In article <email@example.com>, Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:
> 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.
Provided that any of the alleged alternatives exist at all and provided that "true" versus "false" is appropriate for any of them. For example "North", East" "South" and "West" are in a sense exhaustive, but none of them is any truer that another.