Re: virus: skeptics

David McFadzean (
Tue, 09 Feb 1999 18:44:29 -0700

At 03:50 PM 2/9/99 -0800, KMO wrote:

>I don't think the point of contention is over what conclussions can and
>can't be reached deductively. I'm not a logician, but it is my
>understanding that when you talk of logical proof, you're talking about
>establishing the truth or falsity of a proposition via a process of
>deduction. In order to deduce something you must ALREADY KNOW at least
>two things.
>For example, here's a basic form for a deductive argument:
>Premise 1) If A then B.
>Premise 2) A.
>Conclusion) B

Not exactly, in order to deduce something you have to postulate the premises (plus all the rules of logic you use). The conclusion will of course be provisional, something along the lines of "if all my assumptions are true, then the conlusion must follow" and that (I claim) is the best you can hope for. Hence pancritical rationalism. <>

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus