View Single Post
  #17586  
Old 05-27-2012, 06:29 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
[
3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8 contains proof of its veracity. Obviously, you have to understand what these symbols mean, but this equation does contain its own proof and you don't need an expert to verify it if you understand the equation. And I am asking people not to tell me that 3 is to 6 is not what 4 is to 8. It will fall on deaf ears.
This is incorrect because the proof of the statement is verified through knowledge outside of the statement itself. Defining and verifying terms is exactly what Lessans did not do, in not providing data from which he drew his conclusions he failed to provide the basis for his claims. I could just write "@ is to * what % is to #" and without providing specific definitions for the terms the statement is meaningless. So "3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8" is meaningless unless we have agreed what the elements stand for, and that knowledge is outside the statement itself.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (05-27-2012)
 
Page generated in 0.25605 seconds with 10 queries