| [ Christian ] in KIDS 글 쓴 이(By): RNB (rainbow) 날 짜 (Date): 2001년 12월 3일 월요일 오후 01시 19분 25초 제 목(Title): Re: Extension of logic toward belief you said: 덕분에 "논리를 적용할 수 없으면 비논리적이지 않다"라는 생전 처음 듣는 희귀한 '논리'도 접할 수 있었고요. ____ That's not my opinion but your narrow definition. If I cannot apply my logic (to some idea based on belief), my idea can be illogical and also cannot be illogical. But you insist that the idea "should be illogical" by you narrow definition. That's the hole of your idea. I already suggested many of example. [1]. "I believe I can walk on Mar" According to your definition, This belief is illogical. but not for me.If you need I can talk to you hundreds of thounds of logical thinkig that support my belief. For your understanding, "If the NASA project will be funded so that they accomplish the commercial travel program to MAR within 50 years, and if I earned lot's of money including my social security returns, then I got the ticket to MAR accompany with my wife." Is it illogical? Your answear should be one of the two. 1. my belief is illogical although I have logical reasoning (according to your narrow definition) 2. That's not the belief but logical thinking. (according to your definition) Did you proof whether I can go to MAR or not? At some point, my logic does not work because simply I don's konw all thing. I have no reason to hesitate to call it "belief". but you will not call it belief due to you narrow understanding of belief. and also call it conflict to logic. (what detail is conflict?) Both way you have very narrow and ackward conclusion. [2] Second example: "Some physicist believe there exists Unified Theory from their experiance on the mathematical symmetry of Field equations." Result of your thinking is one of the two. 1. they are illogical. 2. that's not the belief but the logical thinking. Why this cannot be belief? If you choose the second result,that's completely due to your narrow definition of belief and logic, which is strange not only to me but also to common sense. I suggested the examples that you want and also revealed my thought about your thinking process. This is your turn. ... You may insists that Unified theory is not to believe. then how about advanced lifes in Andromeda? Is this not belief? (you thinks all of this are (illogical) belief or logical thinking. then where is your belief under your narrow definition?) You looks still narrow to me up to now, sorry I cannot help myself think so. Why didn't you reply to me about the example that I already suggest insisting me to give example and prove, prove, prove... until I follow your way? Arn't you satisfied with my example? If no, that's because of your narrow definition. Anyway. this is your turn! Please reply to me revealing what detail is conflict in believing Unified theory and thinking it logically. |