As you all are assuredly painfully aware by now our introduction into logic has involved putting what we perceive as arguments into standardized or otherwise simplified forms to more readily determine their truthfulness and other meaningful qualities. I was profoundly struck this week by the notion that was illustrated to me via counter example method that a further abstraction from the content of something can better able one to determine its innate qualities (truthfulness, accuracy ect.). I propose for general musing: what are the implications of this seeming contradiction? While it seems quite reasonably to follow that this is an effective method it runs counter to me intuition that the effort of pursued familiarity with a subject and its content is the best approach to assessing its qualities of truthfulness ect. Does this register with anyone else?
No comments:
Post a Comment