Conversation With Sye Ten Bruggencate
This is a verbatim personal correspondence I had with Sye Ten Bruggencate via email dated 28 April 2012, regarding my blog post found here. Honestly, after this I’m so frustrated by the inanity of it all that I’m not going to debate logic with someone unless they’ve at least read an introduction to logic text. I don’t have the time or the patience for stuff like this.
I’ve recently written a critique of the presuppositionalist analysis of logic on my blog that you may be interested in. You’re welcome to respond here: https://dubitodeus.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/logic-math-and-presuppositionalism/
Sye: Sorry, but I had to stop at “logic is conventional.”
Me: Umm…what? Are you telling me that you’re not even going to finish reading my response to the core of your apologetic strategy?
Sye: Nah, when you said that logic was conventional, I lost all interest. You see, I could just make a convention that everything you wrote is illogical, and be done with it.
Me: See, if you had read my article, you would understand why what you said is completely irrelevant to the topic. But since you don’t seem to have an interest in actually discussing what I wrote, let’s play this game your way:
How do you account for elliptic geometry?
Sye: With Friday motballs under the twice. (I just made a new convention of logic 🙂
Me: Ok Sye, I have to ask…are you interested in a conversation, or just in being obtuse and contrary?
Sye: I am simply answering a fool according to his folly (Proverbs 26:5). If logic is conventional, you can have no problem with my response,but you do, exposing the fallacy of your view.
Me: “If logic is conventional, you can have no problem with my response”. See, once again, you completely misunderstand conventionalism with regard to logic. What you just said is like responding to a question said in French with, “That doesn’t mean anything. If language is conventional, you can have no problem with my response.”
Just because logics are a convention, doesn’t mean that you can arbitrarily say silly things and then declare that everyone must accept them as not silly. You can create a new convention, but you still have to define rules for that convention. Just like languages – you can create a new language, but you still have to define a grammar. Just like board games – you can create a new board game, but you still have to write down the rules for your game.
But once again, if you read my article, you would already know this. I’d recommend that you read a logic textbook, but if you can’t even read a few hundred words on the subject without deciding to be obtuse, I guess there’s not much hope for that. It’s obvious that you don’t understand logic, but I’m starting to suspect that you don’t want to understand it.
Sye: //”Just like languages – you can create a new language, but you still have to define a grammar.”//
Not according to my new convention.
Me: This is pointless. My blog post renders everything you’ve said irrelevant, and brings up huge problems for your account of logic, yet you refuse to read it. So, do you mind if I post this conversation publicly, so everyone can decide for themselves who “won”?
Sye: Please do.