Since I've made so many of them in my 50+ years of living, I've learned to be proud of my mistakes, especially the real doozies. My mistakes and the lessons I've learned from them have made me the exemplary parakeet I am today. (Although, maybe the opinion that I'm exemplary is just another error. And maybe I'm not really a parakeet!)
DO YOU know how to be WRONG?? Should you TRY?
by Terry 54 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Narkissos
Iow, the less logic interferes with reality, the better it works.
Or, the less "true" it is (inasmuch as "truth" implies correspondence with extra-linguistic phenomena) the less "false" it can be (internally).
A rather contradictory basis for non-contradiction, isn't it?
Every time you say something (assertion) about something (phenomenon) you will sweep something unsaid under the carpet of language, waiting to be picked up from another angle, resulting in formal contradiction. True, you will be able to elucidate the contradiction by pointing out the difference of perspective. But thereby the scope of your initial assertion (and the opposite one) will be reduced. The more you allow this dialectics to go on the less meaningful any assertion becomes. Better keep logic clear of phenomena (as in pure mathematics).
I'm sure someone will bring quantum physics up at this point. The only "lesson" I would personally draw from it, is that "either / or" and tertium non datur work only when you don't look at things too closely.
-
changeling
I make it a point to be wrong everyday.
changeling
-
Hortensia
to put it simply, it is good for us to say (and mean) things like "you might be right" or "I didn't know that" or "I never looked at it like that" or "I was wrong, I'm sorry." As it is, I am one of those people who mostly learns by doing it wrong - whatever "it" is. I learn by my mistakes, so I've apologized a lot in my life. You don't die from apologizing and admitting you don't know something. In fact, it tends to make things quicker and easier to resolve.
-
Narkissos
I referred earlier to the positive spin French science philosopher Michel Serres put on the saying errare humanum est -- that erring is not an epistemological accident but the essence of epistemology -- our very way of learning and knowing.
Relating it to the above: without accepting the risk, or even the certainty to be wrong, over and over again, we could never say or think or understand anything at all.
-
Terry
Iow, the less logic interferes with reality, the better it works.
Or, the less "true" it is (inasmuch as "truth" implies correspondence with extra-linguistic phenomena) the less "false" it can be (internally).
A rather contradictory basis for non-contradiction, isn't it?
Every time you say something (assertion) about something (phenomenon) you will sweep something unsaid under the carpet of language, waiting to be picked up from another angle, resulting in formal contradiction. True, you will be able to elucidate the contradiction by pointing out the difference of perspective. But thereby the scope of your initial assertion (and the opposite one) will be reduced. The more you allow this dialectics to go on the less meaningful any assertion becomes. Better keep logic clear of phenomena (as in pure mathematics).
I wouldn't go THAT far!
Logic is a method for keeping things non-contradictory. In cases describing reality it can clear away obstacles to clarity. In the case of hypotheticals it merely does furniture straightening.
A description (if true) is not so much an assertion as an equivalency in language. Logic applies to relationships between identities more than acting as a descriptor of an identity.
Contradiction is not so much an angle of perspective as it is a bookkeeping procedure for accounting that doesn't unbalance the books.
In other words, we can talk about money and then write down our description of where we said the money went and see if it adds up.
The "problem" with logic as a tool is that it is so often employed to account for non-existant entities of pure imagination!
Trinitarian arguments actually invite pretzel logic. Logic can't help/hurt a theological argument per se. But, it can test the sanity/patience of the participants!
-
Terry
You don't die from apologizing and admitting you don't know something. In fact, it tends to make things quicker and easier to resolve.
Only if you are sane!
Think how many men argue with women and vice verse!
-
Twitch
Good post Terry
Twitch (of the "knows he has been wrong, will be again and is ok wit it" class)
-
Terry
Relating it to the above: without accepting the risk, or even the certainty to be wrong, over and over again, we could never say or think or understand anything at all.
I can't remember who said this, but; "whenever science tells us something is possible it is almost always right. But, when science tells us something is impossible it is almost always wrong."
-
NewYork44M
I work as an internal auditor and am always amazed how complicated communication is.
I can spend weeks with a client to try to understand his or her world. Once I think I understand I write a draft report identifying problems and etc.
Once I put in writing what i think I know, I realize how much I don't know. And then, when I show the client the report more than once I hear, No, that's not what I meant.
So how does this little story relate to what you wrote, Terry?
It is very likely that you don't truly know what you think you know and that you don't truely understand the position of the opposing party. May be you can never get to that point by just vocalizing your views.