Reply to thread

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


Back
Top