Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
I'm not sure why you need to co-opt the word logical for your definition, since there are necessarily instances where your definition would contradict the formal one.
|
What do you mean? Why did
you "co-opt the word 'logical' for your definition?" "There are necessarily instances where your definition would contradict the formal one" just as much as mine would.
I was merely suggesting a more useful meaning of the word...
Quote:
I do think it would be more useful if we could all agree on the definitions of nebulously defined words before we use them in a discussion. I have found that most people don't seem to like it to much when one points out that they use the word "logic" as a synonym for "people I disagree with". They want it to have more intellectual oomph than that.
And semantics get a bad rap. Clearly there is some utility in discussing them-- it is difficult to have a discussion when the participants are speaking different languages.
|
I agree that it's useful to define our terms. I just don't want to argue about them...
Quote:
|
Well, but they must turn away from these beliefs because they find others more appealing, no? The Skeptic with a capital S turns away from a belief in a loving, all powerful god because they find the notion of belief without scientifically verifiable evidence less appealing than the notion of scientific evidence based belief. I think it's all rooted in aesthetics, even if the particulars aren't necessarily all that aesthetically appealing.
|
It depends on what you mean by "appealing." I don't find the idea that
Jerry Falwell was an influential man the least bit appealing but I believe it. How is this possible, according to your theory?
As I was saying, people believe many things they don't want to believe. Aesthetically displeasing ideas are believed all the time. Your theory doesn't hold up against this evidence...