> Interestingly, and I'm sure with plenty of precedent, in Wittgenstein's case he came to dismiss parts of his own dismissal later on. Okay, but that doesn't p

> Interestingly, and I'm sure with plenty of precedent, in Wittgenstein's case he came to dismiss parts of his own dismissal later on. Okay, but that doesn't prove that I will reach the same conclusions Wittgenstein did. > I won't get into the philosophical issues themselves (as I'm sure it can only hurt my case:), but you must surely be aware that when dealing with philosophical matters, your, my or anybody's agreement or dismissal of a viewpoint will never be universal, not even nearly universal. Whether everyone believes the truth is irrelevant to whether or not it's true. Universality and consensus are not goals I have when seeking the truth. It will never be the case that everyone believes what's true. > To wit, philosophers will still in this century go back and forth about the law of non-contradiction [1], one of the pillars of classical logic, and there is no sign of a slowdown. So, before you find "evidence (empirical or logical)" you may have to first wrestle about the very nature and demarcation of logic, with turtles all the way down. Sure. I won't claim to have a solution to this debate, but this, like "Can we trust our senses?" is another question without implications. If the law of contradiction is false, few people are willing to really put their money where their mouth is and really embrace contradiction, and those who do end up in psych wards. That doesn't help us prove that it's true (or false) but it does make the question fairly uninteresting. I prefer to ask questions where the answer has real-world implications.