A more traditional argument might look something like Axiom 1: ((1=0 && 1!=0) -> Pope(Russell) Proposed axiom 2: (1=0 && 1!=0) 1&2 modus ponens: Pope(Russell)
Can you explain why Axiom 1 is an axiom? I don't understand this
Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)
21–30 of 122 posts
Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)
#22Quotation (related only because it's from Russell): "The fundamental argument for freedom of opinion is the doubtfulness of all our belief... when the State intervenes to ensure the indoctrination of some doctrine, it does so because there is no conclusive evidence in favour of that doctrine .. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions make it impossible to make a living." https://en.…
This is from, at least partially, "Free Thought and Official Propaganda." https://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/br-free-thought.html
Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)
#23Quotation (related only because it's from Russell): "The fundamental argument for freedom of opinion is the doubtfulness of all our belief... when the State intervenes to ensure the indoctrination of some doctrine, it does so because there is no conclusive evidence in favour of that doctrine .. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions make it impossible to make a living." https://en.…
And that will be used by shrill persons to claim censorship, etc, etc.
However, I claim that the profession of certain opinions should make it impossible to make a living.
EDIT: for certain values of "profess", which I'll expand as "go around telling everyone you frequently converse with"
Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)
#24There's something about the cardinality of that set
Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)
#25This is funny, but I will forever love Russell’s Paradox better.
Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)
#26Quotation (related only because it's from Russell): "The fundamental argument for freedom of opinion is the doubtfulness of all our belief... when the State intervenes to ensure the indoctrination of some doctrine, it does so because there is no conclusive evidence in favour of that doctrine .. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions make it impossible to make a living." https://en.…
conclusive evidence
Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)
#27In the version I heard, Russel says: "I am one, the pope is one, therefore the pope and I are one." I doubt he ever said that, but it sounds like him.
Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)
#28I love Bertrand Russell's writing style.
His piece on writing is a must read:http://personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/how...
He translates this:
"Human beings are completely exempt from undesirable behaviour-patterns only when certain prerequisites, not satisfied except in a small percentage of actual cases, have, through some fortuitous concourse of favourable circumstances, whether congenital or environmental, chanced to combine in producing an individual in whom many factors deviate from the norm in a socially advantageous manner"
Into this:
"All men are scoundrels, or at any rate almost all. The men who are not must have had unusual luck, both in their birth and in their upbringing."
Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)
#29A more traditional argument might look something like Axiom 1: ((1=0 && 1!=0) -> Pope(Russell) Proposed axiom 2: (1=0 && 1!=0) 1&2 modus ponens: Pope(Russell)
Is this standard DSL for formal logic? What's it called?
Not at all standard I'm afraid. "Modus ponens" is a common term to describe inferring B from A->B and A, but that's about as far as I'd be willing to say it resembles any common notation for formal logic.
Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)
#30You can add infinite to both sides, then you end up with: infinite + 1 = infinite
> You can add infinite to both sides
No you can't, it's illegal.