I guess you are familiar with David Stove's "What is wrong with our thoughts?" essay. Therein he proposes a "nosology of human thought" . Towards the end, he listed 40 statements related to the number 3, and claimed that we could only identify what was wrong with the first two. I thought (many years ago) that it were possible to explain the faults of all 40 with grammar and speech act theory.. Just wondering what you think about the statements, and how far you could go to explaining their faults with formal logic?
Every error of sense can be reduced to a violation of any of the laws of sense (non-contradiction, excluded middle, identity). If it cannot be reduced to a violation of any of the laws of sense, then there is no error of sense.
:)
I guess you are familiar with David Stove's "What is wrong with our thoughts?" essay. Therein he proposes a "nosology of human thought" . Towards the end, he listed 40 statements related to the number 3, and claimed that we could only identify what was wrong with the first two. I thought (many years ago) that it were possible to explain the faults of all 40 with grammar and speech act theory.. Just wondering what you think about the statements, and how far you could go to explaining their faults with formal logic?
Every error of sense can be reduced to a violation of any of the laws of sense (non-contradiction, excluded middle, identity). If it cannot be reduced to a violation of any of the laws of sense, then there is no error of sense.