[請益] 關於詭論
有一本書叫做paradoxes
內容大致上就是一些著名詭論的例子與解釋
而在書一開始introduction中
作者有如下面一段對詭論的了解
this is what i understand by a paradox: an apparently unacceptable
conclusion derived by apparently acceptable reasoning from apparently
acceptable premises....
....generally, we have a choise: Either the conclusion is not really
unacceptable, or else the starting point, or the reasoning, has some
nonobvious flaw.
簡單的說
作者主張一項詭論
如果結論不是錯誤的
那麼就是前提假設或推導過程出了問題
這意味著所有的詭論都可以合理的(符合邏輯的)被解釋
這裡想問的是
1) 是不是所有詭論都應該被解釋? (詭論的不能解釋是否意味著邏輯體系的缺陷?)
2) 是不是所有詭論都能被解釋? (作者所說的有沒有問題?)
謝謝 ^^
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 59.121.5.32
推
04/03 11:50, , 1F
04/03 11:50, 1F
→
04/03 20:13, , 2F
04/03 20:13, 2F
推
04/03 22:20, , 3F
04/03 22:20, 3F
→
04/03 22:20, , 4F
04/03 22:20, 4F
→
04/03 22:21, , 5F
04/03 22:21, 5F
推
04/03 22:27, , 6F
04/03 22:27, 6F
→
04/03 22:36, , 7F
04/03 22:36, 7F
→
04/03 22:36, , 8F
04/03 22:36, 8F