Logic is implicit in empricisicm because the idea that contradictions are false is implicit in the idea of disproof by contradictory evidence.
I think Science and Sanity lays out a framework for dealing with beliefs that doesn't categories them into true/false that is better than the basic true/false dichomity.
If you have other reasoning show it. Otherwise that was an irrelevant nitpick.
I care more about what Science and Sanity called semantic reactions than I care about presuppositions.
Basically you feed the relevant data into your mind and then you let it process the data. As a result of processing it there's a semantic reaction. Internally the brain does that with a neural net that doesn't use logical chains to do it's work.
When I write here I point out the most important piece of the data, but not all of what my reasoning is based on because it's based on lots of experiences and lots of empiric data.
I think Science and Sanity lays out a framework for dealing with beliefs that doesn't categories them into true/false that is better than the basic true/false dichomity.
Using a ramified logic with more than two truth values is not the same as not using logic at all!
...I care more about what Science and Sanity called semantic reactions than I care about presuppositions.
Basically you feed the relevant data into your mind and then you let it process the data. As a result of processing it there a semantic reaction. Internally the brain does that with a neura
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, then it goes here.
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.
4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "