Quoting Joozey. (Quick, delete 'your' post.
...and there a taste of the sensation, for slice of self, and reply to missing post.)

'I' could agree with that.
(What are 'your' views on submission of expressions by one slice, and removal a bit later by another? (1.post 2. is garbage 3. dispose )
Never mind, that is off-topic.
'I' hope it isn't too bothersome.)

Perhaps, neither active party seeks understanding from the other.
Maybe both are deeply rooted in 'their' trenches, while playing a fine game of "Discussion & Verbal-Assault TM".


Maybe, it is just choice. One party may choose to believe a book is this, and another may choose to believe it is that.
Probably the choice is not made in a vacuum.
Genetic makeup, environment, upbringing, experience, company, other choices, etc. differ.
Here, the book in question may be very well-circulated and often hotly debated.

It almost seems some amount of 'training' or 'practice' is necessary to defend certain choices well.

Phemox,

"No, it's not a false analogy."- I described exactly what you said and demonstrated that it is. You are comparing a necessary abstract law with an arbitrary unnecessary name given to a particular physical entity. You may try to save it with special pleading fallacies such as arguing that logic is simply naming something (law of identity-? or do you reject this as a law of logic), but then using it as though it is something more than that (law of contradiction).

You continued "It makes sense from the perspective of logic to give colors names. Simple identification, that's all there is to it. It's all far less absolute than you wish to believe. It's abstract and quite subjective at times, as long as it still makes sense within a certain frame of logic." Here you use logic to mean simple identification but then it means something higher like 'making sense' in the next sentence.

As far as metaphysics everyone has metaphysical commitments, yours are associated with the uniformity of nature. How do you answer Hume's problem of induction? In other words the argument that there is no rational guarantee that the future will resemble the past.

You keep associating logic as simple identification and enumeration such as we could arrange 12345 to be 12354. But you say we cannot change the reality that 2+2 would ever actually equal 5. But you are failing to see the difference between the concrete world of sensation and the abstract world of math(most perfect geometric shapes for example). Many laws of math and logic are never experienced in the physical world but yet they are subject to the law of contradiction.
You are still assuming the error that logic is from the material world and have not answered my objection regarding the law of identity (which you can't reject and try to have math absolutely non-contradictory. For if the fly you counted with the number 1 is in a constant state of change [molecules in motion] then it's existance is like a river where you never see the same water twice. Here you have the metaphysical commitment that a thing maintains its identity although time and location change along with its body. Like you as a baby being the same you as an adult and not a bunch of different people in between.)
Nor have you addressed the problem of induction as it would apply to logic in your metaphysical world. Plus the law of contradiction would only be probable, another devastating error you avoid addressing. I would also be interested to know in your probability if there are infinite possiblities? If not what metaphysical commitment would prohibit this?
This whole thing is a wreck. You said also "Having said that, many forms of logic itself are quite the opposite of absolute" So this is absolutely true? Or absolutely false?

You've only demonstrated how language fails when it comes to discussions like these. But lets just say it's relatively true, as that is correct in this case. We can't weight in what we do not know yet, but it would be stupid to ignore the possibility.

I think I'll leave this discussion be, as there's no point in arguing with you. You wouldn't fall for the good old 'If God is able to do literally anything, then.. can he make a stone too heavy for himself to lift??' kind of reasoning either.



You should really look into the subject logic and philosophy some more. There are literally all kinds of logic, formal logic, classical logic, mathematical logic, intuitionistic logic and much much more. It makes little sense to confuse them all, as you just did.
I am also having a difficult time explaining things in English as it's not my mother tongue.



There's nothing "probably" about the principle of contradiction, look up 'propositional logic'. It just has to follow a system of formal proof rules.

Cheers

Phemox,
You advise:
"You should really look into the subject logic and philosophy some more. There are literally all kinds of logic, formal logic, classical logic, mathematical logic, intuitionistic logic and much much more. It makes little sense to confuse them all, as you just did."
I mostly read Bertrand Russell because Einstein recommends him. But I read Kant and Hume also; who do you recommend?
Let me recommend you read some Christian philosophers such Greg Bahnsen, Corneilus Van Til or Gordon Clark.
I do not confuse various logics as you suggest here:
"You should really look into the subject logic and philosophy some more. There are literally all kinds of logic, formal logic, classical logic, mathematical logic, intuitionistic logic and much much more. It makes little sense to confuse them all, as you just did."
I understand this but they all must adhere to intra-field principles of logic and not contradictory systems of logic as you would have to agree. What do you do by the way when logicians and philosophers disagree fundamentally on logic?

I see where you are coming from, but the funny thing is that there literally is no intra-field all-compassing form of logic.
There simply are separate forms of logic, each with it's own application (as you would understand, some are more useful than others, hence why I gave the mathematical logic example).

You call these different kinds contradictory systems I guess, but they are not comparable. Often they do not really exclude the other forms of logic, because they are more like apples and oranges.



Well, here you are generalizing a bit too much again. When logicians and philosophers disagree fundamentally on logic, it's still likely, or probably even inevitable, that one of them simply refers to a non-classical kind of logic and the other to a different kind.



There are a bunch of books you could look into. I take it you've already read Betrand Russel's Principia Mathematica, but I'd also recommend "Logic and Ontology", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. There's more, but I'd have to dig in my bookshelf for a bit to find them I think,

Cheers

When its about book recommendations, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" by Popper is the very fundamental book about how logic helps us to build scientific theories. Russel and Whitehead are fine too, but I'd recommend Popper first when you want seriously discuss logic. Popper also deals with some popular misconceptions that are often present in discussions like this, such as misunderstanding of deduction and induction, or what a scientific proof means, or confusing the logic law of identity with unchangeability.

I take it you've already read Betrand Russel's Principia Mathematica

Did you really read it ?
I guess that 3 or 4 people on the surface of the earth may have had the guts to read this book
By the way I have been educated or spoilt, depending from the point of view, by the Bertrand Russels's books but please leave this book alone

As the great mathematician said
" If you need 1000 pages to define what a number is, how many pages do you need to demostrate a real theorem ?"

My comment there was a bit sarcastic, but I did read it. I have one copy of the 9th impression on my bookshelf, the one that comes in 3 volumes.

I'm a bit crazy when it comes to philosophy, mathematics and the whole logic thing. And although irrelevant for the most part, I've also got a lot of books on psychology.



Usually books, but yes you're probably right, usually only people that actively study these things read this. But I have to admit that it's merely a hobby of mine, I do not pretend to understand everything in those books, eventhough I do think I've learned quite a lot through reading them,

Cheers

PHeMoX,
Check out Greg Bahnsen on epistemology:

http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Apologetics/Greg-Bahnsen/

One article entitled "Science, Subjectivity, and Scripture" http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa044.htm
hits upon some of the topics we are discussing. He gives a good brief outline of modern philosophers of science and logicians and their conflicting approaches to unify the sciences. This is from a Christian apologetical standpoint. He also has an article exposing and seizing upon the weaknesses of Russell.
The article "Revisionary Immunity" also is an interesting discussion on the failure to make analytic and synthetic distinctions in reasoning.

Alright, I'll look into it. Thanks.



I will try not to be biased about this, but this doesn't quite sound right already.

Cheers