I should have probably noted this earlier: please try to not take my gruff/coarse/disrespectful writing style at face value, it is one of my biggest shortcoming

I should have probably noted this earlier: please try to not take my gruff/coarse/disrespectful writing style at face value, it is one of my biggest shortcomings. Pedantry and politeness is a tough combo to pull off (for me anyways). > Sorry for the short reply. First of all, certain things should not be discussed here, for many reasons. (In fact, I had to re-write my response, and, sorry, but much of the substantive I judged not to be discussed here.) I'm curious what this refers to: is there a blacklist of taboo topics on HN that I'm not aware of? > Among those reasons, that if you want to use Dirac as a manual for cooking, that may be even intellectually interesting, but if you want to use texts made with those other specific aims as the guidelines for a theory of logic, you are contributing in vilifying that content. Do you believe that I am "use texts made with those other specific aims as the guidelines for a theory of logic"? (Hint: Dirac seems orthogonal to the question, yet you have included it for some reason....rhetorical persuasion perhaps?). > You already had paraconsistency, fuzzy logic, all of contemporary studies: no need to create confusion in something that is already confused, and "does not need" (as they say) further mess. I don't know what this refers to. > And if you treat one's statements as meant for syntactical analysis, you will not understand them. You have to read them with intelligence. It's call 'intelligence' (intus legere) because it gets much deeper: you have to pass the input through "the black box inside", and if you need to clarify the responses, still intelligence is needed. Syntactical analysis is just a tool. Are you under the impression that syntactical analysis is the only tool in my kit, or are you just making a general observation? >> Now, your statement does not assert the opposite or rule it out, I suspect it is likely a consequence of > Yes, it is perfectly normal that "A whitens B and A blackens B": it happens because terms are semantically loose. Something ~doing the opposite under identical conditions doesn't seem normal to me. I don't see what this has to do with what I wrote. >> third parties reading conversations such as this may have their perception of reality distorted by not realizing such things > Misunderstanding may be descriptively normal, it is not deontically "normal". They should be educated, and they should know that participating in communication they are to understand it, not "live it like a bohemian". They are pretty much expected «[to] realiz[e] such things». So...hope for the best (as opposed to exerting some effort to increase the possibility that the best transpires)? >> A third party might read that sentence and form the conclusion > The third party is pretty much required to understand what was written vis-a-vis what was written. "Required" by whom? And if they do not meet that requirement? > Now: if the original poster states that something that means that "beliefs hinder other beliefs", that may be correct, and is correct (it is immediately evident in the rough form of the idea and explored academically in the Belief Change Theory), but it cannot be applied to what is not a belief system. Of course. That excludes riding a bicycle, and many other context - those which are not belief systems. "Beliefs hinder beliefs" can be true (it is true that it happens at least sometimes), but is it necessarily true, under all conditions? The assertion leaves it as an exercise for the reader (most of whom have active imaginations). I simply curious about what is comprehensively true, without exception - this is not only acceptable in science, but ~demanded, and everyone seems to looooooove science, so why the aversion to similar epistemic standards in other fields? >> false dichotomy > You have not understood what I wrote: you are trying to read it with the wrong lenses. Is it possible that instead of "thinking outside the box" you have "created a new box inside the other box"? There is no mystery in what I wrote, it was plain and direct: if you want to understand, read without prejudice. You wrote: >> Either you are attempting to take that elected subject as a belief system...or you take it as religion. You are explicitly asserting that it is one or the other, a textbook false dichotomy. From where have you sourced the Perfectly True Knowledge that there are no other options? For example, is it not possible to use something as a logical tool, or a mental model of sorts, in addition to many other techniques? (Or, something else you haven't thought of?) > The first stanza are the first four lines of what you wrote in the 'code' form. My question however, was regarding the part I quoted: "...which would be contradictory with the first stanza..", but I think my "use it as one tool" vs "an [entire] belief system" covers that misunderstanding. > If I have reticence in making all terms explicit, it is that I really find it inappropriate to treat as an object something that should be respected. Note sure what you mean....am I disrespecting something, or is speaking with precision, accuracy, and non-ambiguity disrespectful? If it's good enough for science, I don't know why it isn't good enough for other fields, at least where a disagreement arises. If people are happy "winging it" then great, but when I look around the world, I see a lot of extremely unhappy people, and most of these people seem to be winging it when it comes to epistemology in my opinion (and often strongly ideologically opposed to strict epistemology when I talk to them about these ideas). > And, if you read the text you proposed with similar analysis, let's say, instead of ___synthesis___ - the opposite -, do you think you could really understand it? Was that text conceived for analysis or for understanding? What was the intention of the author? Oh I can't disagree here, on a "clarity of communication" basis - The Tao Te Ching is anything but easy to understand - but then, perhaps that shortcoming is actually a benefit - it is a rather popular book after all. > What is superior, the intention of the author or a mental framework? I have no idea the intention of the author, but I believe the mental framework (roughly: the world is mysterious, what appears to be true is [typically] not, [due to post-published discoveries like] the illusory nature of consciousness, ontology and decomposition, IS vs Equals(), etc) is excellent, but like most any tool there are good and bad ways to use it. > Now: you seem to have a keen interest in logic, and also in its psychological sides. If you also like a mathematical consideration, I suggest that you take a degree in that area: you will find the contemporary debate very interesting and also productive. Also, before incomodating Dirac for writing about cooking, consider first if Dirac would approve it. Thank you for the advice but while I would surely find it interesting to get a math degree, I don't think it would be a good investment of time with respect to achieving my goals in the time I have left on this planet. Maybe in my next life (were I a Buddhist)! :)