From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!whir Tue Nov 19 11:09:50 EST 1991
Article 1289 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!whir
>From: whir@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Rick Allard)
Subject: Is "logic" arbitrary?
Message-ID: <1991Nov12.184019.26982@uwm.edu>
Sender: news@uwm.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin--Milwaukee
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 18:40:19 GMT
Lines: 31


I've just come across a neat sentence that, I believe, fits well
in the long thread here.

The idea that's been rolling around on my brain (I think) lately
is that people at the vast majority of moments act, then justify
if it's needed.  Yes, careful decisions are premeditated, but
rarely subjected to some formal decision process only.

The truth tables we use are useful (if this says anything at all)
and chiseled in lots of silicon now, but arbitrary.  A very small
and decreasing bunch in dusty rooms think overtly of formal logic
and more and more people (I hope this is true) are using in one
way or another, directly or indirectly, the silicon machinery for
*expression*.

The found sentence, on deduction within a piece on induction is
entirely in emphasis on p 64 of Goodman's book Fact, Fiction and
Forecast:

	    A rule is amended if it yields an inference
	    we are unwilling to accept; an inference is
	    rejected if it violates a rule we are
	    unwilling to amend.


-- 
ooooooooooooootter#spoon in bowl
!!!!!!!!!!!!&   RooM    &
!!!!!!!!!!!!R   oooo    M



