Newsgroups: alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.philosophy.jarf,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.philosophy.zen,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech,talk.philosophy.humanism,talk.philosophy.misc
From: ohgs@chatham.demon.co.uk (Oliver Sparrow)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!zombie.ncsc.mil!paladin.american.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!peernews.demon.co.uk!chatham.demon.co.uk!ohgs
Subject: Re: Please give me your opinion about doubts !?
References: <1995Mar21.144003.26400@lugb.latrobe.edu.au>
Organization: Royal Institute of International Affairs
Reply-To: ohgs@chatham.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27
Lines: 16
X-Posting-Host: chatham.demon.co.uk
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 17:34:09 +0000
Message-ID: <795807249snz@chatham.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:26140 sci.philosophy.meta:16858 sci.philosophy.tech:17140

Fun's fun, but does anyone take seriously structures built from language
alone? I think not: our reaction to paradox is "that's silly". It is
only in mathematics that syntax and the think described are supposed to 
have exact homology. One could undoubtedly play games with "doubt" in boolean
woozlums, but not - I suspect - introduce the concept into mathematics, 
thus showing the distinctions between the two which thwarted Whitehead and 
Russell. 

Incidentally, the falsification principle does not admit of doubt. If you 
accept an excluded middle, then a falsification either falsifies the system
of perception which you are using or the lemma.

_________________________________________________

  Oliver Sparrow
  ohgs@chatham.demon.co.uk
