|
|
Posted by dorayme on 12/08/07 04:54
In article <13lk24lbuu3trd4@corp.supernews.com>,
mbstevens <NOXwebmasterx@xmbstevensx.com> wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
>
> > Validity is purely a relation between statements and there are
> > many assertions (including the conclusion) that can be false
> > while yet the argument remains valid. (Just as a website can pass
> > a validation test and yet have every other kind of fault)
>
> Just to avoid confusion about something I think you already know,
> but which got me thinking:
>
> The 'validation' test of a website has an unclear relation to valid
> arguments in logic.
I was merely drawing an analogy for the purpose of an aside and
to point out that there are a number of types of goodness to both
arguments and websites, none of which necessarily confer other
types of goodness. Both can satisfy certain tests to do with
conformance to standards and that is just one important thing, a
necessary thing if you like, that we should hold both to.
> Validaton by the HTML validator
> is about well formedness only, without a model (interpretation).
>
Right. And the true analogy for this would be the "material
implication" of some formal logical systems and which can be
cashed out completely in simple truth value tabular criteria. In
this type of formal "valid" argument, valid simply means not(p
and not q) where p is the conjunction of the premises and q is
the conjunction of the conclusions. This does capture quite a lot
of what we want when thinking about arguments, entailment and
necessity and it is so clean and transparent that it enables us
to make formal and powerful tests on complicated series of
statements. Machines can do it.
But the notion of real implication, the idea of necessity, the
whole business of rational force of an argument goes beyond this
formality. This richer sort of entailment is nothing that can be
easily abstracted. It is something deep and murkier and has much
to do with how human beings feel compelled by some very basic
things. I am not wanting to relativise logic to human feelings
but there is something very "wet" about the whole thing in
practice. It is bound up with how they learn language, how they
evolved over millions of years, how they are built to react and
judge.
If humans did not feel a compulsion when some very basic things
are considered, they would not have the impressive rationality
that enables them to get to the moon, to name a concrete
achievement. The force of an argument depends on meaning, not the
shape of symbols. And meaning is not something mere machines are
good at. Machines don't have the right structure or genetic make
up... yet!
>
> > ........
> > If I thought anyone in the whole world was still awake I would go
> > on... but even I have limits when I hear snoring... <g>
>
> No, that was admirable.
Thank you.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|