On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:26:34 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>In article <email@example.com>, > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:38:24 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> >> >In article <email@example.com>, >> > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: >> > >> >> >> Well, Nam, without going on endlessly I would like to ask if arguments >> >> based on "absolute truth" are indeed futile, are arguments based on >> >> "absolute falseness" necessarily equally futile? >> > >> >If one excludes logical tautologies like "if P then P" and logical >> >contradictions like "if P then not P", yes. >> >> I had other tautologies in mind of the general form "P, not P". But >> the general argument remains regardless. Universal alternatives to >> universal falseness must perforce be universally true. > >Provided that there are any of either, maybe. But I cannot assent >without seeing exemplars.
Sure you can. Or if you can't you shouldn't be doing mathematics. If alternatives are exhaustive one or the other must be true.