From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Wed Jan 23 2002 - 00:04:46 MST
"He dreamed that he stood in a shadowy Court,
Where the Snark with a glass in it's eye,
Dressed in gown, bands and wig, was defending a pig
On the charge of deserting it's sty.
The witness proved without error or flaw,
That the sty was deserted when found:
And the judge kept explaining the state of the law
In a soft undercurrent of sound.
(The Hunting of the Snark, Fit the Sixth: The Barristers dream.)
You are correct not to allow me to define your terms for you - what we seek
here is agreement about the terms. We also need to agree about the logical
FORM of the statement before we can make any progress with the contents.
I did specify that the term "corollary" is applicable to a PROVEN fact only.
This is crucial.
If we revisit Hill's first rule in the light of this, it takes the form:
There is only one rule (An assertion)
Corollary; he who makes the rules wins (An assertion)
Corollary; never let the other guy make the rules (A conclusion)
There is only one (control by authority)
(An assertion)
Corollary; he who makes the (controls by authority)wins.
(An assertion)
Corollary; never let the other guy (control by authority)
(A conclusion)
There is only one(thing which prevails generally or normally)
(An assertion)
Corollary; he who makes (the thing which prevails generally or normally)wins
(An assertion)
Corollary; never let the other guy make (the thing which prevails generally
or normally). (A conclusion)
This is the premise/premise/conclusion form. There are NO (so far)
corollaries involved. The consequence of this is that while it is true that
you have presented a justification for your conclusion that one should never
"let the other guy make the rules", you have not so far presented a
justification for the statement "There is only one rule." Once you have done
so you will be completely at liberty to derive corollaries from it.
Moving on - you wrote
"...the juxtaposition of the phrases was intended to mislead that they were
logically connected, when in actuality, agreement with the first eliminates
the rest." Errr, I'm not sure I'm with you on this - but perhaps it is no
longer germane in any case?
You also wrote
"Denial of the existence of absolute truth makes derivations therefrom
pretty dull. So far, nobody has ever been able to prove to me that this
morning happened and is not just an implanted memory. Could you please do
so?"
Would that I could! I will say though, that certain propositions are not
verifiable in experience, some propositions are verifiable only by
thought.(Nobody can for instance produce an actual "perfect" circle) This
class of propositions are described as "a priori" and are held to be
self-evident. So we will just have to get over our disappointment on this
one but it's not all bad - you may safely claim that "this morning happened,
a priori!"
Regards
Blunderov
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:41 MDT