Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: McDonald's "relevance logic" / Bales on "authority"!

Expand Messages
  • w_w_c_l
    ... While there is no good reason to think McDonald actually comprehends Relevance Logic sufficiently to discuss it, and there is no good reason to think
    Message 1 of 20 , Feb 27, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "w_w_c_l"
      <w_w_c_l@...> wrote:
      >
      > Among Jerry McDonald's amendments we find:
      >
      > > 10. Because the proposition and its truth involves
      > > a question of sound reasoning, the disputants agree
      > > to accept the "law of the excluded middle" and the
      > > "law of contradiction/non-contradiction" and resolve
      > > any disputes related thereto, or other such issues,
      > > with reference to "Introduction to Logic" by Irving
      > > M. Copi and Carl Cohen, 11th edition, which both
      > > disputants have already indicated they accept as an
      > > authority in matters of sound reasoning (i.e., logic),
      > > though they remain free to take exception to any
      > > claims made by Copi & Cohen as may be referenced,
      >>>> Jerry McDonald will not be limited to classical logic.
      >>>> He may bring in "relevant logic" if he wishes.
      >
      > Then Jerry McDonald needs to specifically indicate
      > which form of "relevant logic" he thinks may have some
      > application to this exercise, and provide his preferred
      > reference -- title, author, edition -- as has been
      > done with the Copi/Cohen reference.
      >
      >
      > Rick

      --------------------------------

      > From: "Robert Baty" <rlbaty@...>
      > To: w_w_c_l@...
      > CC: rlbaty@...
      > Subject: Bales on "authority"!
      > Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:34:14 GMT

      --------------------------------

      While there is no good reason to think McDonald actually
      comprehends "Relevance Logic" sufficiently to discuss it, and there
      is no good reason to think there is anything within that system that
      would lend any support to his misguided efforts, I would just like to
      note these comments from Bales in support of my most reasonable
      effort that he and I agree on an "authority" before the debate with
      regards to any disputed issues that might arise as a result of our
      reliance on "rules of logic". The comments also help explain why it
      was so very important to first come to an agreement on the
      definitions.

      -----------------------------

      "Christian Contend For Thy Cause"
      by James D. Bales
      page 43

      (excerpts)

      "1. The proposition must be a discussion
      of authority or based on an authority
      common to both disputants.

      If you argue from one basis of authority,
      and the other person argues from another,
      you do not prove anything to one another.

      One must settle first the question of authority.

      When agreement is reached concerning the source
      of authority, then the individuals can discuss
      what the authority says.

      When you do not seem to be making headway in a
      discussion, public or private, it may be because
      the individual is offsetting what you say from...
      with the other authority which he accepts."

      -------------------------------
      -------------------------------

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      -------------------------------
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.