The dialects of technologism emerge. Look. If you want to get into modern research on Logic, see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-free/ http://plato.sta

The dialects of technologism emerge. Look. If you want to get into modern research on Logic, see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-free/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-free/ and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/. This entire discussion falls under Rhetoric, or metacognition anyway; on its worst days, Politics, often codified in polemics. Nevertheless, Psychologism has been abandoned in modern conceptions of Logic[0]. Now is Psychologism true or false? Take that up with the history of philosophy, but is this a question about Logic? Are the theories of paraconsistent logics or the laws of excluded middle this or some way in virtue of facts of psychological, not even necessarily biological features of hominids? Or even that we persuade everyone of it so? That's certainly a debate to be had — but this discussion is about what counts as valid satire, and that is a question of Rhetoric, not Logic. And psychologism is a question about Logic, a question thought to be settled like a century ago. Like the Sokal Hoax, it doesn't change the illogic of No True Scotsman. Feminism absolutely means something, and it doesn't boil down to some artifact of the history of feminism. Can it change its meaning? — Inevitably. Is this a question about, in, within, therein Logic? Modern logic? No. Is gender equality an issue in, within, therein Logic? Modern logic? Yes. — Our politics are right fucked, and distributions show gross marginalizations across demographics. But is this a problem of Logic? — Again: No. [0]: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/psychologism/#ConSto http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/psychologism/#ConSto