:) (A good illustration of the problem of applying logic/formalism to human intuitions/language.)https://twitter.com/corsent/status/1079040333051236352 …
Nailing down arguments in a rigorous way is hard. Doing it successfully makes it a lot harder to argue against. Doing difficult things that nobody fights against is prestigious.
-
-
Successfully? But my claim is it’s basically impossible to do successfully. Language isn’t math. Trying to treat the seductive logic as if it’s as precise as math will *necessrily* lead you astray. *Always* does.
-
But also people do fight against this. If analytic philosophers are good at anything, they are good at finding the logical fallacy and thinking up a counterexample. So it’s not like once you formalize the argument you get away with it. Your colleagues find flaw and write responsa
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
Everybody loves my baby
(∀x)Lxb
But my baby don't love nobody but me
(∀x)(Lbx → x=m)
Therefore, baby is me
b=m
(Credit to Fats Waller for the premises and to Richard Jeffrey, _Formal Logic_, for noticing the implication)