I wonder if I can make the picture a PHP file, which in your case would output an LJ-cut before the picture... no, coz that would be inside the IMG tag...
I wonder if there's a way of inserting PHP-generated HTML inside HTML.
Sorry, but I don't see that this says anything at all.
Is it a flowchart of how we can read a text, break it into a collection of propositions or assertions, sort the assertions or propositions by types, and having identified these types, further identify the propositions according to a model of "premises" and "conclusion(s)"?
I still don't see that there's any content to this, and as a flowchart of an argument, it strikes me as very simple.
The problem with most arguments is that people disagree with the premises. They all say they support blahblah; but in fact proponent-1 supports blahblah-1, and proponent blahblah-2, which aren't the same. Often, logical disambiguation causes people to realise their disagreements are more fundamental than they originally assumed, because they each loaded the same words with different meanings, without realizing (and wanting to realize) the other person had done so.
They all say they support blahblah; but in fact proponent-1 supports blahblah-1, and proponent blahblah-2, which aren't the same.
This is indeed the case. Definitions are vague, and often only get refined when people are trying to resolve a disagreement where the definition is used.
Normally, people will have enough definitions in common to detect that they are using different meanings (see the problem of "radical interpretation"). We can think of the redundancy of language as providing error-correction for our vague/fuzzy/noisy communications.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
krja
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-14 02:40 am (UTC)I need a decision procedure here...
:-D
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-14 09:29 am (UTC)So you could disagree with "fefefe".
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-14 06:02 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-14 09:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-14 01:16 pm (UTC)I wonder if there's a way of inserting PHP-generated HTML inside HTML.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-14 06:13 am (UTC)(fefefe < bobobo) (glu glu < hohoho) (fefefe + ninini) < (bobobo + hohoho)?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-14 09:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-14 06:32 am (UTC)Is it a flowchart of how we can read a text, break it into a collection of propositions or assertions, sort the assertions or propositions by types, and having identified these types, further identify the propositions according to a model of "premises" and "conclusion(s)"?
I still don't see that there's any content to this, and as a flowchart of an argument, it strikes me as very simple.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-14 09:32 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-15 12:26 pm (UTC)Often, logical disambiguation causes people to realise their disagreements are more fundamental than they originally assumed, because they each loaded the same words with different meanings, without realizing (and wanting to realize) the other person had done so.
That's what I think, anyway.
Nice diagram.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-15 03:59 pm (UTC)This is indeed the case. Definitions are vague, and often only get refined when people are trying to resolve a disagreement where the definition is used.
Normally, people will have enough definitions in common to detect that they are using different meanings (see the problem of "radical interpretation"). We can think of the redundancy of language as providing error-correction for our vague/fuzzy/noisy communications.
Nice diagram.
Thanks.