, form another or recycle a previously discarded world view our entire life. It just shows that we are learning.

 

[numinus]

IN focusing on the "bi" state and the third alternative you have focused on an important matter related to the original question:

Is logic logical? If there is a third, excluded middle, and if it is unknown, then we cannot say that logic is logical. We have to say is there may be an unknown aspect that shows it to be ilogical.

In fact, unless we know what the "other" is we cannot know that logic is logical.

Numinus: you said that there are logical systems built on these in betweens. Are they fleshed out and coherent?

Sorry, I forgot to answer your question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness_theorem

Gödel's first incompleteness theorem states that:

Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250).

Gödel's second incompleteness theorem can be stated as follows:

For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent.

Logic isn't illogical. It is merely incomplete.

 

[PLC1]

I'm sure that is the best way to get an education.

No idea could mean they are in the process of forming their own world view. If that is the case, then the school did its job. We form, discard, form another or recycle a previously discarded world view our entire life. It just shows that we are learning.

I'm sure that they are.
It really was the priest doing Catechisms that didn't get through to them if they didn't know that Catholics were Christian. It does make one wonder what they were learning there.

 

[numinus]

I'm sure that they are.
It really was the priest doing Catechisms that didn't get through to them if they didn't know that Catholics were Christian. It does make one wonder what they were learning there.

I wouldn't be surprised. Priests generally aren't the best teachers of kids, speaking from experience.

 

[clarkatticus]

maybe times have changed, in my youth I went to a Catholic school for 2 years, and at grade 6 if anyone asked me what my religion was, I can goddamn sure tell you it was Catholic at the time, I was fully aware of the differance between my religion and the other "offerings", especially being from a small town. We even had Catholic, Lutheran, and Baptist Boy Scout troops. That being said, teaching religion to a sixth grader is pointless, teaching religion and philosophy to a 10th or above makes more sense, as long as it is framed relative to history and/or civics and gives a general overview of enough different faiths and philosophy to cause curiosity and interest, not preaching.

 

[numinus]

maybe times have changed, in my youth I went to a Catholic school for 2 years, and at grade 6 if anyone asked me what my religion was, I can goddamn sure tell you it was Catholic at the time, I was fully aware of the differance between my religion and the other "offerings", especially being from a small town. We even had Catholic, Lutheran, and Baptist Boy Scout troops. That being said, teaching religion to a sixth grader is pointless, teaching religion and philosophy to a 10th or above makes more sense, as long as it is framed relative to history and/or civics and gives a general overview of enough different faiths and philosophy to cause curiosity and interest, not preaching.

The problem with that is that people ought to inculcate certain ethical values at a young age. Otherwise, it would be very difficult.

I understand that ethics may be presented in an exclusively ontological view but such a thing is perhaps beyond a child's comprehension. Whether you like it or not, religion gives impetus to ethics.

And yes, it is the parent's right and duty to inculcate these values to their children but it is very difficult to do so when more than half of the time in a child's daily routine, there is a sort of ethical void.

This is not really a question of religion rather a question of the best possible education. I am envious of your public school system where the huge resources of government is being used to provide the material necessities for education. There are places in my country where poverty and government neglect has left entire provinces without quality education -- especially where islamic separatist influence is prevalent. In these places, only the catholic missionaries and clergy have the resources and inclination to establish a viable education.

The muslims themselves bring their children to catholic schools to be educated. The fact that it is a christian institution is considered a minor setback for them, since their muslim 'brethren' have failed to provide an equal opportunity.

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

I have to laugh at myself. I sort-have lost sight of the question and where we are!

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[clarkatticus]

were it up to the GOP here, they would dismantle our public education system and go to a private schooling system with tuition. The offer of vouchers to mitigate the cost is their lip service to the poor. We would end up the a 2 tier school system, extremely good, and extremely bad. Our system definately needs overhauling, the tenure system needs to go and merit pay established. Islamic culture is sometimes mired in orthodox teaching and doesn't prepare the children for a worldly education. Saudi Arabia has thousands of theology grads, few engineers.