From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!jupiter!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!wupost!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Tue Nov 26 12:32:27 EST 1991
Article 1593 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!jupiter!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!wupost!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Is semiotics an "informal logic"?
Message-ID: <5693@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 25 Nov 91 20:37:48 GMT
References: <L9cwaB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 16

In article <L9cwaB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:
>The notion that there is something called "logic" which is
>separable from rhetoric is alien to me.  I think what is called
>"logic" is a series of algorithms applied on top of a spatial
>metaphor derived from Aristotle and made explicit by Venn and his
>diagrams.  The fact that these algorithms can be chained together
>to produce very powerful and useful structures of inference
>doesn't prove that they "are" something real.

I find this an extremely strange remark.  Why can't logic and rhetoric
be separated?  Indeed, it looks to me like you've just spearated them
by giving a description of "logic" rather than "logoric" or "rhetic".
Maybe it's a completely arbitrary and artificial distinction rather
than something real.  So what?  It's separation nonetheless.

Moreover, I have no idea what you could mean by "real".


