4 ms·

"We" are not here not agreeing with it. You are here not agreeing with it, and clearly another group of people agrees with it quite strongly. I agree it could b

"We" are not here not agreeing with it. You are here not agreeing with it, and clearly another group of people agrees with it quite strongly. I agree it could be clearer, but it does not follow that a point that is not clearly made is not true at its core. A thing does not need to be argued successfully to be true: the truth of the thing exists first. Absolutely, with prejudice, I reject the principle of excluded middle—if not based on mathematics, then for its societal impact on the way we think about the world and ourselves. I think a three- or four-valued logic (yes/no/maybe or yes/no/both/neither) applies to reality better and helps humans understand complexity as it really is, while a two-valued logic nearly always oversimplifies and causes direct harm to ideas and how they spread and are discussed. In general I have no patience for those who think in binary.

wyager 12y ago
>"We" are not here not agreeing with it. I never made this claim. I reject your claim that "we know [the author's claims to be] true". I don't know them to be true. In fact, I think them to be false. >A thing does not need to be argued successfully to be true This is true, of course. But neither your nor the author have proven the truth of what you are saying. You've just flung dogma at us, sans evidence. >I reject the principle of excluded middle—if not based on mathematics, then for its societal impact on the way we think about the world and ourselves. Just because you wish something to be true does not make it true. You may be uncomfortable with the consequences of the truth of the PEM, but that is not an argument against its truth. Do you have any evidence contradicting the PEM? I'd love to hear it. >In general I have no patience for those who think in binary. Why? Because the truth of the PEM would mean you're wrong?
- calinet6 12y ago
  I don't much care about myself being wrong. I care that the conclusions of the type of black and white rhetoric you pursue are the very same that are driving society into ever more harmful separation, for ever less logical reasons, all under the simple concept that if something is not true, it must be false. What I mean is, the high complexity of most systems in nature and society and humanity about which we argue necessarily dictate that a statement cannot be absolutely false without variance, or absolutely true without variance. There are too many inputs and variables, for a logician let alone a layperson to make sense of. Yet the dichotomy of the PEM (or thinking akin to that) is applied even in those cases. It has become not only a logical statement, but a way of life and a way of thinking, and it far overreaches its definition. Thus, I don't care if the PEM is an irrefutable mathematical truth or not. That is irrelevant, and it is not what I'm arguing. I argue that it does not apply to most situations of the real world, and following it when it should not be followed leads to mistaken conclusions. We see this played out presently in politics, society, and in our own lives; as this article describes. The real question is not whether the mathematics of the PEM hold true (they do), but whether the type of thinking they lead to is beneficial to humanity. And about that I am allowed to have opinions and make an argument. My opinion is that it is detrimental to humanity, and my argument is that most places where a binary or dichotomous argument is used are too complex for it to apply cleanly, yet we ignore that major problem and continue anyway. This leads to false conclusions and actions within complex systems. I continue to have no patience for those who think in binary, because it is inhuman, selfish, and irritating; not because it is untrue, but because it is an incredibly poor way to interact with other human beings, and an unproductive way to approach complexity.

wyager 12y ago

>"We" are not here not agreeing with it. I never made this claim. I reject your claim that "we know [the author's claims to be] true". I don't know them to be true. In fact, I think them to be false. >A thing does not need to be argued successfully to be true This is true, of course. But neither your nor the author have proven the truth of what you are saying. You've just flung dogma at us, sans evidence. >I reject the principle of excluded middle—if not based on mathematics, then for its societal impact on the way we think about the world and ourselves. Just because you wish something to be true does not make it true. You may be uncomfortable with the consequences of the truth of the PEM, but that is not an argument against its truth. Do you have any evidence contradicting the PEM? I'd love to hear it. >In general I have no patience for those who think in binary. Why? Because the truth of the PEM would mean you're wrong?

calinet6 12y ago
I don't much care about myself being wrong. I care that the conclusions of the type of black and white rhetoric you pursue are the very same that are driving society into ever more harmful separation, for ever less logical reasons, all under the simple concept that if something is not true, it must be false. What I mean is, the high complexity of most systems in nature and society and humanity about which we argue necessarily dictate that a statement cannot be absolutely false without variance, or absolutely true without variance. There are too many inputs and variables, for a logician let alone a layperson to make sense of. Yet the dichotomy of the PEM (or thinking akin to that) is applied even in those cases. It has become not only a logical statement, but a way of life and a way of thinking, and it far overreaches its definition. Thus, I don't care if the PEM is an irrefutable mathematical truth or not. That is irrelevant, and it is not what I'm arguing. I argue that it does not apply to most situations of the real world, and following it when it should not be followed leads to mistaken conclusions. We see this played out presently in politics, society, and in our own lives; as this article describes. The real question is not whether the mathematics of the PEM hold true (they do), but whether the type of thinking they lead to is beneficial to humanity. And about that I am allowed to have opinions and make an argument. My opinion is that it is detrimental to humanity, and my argument is that most places where a binary or dichotomous argument is used are too complex for it to apply cleanly, yet we ignore that major problem and continue anyway. This leads to false conclusions and actions within complex systems. I continue to have no patience for those who think in binary, because it is inhuman, selfish, and irritating; not because it is untrue, but because it is an incredibly poor way to interact with other human beings, and an unproductive way to approach complexity.