Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
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
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:
[*]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.
Are you sure this is correct.
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