[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: proving values
Michael,
As for my current interest in whether or not values can be "logically
debated" I am more interested in that horrible, classic idea of logic.
(Which probably opens me up to many critiques/kritiks...) BUT, I am
willing to loosen this constraint up if you think that you can show how
in a "new enlightened logic system" values could be "logically" debated
(both with an explanation and with example arguments)... (Or for that
matter anyone else who subscribes to new logic systems as a way of
avoiding my problems with value debate.)
Chat,
--Jamey
In response to...
On Wed, 2 Feb 1994, Michael Marshall wrote:
> Who said anything about debate having to be logical? And if so, what logic
> system do you propose? - The antiquated "Greek-Think" standard of TRUE vs.
> FALSE (which requires discrete, denotative definitions, which is inherently
> inaccurate because is not always discrete or denotative) or perhaps a three
> value logic system such as those proposed down the ages by such people as
> Leibniz, inwhich the three values could be PROBABLE, POSSIBLE, IMPROBABLE ?
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page