Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

3
  • 1
    “A valid deduction requires all 3 to be relevant to one another.” This is not true in most formal logics, and in any case would require you to formalize the notion of “relevance”, in itself no easy task. “....there are lots and lots of theories, wordplay and semantics about terms in philosophy, but in the main they seek to confuse and not clarify nor reach knowledge.” Do you have a reference for this beyond personal opinion? Commented Nov 14, 2020 at 20:37
  • It is what it is & logically so. I’ve used relevance in its meaning colloquially. I understand now you wish me to give it another definition in order to frustrate it’s very meaning. The problem lies not in the words I’m using in their spoken and written usage, but that deduction as a method to attain knowledge rather than belief and suggestions (often termed as ‘hard knowledge’ erroneously depending on the conclusion wanted), is not a decent method. Even proving the most simple premises can lead to infinite regress due to our heavy reliance upon empiricism. Yet it seems one of the only we have Commented Nov 15, 2020 at 2:17
  • Welcome to SE Philosophy! Thanks for your contribution. Please take a quick moment to take the tour or find help. You can perform searches here or seek additional clarification at the meta site. Don't forget, when someone has answered your question, you can click on the arrow to reward the contributor and the checkmark to select what you feel is the best answer.
    – J D
    Commented Nov 20, 2020 at 19:31