Posted on 10/25/2002 12:14:19 AM PDT by jennyp
Uh huh. And therefore no demonstration that claiming something is "like" another thing has much of anything to do with logic, or anything else, for that matter.
Do you like it?
Well, yes, actually, I admire the contruction of the argument, and I admire the effort you've put into it. Even if I think you've failed to address the question to hand.
There is no interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that is NOT bizarre, and mine is the one Einstein has, so far unsuccessfully, objected to, so it is hardly out of left field.
and you have no idea what a domain of discourse is or is used for. But worst of all, you appear to have no command of basic English.
Opinions vary
Nowhere in your ostensible quote of the _OED_ does it say that "Pharisees" means "Jews".
Yes, it does, in at least 5 specific use-cites in the various permutations of the word.
As I 'd imagine you would be. :-)
Whether or not the Pope was anti-nazi, there is still no reasonable explanation
Sure there is. It's called human nature. Think of the present sex scandals.
What should be remarked on is the opposition to Hitler and the Jews saved for great risk and no gain. That's should be considered "unhuman." In other words, Godly.
And what you should do is worry about how you would behave if presented with a moral dilemma in which you were required to make a decision that would cause your death or the death of some innocent person if your decision should be made thoughtlessly, or even correctly.
How many buildings in the Vatican were dedicated to kidnapping christian children from their parents to be raised jewish, without the law seeing anything untoward about that?
Let God judge Pope Pius IX.
"A is like B" is a predicate of an argument. I'll give you an example of the application of logic in action on a set of predicates, which may help:
"A is like B" and "B is like C", therefore "A is like C".
Notice my capacity to do a formal logical sorite(s) here without having to understand anything about what "like" means.
You have done no such thing. "A is like B" is not in the form of a categorical proposition.* Like is not a logical operator. It is a shorthand for a series of logical operations.
A: Emmit Smith
B: OJ Simpson
C: Ted Kennedy
Emmit Smith is like OJ Simpson. OJ Simpson is like Ted Kennedy. Therefore, Emmit Smith is like Ted Kennedy.
It doesn't work. "is like" has different meanings in the two predicates. Logical operators don't change meaning from predicate to predicate. In the first, "is like" refers to the ability to rush a football. In the second, "is like" refers to the ability to get away with homicide without being convicted.
That is why "like" can be subsumed. It is not a logical operator, but a series of operations, and is subsumed by replacing the word with the series it represents. You are confusing an english word with a logical operator. Using your arguement, I could claim "as bad as" is a logical operator: A is as bad as B, B is as bad as C, therefore A is as bad as C. Not every word or phrase is a logical operator. But some words do represent chains of operations. It's easier to say "like" than to lay out the whole chain of reasoning behind it as long as speaker and hearer have the same chain of reasoning in mind. If not, then things have to be made explicit. We use "enthymic" words all the time. This in no way, shape, or form means that anything other than logic was behind the reasoning that went into the arguement.
*If you insist "A is like B" is in predicate form, your soritie must become: (A) is (like B), (like B) is (like C), therefore (A) is (like C). Now all you have to do is define the relationships between "B" and "like B" and between "C" and "like C". All this can be done logically. "like" is nothing more than a plain language shorthand so we don't have to have discussions like this all the time.
Than list them (in the order in which they can be applied to produce "like" as a theorem that can be so applied), please, without another ardent non-technical lecture that avoids this absurdly simple task--provided you are correct--yet again.
No, I'm not. What you are mish-mashedly referring to is the very problem of "domain of discourse" I have been referring to constantly. If you use different meanings of "like", you are referring to different domains of discourse and pretending logical operators apply across these domains.
Many ancient greek riddles and 12th century proofs of God's existence rely on this trick. It's true, I didn't say "tap, tap, no straying from the subject", but that is generally assumed by mathematicians in talking formally about sets.
Your argument, if examined in the light of day, should convince you that you are a little confused here. How can you claim "like" has several different meanings, and in the same breath, claim that "like" is just a shorthand for a series of logical operators?
When you use the world "like" in the sense of drawing an analogy, in fact, that is precisely it's logical weakness. What you are doing with the "like" operator is intentionally mixing domains of discourse, because intuitive insight may be a more important than preserving logical precision.
By the same logic, perhaps we should award medals to serial rapist-killers for sparing some of their victims occasionally.
...
How many buildings in the Vatican were dedicated to kidnapping christian children from their parents to be raised jewish, without the law seeing anything untoward about that?
Let God judge Pope Pius IX.
There's a phrase for this mode of reasoning: Moral abdication.
Gee, almost as many as Rauel Wallenberg operating from a basement with printing press, on an attache's salary? Even the churches most imaginative apologists can't manage to chaulk up one oven's worth of saved jews. How does that stack up beside telling all priests in Germany to shut their yaps about saving jews from Hitler, actively packing for the ovens in Slovokia, handing over the marriage records to the SS, and inventing mass absolution so that the SS could continue their work unhindered by spiritual qualms?
How do you know?
It reeks of an accelerated math 10th grade text book.
I have been recounting nothing to anyone here that wasn't taught me as a freshman engineering student at UCBerkeley. I've written automated theorem provers, and I spend most of my working day telling circuit designers and programmers what the limits of formal verification are for their specific domains of discourse. If I am confused, than so are a large number of present day working mathematicians.
Because for each meaning there is a different series of logical operators and attributes being operated on.
What you are doing with the "like" operator is intentionally mixing domains of discourse, because intuitive insight may be a more important than preserving logical precision.
The overall domain is the domain of thought. Thought about football and thought about homicide do not use different sets of logical operators, only the sequences of operations and the terms operated upon differ.
You're job is to get to the bottom of the matter. You got to interview the complaintent, then the accused, then find some witnesses. What's that? Most have been dead for a century? You got a problem in pursuing justice.
Even the churches most imaginative apologists can't manage to chaulk up one oven's worth of saved jews.
The first and greatest Jewish authority on the subject was Hungarian Jew, Jeno Levai. He defended the Pope at the Frankfurt trial of the last Auschwitz personnel taken prisoner, as late as 1964. However, on the papal side, the blockbuster is the work of Pinhas Lapide, one-time brigade major in the British army, Jewish journalist and diplomat.Lapide worked in Israel and had access to the great centre of archives, "Yad Vashem". In his book The Last Three Popes and the Jews (London, 1967), he surveys the entire area covered by the anti-Jewish policy, points out the measures taken and the lives saved in each region. He reaches a total of 860,000 lives saved through Pius XII's programme. Another writer, David Herstig, writing in 1967 (Die Rettung, Stuttgart) calculated that 360,000 Romanian Jews in Israel owed their lives to the Pope.
Another Link
Well, the ones who consult you anyway.
And so, for the third time, what is the series of logical operators?
The overall domain is the domain of thought.
There is no "overall" domain. If that existed, it would include plane geometry, and sub-nuke theory under one umbrella, and as we have discussed, that means things could be commutative, and non-commutive at the same time.
To speak sensibly about applying the discrete laws of logic, you must be addressing a set of related, well-formed sets of things--things you can clearly say are in either set A, or set B, or ...
To speak of an "overall" domain is to commit yourself to fallacies of the excluded middle. Like virtually ALL mathematicians, I don't think you are really talking about much of anything at all that logical axioms apply to, unless you specify, either implicitly or explicitly, a well-formed domain of discourse. Discrete logic ain't about big fuffy clouds of vaguely understood existence. Discrete Logic is about things you can unambiguously plop into sets because that's all discrete logic tells you about at base--what you know axiomatically about how things in overlapping sets can relate to each other.
Thought about football and thought about homicide do not use different sets of logical operators, only the sequences of operations and the terms operated upon differ.
That's not the germane question. The fact is that any logic you apply to football is not likely to be usefully related to any logic regarding homicide. If you don't guarantee a well-formed domain of discourse--about things related to each other in terms of football exclusively, or homicide exclusively, you haven't guaranteed that you are talking sense in applying logic.
Virtually all working mathematicians would agree with me that you aren't doing anything sensible in real world terms when you don't specify a well-formed domain of discourse upon which to apply discrete formal logic. Try it on a mathematician or 6 in your neighborhood, see if any of them are unfamiliar with the phrase "well-formed domain of discourse".
I ain't pursuing justice, I'm pursuing morality, which has no statute of limits, or OJSimpson defense teams.
One single oven consumed approx. 1,000,000 jewish lives. By contrast, the Danish Lutheran congegations, whose Spiritual leader did NOT sign a concord of silence with Hitler, spirited at least 90% of their jews out from under the SS, WHILE A DEFEATED AND OCCUPIED COUNTRY.
Throughout history, the Papacy has instigated policy and doctrine that inspired laity to persecute jews, whereupon, the church rises high on it's holy shanks to express shocked disapproval--short, of course, of any but symbolic remedial action.
800,000/6,000,000 = ~12% -- pardon me if I'm not bowled over. And, by the way, that net count should be credited to the Church, not PIUS XII personally, Zucotti looked quite extensively into the justification for associating PIUS XII's name with all this body count, and found the evidence rather less than overwhelming, unless it's your job to seek sainthood for PIUS the silent--whom, I'll remind you once again, unambiguously signed an accord with Hitler to shut up about the jews, in return for fat trinkets for the Church in Germany.
That's just because you aren't putting in context of all the rest that have said on the subject. We have many words that have only a fantasy meaning, are floating abstractions, or are so equivocated that they have no real meaning. If people actually used those dictionaries, and used consistent connotations then their words would have meaning, but since they don't they don't.
Even at the silliest, at least its at the most of something. I love being on the edge!
if u were better versed in logic, you would understand he doesn't
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.