For an argument to have the term “knockdown” applied, there needs to be a contrary belief to be knocked down. Which is vanishingly rare in cases where an argument actually gets evaluated AND an indisputable syllogism can be formed.
Which I guess supports your conclusion: knockdown arguments don’t exist. But not because they’re paradoxical, just because nobody argues in good faith over trivially true things.
Not central to my objection, but “is or is not human” embeds an agruable model, which does not map to “1 equals or does not equal 1″. TayTay could change over time, or be semi-human in ways that she is neither human nor not-human.
I’m not sure that in order for an argument to be knockdown, there has to be a contrary belief. I might give a new, conclusive argument for a conclusion C that is so new that no one has ever disbelieved it (e.g., perhaps some claim about dark energy, a couple decades ago).
But in any case, if you were right, then the TS arguments wouldn’t be knockdown, which is response 2 to the paradox.
‘Taylor Swift is or is not human’ is short for ‘Either Taylor Swift is human or it’s not the case that Taylor Swift is human’, which is a logical truth on anyone’s conception of logic.
You’ve never talked to anyone working in constructive logic? That’s a clear example of Law of Excluded Middle, which is not assumed there. It is a logical truth in classical logic.
Worse, I would not even agree that ‘Taylor Swift is or is not human’ is always short for ‘Either Taylor Swift is human or it’s not the case that Taylor Swift is human’, since I don’t think that (when we’re talking strictly) ‘not the case that Taylor Swift is human’ means exactly the same thing as ‘Taylor Swift is not human’. There are also forms of logic that formalize this difference.
I have taught logic classes at several universities. I am assuming that as I am using it in the post, “TS either is or is not human” is logically true. It doesn’t matter if there are viable interpretations of it that aren’t logically true. I thought it was clear that I was using the sentence to express a logical truth. All I need in the argument is the premise that it can express a logical truth. Almost everyone agrees with that premise, especially since “Taylor Swift” has a referent.
For an argument to have the term “knockdown” applied, there needs to be a contrary belief to be knocked down. Which is vanishingly rare in cases where an argument actually gets evaluated AND an indisputable syllogism can be formed.
Which I guess supports your conclusion: knockdown arguments don’t exist. But not because they’re paradoxical, just because nobody argues in good faith over trivially true things.
Not central to my objection, but “is or is not human” embeds an agruable model, which does not map to “1 equals or does not equal 1″. TayTay could change over time, or be semi-human in ways that she is neither human nor not-human.
Thank you for your comment.
I’m not sure that in order for an argument to be knockdown, there has to be a contrary belief. I might give a new, conclusive argument for a conclusion C that is so new that no one has ever disbelieved it (e.g., perhaps some claim about dark energy, a couple decades ago).
But in any case, if you were right, then the TS arguments wouldn’t be knockdown, which is response 2 to the paradox.
‘Taylor Swift is or is not human’ is short for ‘Either Taylor Swift is human or it’s not the case that Taylor Swift is human’, which is a logical truth on anyone’s conception of logic.
You’ve never talked to anyone working in constructive logic? That’s a clear example of Law of Excluded Middle, which is not assumed there. It is a logical truth in classical logic.
Worse, I would not even agree that ‘Taylor Swift is or is not human’ is always short for ‘Either Taylor Swift is human or it’s not the case that Taylor Swift is human’, since I don’t think that (when we’re talking strictly) ‘not the case that Taylor Swift is human’ means exactly the same thing as ‘Taylor Swift is not human’. There are also forms of logic that formalize this difference.
I have taught logic classes at several universities. I am assuming that as I am using it in the post, “TS either is or is not human” is logically true. It doesn’t matter if there are viable interpretations of it that aren’t logically true. I thought it was clear that I was using the sentence to express a logical truth. All I need in the argument is the premise that it can express a logical truth. Almost everyone agrees with that premise, especially since “Taylor Swift” has a referent.