>Lester Zick wrote: >> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:54:29 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> >>> In article <email@example.com>, >>> Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:42:02 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Zick again exhibits his penchant for seeing things which do not exist. >>>>> I am critical of your general claim, as you have not been able to >>>>> bolster it with anything other than mere restatement of the claim itself. >>>> Which you appear unwilling or unable to evaluate. >>> I tend to resist acceptance of claims which are presented, as Zick's >>> are, without persuasive evidence in support of them. >>> >>> If one presents an axiom system and says "IF we assume this system such >>> and such follows", and then presents some evidence the such and such >>> actually does follow, I am much more accepting. >>> >>> Zick claims to have things follow from nothing at all, and then presents >>> no evidence. >>> >>> I do not find his lack of evidence persuasive. >> >> As previously noted, which you are unwilling or unable to evaluate. >> Not my problem. > >It is your problem if, and only if, you wish to convince other people of >your views. If you don't care whether anyone else agrees with you, it is >not your problem.
I'm not sure agreement is really an issue where absolute truth is concerned. I merely maintain that contradiction is true of everything because contradiction cannot be contradicted since the contradiction of contradiction is self contradictory.
Now I realize this may seem like a very exotic line of reasoning but it is true and universally so regardless of whether people disagree or not. The problem is that without recognizing the universality of this principle people have no clue as to how to reason about what is true or how we recognize it and further mechanical principles consistent with it.
I don't mind trying to convince people but I'm much more interested in stating the principle itself accurately in succinct terms such that people can examine it and convince themselves. Ultimately one cannot "convince" people of what's universally true than they can that 1+1=2.
>However, USENET posting seems a rather futile activity if done without >any wish to convince.
Not entirely. The main value of usenet posting is to expose ideas to criticism and refine them. The only instance I can remember convincing anyone of anything was when I convinced Bob Kolker there is no real number line. It took him a while but he was straightforward enough to acknowledge that there is no real number line in formal terms despite the whining and snivveling of quite a few mathematikers.
The real difficulty nowadays is whole hosts of momumentally stupid opinions are bruted about regarding modern mathematics and science in general and their significance. The title of this thread is an excellent example. We are asked whether we believe instead of whether we can prove the truth of what we believe. Empiricism is all over the place with all kinds of hypothetical speculations. What we're looking at here is just the tip of a very big iceberg.