XPost: sci.logic, comp.theory
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 10/2/2025 12:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-10-02, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/2/2025 11:43 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-10-02, olcott wrote:
>>>> The science of correct reasoning certainly requires
>>>> epistemology, otherwise most human knowledge cannot
>>>> be reasoned about.
>>>
>>> The science of anything requires a researcher who is humble, and who
>>> makes the utmost effort to look for reasons why their hypotheses might
>>> be incorrect, rather than only looking for affirming evidence, rejecting
>>> all else.
>>>
>>
>> I have spent 22 years on this.
>
> 22 years of not humbly looking for ways you might be wrong.
>
22 years of using categorically exhaustive reasoning
(that eliminate all gaps in reasoning) to reverse-engineer
the foundation of all analytical truth.
> If you were a proper researcher you would have been done in 22
> days, if not just that many hours.
>
>> I have filled in
>> all the gaps.
>
> Name one.
>
>> ignorance of which is which. Personality
>> characteristics are never directly relevant.
>
> There is your problem. The scientific method is not simply a
> personal characteristic.
>
This says it all regarding the Liar Paradox,
Gödel 1831 Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability.
https://claude.ai/share/45d3ca9c-fa9a-4a02-9e22-c6acd0057275
Of course you will reject it out-of-hand without
even glancing at it, none the less it does form a
single coherent view that cannot be shown to have
any incoherence.
When you always think inside-the-box then like on
Stack Exchange all new ideas are rejected entirely
on the basis that they do not exactly correspond
to existing ideas.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
