"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005
|
| Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 24 2007,09:05) | | Didn't Russell say that formal logic does not work with sloppily defined propositions? |
But that is the entire point. ?It ALL comes down to "definitions". ?Here's the problem, though;
The question I am asking is a simple one: ?are brunettes hotter than blondes? ?And, of course, the relevant question behind that question is: is there any area that reason (or logic, or science, or kohlinar, or whatever anyone wants to call it) cannot answer (which is itself the result of the question "do science and religion necessarily conflict?"). ?My assertion, of course, is that no, science and religion need not inherently conflict, because yes, there are areas that science simply cannot answer -- one of those areas being moral, ethical or aesthetic judgements such as "are brunettes hotter than blondes?".
Louis, instead of just admitting that science and reason cannot answer ethical, moral or aesthetic questions, wants to change the question to make it into an "objective" question that science CAN answer, and that is why he is so hung up on the matter of "precise definitions". ?Indeed, when Louis asks me to DEFINE exactly what I mean by "hotter", he is, in essence, just asking me to answer the question for him, since science and reason simply can't answer it.
See, all Louis is doing is setting up an algorithm -- a perfectly rational algorithm that ruthlessly follows all the laws of logic. ?All you have to do is input the correct "definitions", turn the crank, and voila, out pops your perfectly rational logical answer. ?Simple, and works on any possible question.
The problem is that Louis's algorithm isn't actually ANSWERING anything. ?After all, it is the "definitions" themselves which determine the answer. ?If I define "hotter" as X, Y and Z, then lo and behold, Louis's algorithm will simply tell me that Girl A meets criteria X, Y and Z (according to the rational laws of logic) while Girl B doesn't. ?In other words, Louis is simply saying, "tell me what you think, and I'll tell you if this is what you think". ?Louis is simply measuring whether this or that thing meets my definition that I have already given him. ?
The real question, though, is can we determine (rationally, logically and scientifically) which "definitions" are the right ones?
If I give Louis my personal definition of "beauty", of course he can logically then tell me what I find to be "beautiful". ?BFD.
The real question that I keep asking (and that Louis keeps avoiding) is can science (or reason, or rationality, or logic, or kohlinar, or whatever else anyone wants to call it) determine whose definition of "beautiful" is the correct one?" ?Until we answer THAT fundamental question, then Louis's logical algorithm is just an exercise in reproduction. ?I define for him what I think is "beautiful", and he tells me, logically and rationally, what I think is "beautiful". ?So what.
The fundamental problem is precisely the fact that judgements like "beauty" or "justice" or "right and wrong" have no precise definitions. ?Or, more correctly, they have BILLIONS of precise definitions -- one for each person on the planet, and science and "reason" simply can't tell us which definition is the correct one. ?They are inherently "sloppy".
And because of that, science (or logic, or rationality, or kohlinar) simply cannot answer those questions. ?At best, they can run the algorithm and tell you whether this or that thing meets YOUR OWN definition. ?But they can't say a single word about whether your particular definition is any better or more correct than anyone else's. ?
All they can do is accept your own definition as a given assumption.
Arrrggghhh -- I edited to correct a typo, and got all these extraneous question marks. Ignore, please.
--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
|
