You've answered your own question. WITHIN the axioms and definitions you have
assigned, it is possible to arrive at paradox...but just try floating a
thread on the
definitions of the words and abstracts you were asserting, I bet you get some
heated discussion. In starting this thread I was simply trying to express
something
we already know a different way: most arguments come down to definition and
axioms.
How about a different context. Do you remember doing Geometric proofs in
High school? Within the "axioms" of geometry such proofs are iron clad.
However,
we recognize, now, that the universe is non-euclidian. Does that mean our
proofs were all wrong? A lot of bridges stand based on those
approximations...but a lot of black-holes violate them. Logic is a
mind-virus, a program. Feed in axioms and data on one end and it will spit
out "output" on the other...paradoxes, contradictions, proofs etc.
How convicing is it, though, if I don't accept your input as valid?
Garbage in...garbage
out. Most people here are pretty logical...or at least eloquent. Our
disagreements always
seems to come down to starting conditions.
And why? Becuase in our gut, each of us knows what the proper "output"
ought to be.
We tinker with the starting input variables until we get the output we think is
"acceptible". That's great, but is it Truth?
I can't believe that. ;-)
Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------