[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Logical formalisms
- To: "The Van Til List" <vantil-list@XC.Org>
- Subject: Re: Logical formalisms
- From: David Byron <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 22:13:12 -0400
- In-Reply-To: <LYR231513-26955-1999.07.28-18.01.52--david.byron#yale.edu@XC.Org>
- Reply-To: "The Van Til List" <vantil-list@XC.Org>
At 09:01 PM 7/28/99 , Vern wrote:
>If you think appeals to mystery are "misunderstood," on
>the classical basis, what makes you think that appeals
>to extended or deviant "logics" will somehow make the
One concrete example of how a free logic seems more useful
than a classical logic for the sort of work we're doing
here pertains to the question of logical presuppositions.
In classical logic, presuppositions are trivial and wimpy.
But in a trivalent logic, or (preferably) a bivalent logic
with truthvalue gaps, presuppositions are nontrivial and
robust. That interesting and relevant fact is a good
starting point for considering other possible areas in
which such a logic might prove beneficial to rational
Christian Theistic efforts in analytic philosophy.
You are currently subscribed to vantil-list as: firstname.lastname@example.org