"Matthew Johnson" wrote in message
news:153.21.08.05.609008000@srcbs.org...

>
>
> In article <152.02.14.05.869343000@srcbs.org>, Bart Goddard says...
>
> >matthew_member@newsguy.com wrote:
>
> >> If you weren't such a shocking ignoramus, Bart, you would know that
> >> EACH of the theologians I cited had an excellent training in
> >> logic. In their day, no one could reach their positions in society
> >> without learning the logic material of Aristotle's Organum
> >> thoroughly.
>
> >We're way better at logic today then they were even 300 years
> >ago.
>
> No, we are not. You certainly are not. If you were, you would not have
accused
> Gary of saying P and (not P), when he had done no such thing.
>
> > Logic is a _science_,
>
> True...
>
> > and like all sciences, 99% of it was invented since 1900.
>
> You make it sound like you think that since 99% of all sciences were
invented
> since 1900, 99% of logic is too. This is very false. You are relying on a
very
> false measuring stick to claim this. Most of NT textual criticism, for
example,
> ALSO a science, was invented by Griesbach in the 18th century. All the
great
> efforts of the 20th century have accomplished very little stabilization or
> change in the text compared to Griesbach, or Westcott-Hort, of the 19th
century.
>
> So what false measuring stick are YOU relying on? Pages in journals?
>
> >Mastering Aristotle is the
> >logical equivalent of a car mechanic "mastering"
> >the medieval wheel.
>
> No, that is completely false. A better analogy would be comparing to doing
> grade-school arithmetic: it can all be done in Roman Numerals, but that
would be
> much harder than in Hindu-Arabic numerals. Yet both are doing the same
> grade-school arithmetic (not to be confused with Dirichlet's idea of
> 'arithmetic').
>
> >It was mostly the Poles who developed
> >the subject into what it is today, which is the underpinning
> >of all computer science.
>
> And what was it that they really did? They developed the symbolic logic
and
> propositional logic that make it much _easier_ to perform logical
reasoning and
> prove theorems, but the two-valued logic, as applied in discussions like
these,
> was still much the same, based on exactly the same axioms; just as
grade-school
> arithmetic is the same whether you use Hindu-Arabic numerals, Roman
numerals, or
> an abacus. Truth tables and theorems of propositional logic are merely
much more
> convenient ways of accomplishing what Aristotle's students accomplished
with
> syllogisms. They also developed new theorems that have NOTHING to do with
the
> topic of this thread.
>