ellauri089.html on line 625: § 105. and, if we consider the intrinsic value of each exercise, it will appear (1) that, in most cases, it has no value, and (2) that even the cases, where it has some value, are far from constituting the sole good. The truth of the latter proposition is generally inconsistently implied, even by those who deny it; …
ellauri096.html on line 110: Unlike the believer in ‘No man is an immortal’, the skeptic has trouble asserting ‘There is no knowledge’. For assertion expresses the belief that one knows. That is why Sextus Empiricus (Outlines of Pyrrhonism, I., 3, 226) condemns the assertion ‘There is no knowledge’ as dogmatic skepticism. Sextus prefers agnosticism about knowledge rather than skepticism (considered as “atheism” about knowledge). Yet it just as inconsistent to assert ‘No one can know whether anything is known’. For that conveys the belief that one knows that no one can know whether anything is known.
ellauri096.html on line 129: A paradox is commonly defined as a set of propositions that are individually plausible but jointly inconsistent. Paradoxes pressure us to revise beliefs in a highly structured way. For instance, much epistemology orbits a riddle posed by the regress of justification, namely, which of the following is false?
ellauri096.html on line 142: If you know that your beliefs are jointly inconsistent, then you should reject R. M. Sainsbury’s definition of a paradox as “an apparently unacceptable conclusion derived by apparently acceptable reasoning from apparently acceptable premises” (1995, 1). Take the negation of any of your beliefs as a conclusion and your remaining beliefs as the premises. You should judge this jumble argument as valid, and as having premises that you accept, and yet as having a conclusion you reject (Sorensen 2003b, 104–110). If the conclusion of this argument counts as a paradox, then the negation of any of your beliefs counts as a paradox.
ellauri096.html on line 191: Yes, there are infinitely many. Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorem demonstrated that any system that is strong enough to express arithmetic is also strong enough to express a formal counterpart of the self-referential proposition in the surprise test example ‘This statement cannot be proved in this system’. If the system cannot prove its “Gödel sentence”, then this sentence is true. If the system can prove its Gödel sentence, the system is inconsistent. So either the system is incomplete or inconsistent. (See the entry on Kurt Gödel.)
ellauri096.html on line 195: J. R. Lucas (1964) claims that this reveals human beings are not machines. A computer is a concrete instantiation of a formal system. Hence, its “knowledge” is restricted to what it can prove. By Gödel’s theorem, the computer will be either inconsistent or incomplete. However, a human being with a full command of arithmetic can be consistent (even if he is actually inconsistent due to inattention or wishful thinking).
ellauri097.html on line 462: So if I intend to go from Los Angeles to Napa which is north of Los Angeles but I get in my car and head south on the 405 to the 5, and then head down towards the Mexican border, you can see that I am going the wrong direction. But, of course, the word “wrong” here means that I am not moving towards my goal. I am not accomplishing the goal that I intended to accomplish. I am actually moving in a way that’s inconsistent with my goal, and therefore we can call it the wrong direction.
ellauri119.html on line 688: From a philosophical viewpoint, Ayn Rand´s objectivism is an inconsistent pile of faulty axioms and absurd conclusions. Her tautological A = A and her invalid claim that all thought is verbal have been shown, long ago, to be either useless information or demonstrably false. Wittgenstein dismissed tautologies as telling us anything new about the world before Rand came to the USA and phenomenology had dismissed a verbal mentalese grammar of the brain. Noam Chomsky´s innate grammar is only true for words, but thoughts are far more than just words since all thought appears to be motor based. What you might need is a grammar of the body instead. Thoughts seem to be closer to the movements of an athlete than to the words in a sentence. For some reason most people ignore that all speech is base on wagging the tongue, and the vibrations in middle ear and cochlea, a motor based capability that we have learned to use to communicate with. Is there an isomorphism between the movement of the tongue and those of sign language that would show a fundamental grammar shared by both?
xxx/ellauri113.html on line 50: Gravity is more subtle, though: the real problem is not so much nonrenormalizability as high-energy behavior inconsistent with local quantum field theory. In quantum mechanics, if you want to probe physics at short distances, you can scatter particles at high energies. (You can think of this as being due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, if you like, or just about properties of Fourier transforms where making localized wave packets requires the use of high frequencies.) By doing ever-higher-energy scattering experiments, you learn about physics at ever-shorter-length scales. (This is why we build the LHC to study physics at the attometer length scale.)
xxx/ellauri125.html on line 807: Grohl and Novoselic sued Love, calling her "irrational, mercurial, self-centered, unmanageable, inconsistent and unpredictable". In February 2003, Love was arrested at Heathrow Airport for disrupting a flight and was banned from Virgin Airlines. In October, she was arrested in Los Angeles after breaking several windows of her producer and then-boyfriend James Barber's home, and was charged with being under the influence of a controlled substance; the ordeal resulted in her temporarily losing custody of her daughter.
xxx/ellauri199.html on line 1049: In The War on the West, Douglas Murray shows how many well-meaning people have been fooled by hypocritical and inconsistent anti-West rhetoric. After all, if we must discard the ideas of Kant, Hume, and Mill for their opinions on race, shouldn’t we discard Marx (Karl, Groucho´s OK), the Jew whose work is peppered with racial slurs and anti-Semitism? Embers of racism remain to be stamped out in America, but what about the raging racist inferno in the Middle East and Asia? What about Israel? Nigeria?
xxx/ellauri380.html on line 446: Professor Ulam takes sharp issue with the charges against Mr. Solzhenitsyn. He acknowledges that the assassination of Stolypin ''lends itself'' to an anti-Semitic interpretation, but he continues: ''On balance, over all, taking into account all his work and his entire biography, I don't think you can call Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn an anti-Semite. He has a very sharp pen, I admit. He's extremely passionate. He has some sharp things to say about Jews. But he has sharp things to say about Russians who are not Jews. The most you might say about Solzhenitsyn is that he resents the intrusion of foreign influences into Russian life. But an anti-Semite? No. When you take his whole work and his whole life into account, you must say that he is not anti-Semitic and that he doesn't hate liberalism. He is inconsistent, perhaps, but many great people are inconsistent.' Am I contradicting myself? Okay, I am. I got space for multiplicity (Wilt Whatman).
12