Re: Note function

On Jun 7, 3:49 pm, SleepyHead <simonharp...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 6 Jun, 22:50, LJS <ljsche...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 7, 4:22 am, "Steve Latham" <llat...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:t_l9i.12743$rO7.5939@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<snip nonsense>

You want to point to a few exceptions to a rule and say that it makes the
rule invalid.

I see more responses to this further up the line Jon, but for here:

Yes! One exception is enough to invalidate a rule in many cases.

Humans have two legs.

There have been humans born with more than two legs, or no legs.

That means you have to do one of two things. Either you have to redefine
"human" (which hopefully you see the danger in doing that) or change the
statement.

Humans have two legs, with rare exception.

Which definition you use depends on the context in which it's being used. If
you're using it in a context where the exceptions won't make a difference,
that's fine. But if you need to be accurate, you need to either cite the
exceptions to the rule. It's just like rounding up in math. 4 is Ok for some
things, but 3.7 may be needed in situations that demand more accurate
calculations.

Steve

Here you see a perfect example of a post about a lack of context and
definition that has absolutely none of either!

Way to go Steve!!
LJS

That's not entirely fair LJ - Wittgenstein's later philosophy (one of
the few things I will actually claim to know something about for
definite) is partly about "definition for a purpose" contra the
Socratean principle of "definition for all purposes". /His/ point
(LW's) is that definition often has a great deal to do with context.
For instance - the ostensive definition "this apple is green" will
work fine in most earthlike conditions, but if you go to a planet with
a different percentage of oxygen (or even no oxygen) in the atmosphere
the definition won't work for any earth-creatures that look at the
apple under those conditions. In which case you either identify the
colour relative to earth conditions (it looks blue here), or you make
the colour green mutable (it's still green, only green is different
here). There are legal cases which revolve around more-or-less the
same principle - clothes look a different colour under sodium lamps
than they do in natural sunlight: Witnesses who see an offender under
sodium lamps, but report his jacket's colour as the same as it would
be in natural light are probably hiding something.


Sleepy,
My problem is not with the definition, it is with the fact that it
does exactly what he accuses others (and myself) of constantly. I have
said repeadly that there may be something worthwhile inside of Steve's
head. He just refuses to put things in a manner that any where close
to being factual. Sure, many of his thoughts are true, to an extent.
But many are totally out of his imagination and either are not based
on any fact, or are totally unrelated to what is being asked. It is
akin to a press conference where you will not get any factual answers.
(not the British Parliment, but the US Presidential conferences). They
come to the table with the answers and opinions that they have and
that is what you get with what ever questions you ask.

You picked up on that little logic statement. I have not problem with
that. If I remember correctly, he gave this as an answer to my saying
that he was giving answers that were not true in most or all contexts
like he stated. I would have to go through his response to Jon to
remember exactly. There was good information in the reply, but it had
little or nothing to do with what Jon was saying. Steve will hold
every detail of a statement that he disagres with (or maybe more
truely, that he does not understand) up to what ever exception or
context that he can imagine and try to dispute the facts with
unrelated and often untrue statements. My peoblem is not with
Wittgenstein's philosophy. But I hear his invoking it as more of well
this apple is green on planet earth so the orange is purple on the
moon. I don't think that this is what Wittgenstein is saying at all.

I am sorry that you thought I was disputing Wittgenstein. I just get
so frustrated with the constant opinion, no fact, opinion, no fact,
opinion, change the original question to something else and answer
that that sometimes I do write and not check so good what I said.
Sorry Sleepy. The logic was correct, but I don't think that the
parameters that Steve pluged into it were the correct ones to prove
the statement. On the contrary, they seemed to be just convient ones
that would give an answer that almost disputed what Jon said, but
really was off the subject enough to totally spin it around.

Do you know about Ruah Lumbaugh in Britan? He does this all the time.
He will purposely change the axioms of logic with a spin to a slightly
different subject and thus his listeners that disagree with him have
no chance of taking the logic to a successful conclusion. I used this
type of spin myself in the mid 60's when I paid for three years of
college in two months ot the summer vacation. I am not saying that
Steve is doing this on purpose. On the contrary. I think that he is
probably a young musician that has worked very hard mostly on his own
and has accumulated a lot of facts about music. I would GUESS that he
has not has a lot of formal music education. This is only speculation
on my part based on his using this kind of logic and by some of the
totally good things that he says and then some of the incredibly
shallow and wrong things that he says.

I repeat that this IS only my OPINON and is not based on anything
other than my opinion. The only reason that I bother with his crap at
all is that I think that there is something there and I hope that my
impressions of him are pretty much correct as that would mean that
there is hope for him. If he can learn a little bit about how things
relate and don't relate and how things can have many different
viewpoints that do not really conflict with each other but may seem to
on the surface, and most importantly, if he can learn that the more he
thinks that he knows and understands, the less he really does, then he
may be able to contribute real things to a music conversation. I
really hope that he can put some of this together.

Anyway, either he will start to listen a bit more and try to learn a
bit more about teaching, then he may be able to be a Teacher rather
than a Preacher.

LJS

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Exception vs Boolean
    ... I don't think there's any real loss of context here. ... my opinion is completely in disharmony with the ideas of the main persons ... The interesting thing is the negative attitude towards exceptions ... think that you should not say that but Scott. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.general)
  • Re: Exception vs Boolean
    ... I don't think there's any real loss of context here. ... opinion is completely in disharmony with the ideas of the main persons who ... The interesting thing is the negative attitude towards exceptions ... The first answer from Scott was a very clear text for me. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.general)
  • Re: The unforgiveable sin etc.
    ... >> I speak of context. ... > with a variant of the saying in 12:32. ... Also taking the tack that the scriptures were altered in such a way ... "One of these cups has poison in it" and say that some part of this ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: atheists for freedom
    ... I don't think you're being deliberately dishonest I ... No. I'm saying what he is saying is not what you think he's saying. ... ignored the context and have reached the wrong conclusion. ... If you read what he said he is not saying that in equations in physics ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Socialist Realism
    ... I'm not saying that your inferences about what he meant or what his or ... But context does matter. ... well-read" people were sold a complete pup. ... It's generally accepted in Russia that both Gorky and his son, ...
    (rec.music.opera)