boo
I have been inspired to a quick entry by J saying she misses me and the tedium of legal texts.
The law of excluded middle, as I understand it, states that for any proposition P, it is true that P is P, or it is not P.
For example, if P is
I love Shijia (and her new hair)
then the inclusive disjunction
I love Shijia or I DO NOT love Shijia
is true.
It does not state that P must be either true or false. The law of excluded middle only says that the total (P or not P) is true, but does not comment on what truth values P itself may take.
This MAY lead to a logical fallacy, but it need not necessarily do so.
A logical fallacy (simply) is an error in logical argument which is independent of the truth of the premises. It is a flaw in the structure of an argument as opposed to an error in its premises. When there is a fallacy in an argument it is said to be invalid. An argument can have a logical fallacy even if the argument is not a purely logical one; for instance an argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality can be said to have a logical fallacy.
For example
1. Sometimes I love Shijia
2. Sometimes I love Joyce
3. Therefore at all times I love either Shijia or Joyce
This is logically fallacious. Indeed, there is no logical principle which states
For some x, P is a subset of X.
For some y, Q is a subset of Y.
Then for some Z, P+Q is a subset of Z, or P is a subset of Z, or that Q is a subset Z.
I’ve been thinking –does the law of the excluded middle apply in law? I started out with the opinion that it shouldn’t – it couldn’t, since there are so many cases right on the borderline between say, offer or no offer (invitation to treat), property and contract, tort and contract, human rights and unwritten principles etc.
But after much ruminating, I am convinced that the law does, in fact, apply.
Ive been told that the law of the excluded middle professes to be a law which denies the existence of any grey areas. I disagree. The law of the excluded middle states that P must either be P or not P, it doesn’t state that it cannot be P1 or P2. strictly, however minor the difference with P is, it is still not P
Therefore, when a court finds that there hasn’t been a contract(X), or that someone has an equitable as opposed to legal(Y) right, it is still stating that it is not X and not Y respectively. The conclusion doesn’t matter – so long as it is excluded from being X or Y. I do not think that the issue of a logical fallacy needs to be examined – judges are far too intelligent to be victimised by that law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of nice lines from my man Phaze I have come across recently
“If you can talk, you can sing. If you can walk, you can dance”
“My notepad is my third hand; my pen, my eleventh finger”
And a teaser of my own:
My name in pencil,
Stencilled,
5 inches from the left breast of failure.
It is almost crunch time-
Time to erase all the fun and laughter
And move up to the heart of success
Out of the neighbourhood with mothers who have to sell sex.
The law of excluded middle, as I understand it, states that for any proposition P, it is true that P is P, or it is not P.
For example, if P is
I love Shijia (and her new hair)
then the inclusive disjunction
I love Shijia or I DO NOT love Shijia
is true.
It does not state that P must be either true or false. The law of excluded middle only says that the total (P or not P) is true, but does not comment on what truth values P itself may take.
This MAY lead to a logical fallacy, but it need not necessarily do so.
A logical fallacy (simply) is an error in logical argument which is independent of the truth of the premises. It is a flaw in the structure of an argument as opposed to an error in its premises. When there is a fallacy in an argument it is said to be invalid. An argument can have a logical fallacy even if the argument is not a purely logical one; for instance an argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality can be said to have a logical fallacy.
For example
1. Sometimes I love Shijia
2. Sometimes I love Joyce
3. Therefore at all times I love either Shijia or Joyce
This is logically fallacious. Indeed, there is no logical principle which states
For some x, P is a subset of X.
For some y, Q is a subset of Y.
Then for some Z, P+Q is a subset of Z, or P is a subset of Z, or that Q is a subset Z.
I’ve been thinking –does the law of the excluded middle apply in law? I started out with the opinion that it shouldn’t – it couldn’t, since there are so many cases right on the borderline between say, offer or no offer (invitation to treat), property and contract, tort and contract, human rights and unwritten principles etc.
But after much ruminating, I am convinced that the law does, in fact, apply.
Ive been told that the law of the excluded middle professes to be a law which denies the existence of any grey areas. I disagree. The law of the excluded middle states that P must either be P or not P, it doesn’t state that it cannot be P1 or P2. strictly, however minor the difference with P is, it is still not P
Therefore, when a court finds that there hasn’t been a contract(X), or that someone has an equitable as opposed to legal(Y) right, it is still stating that it is not X and not Y respectively. The conclusion doesn’t matter – so long as it is excluded from being X or Y. I do not think that the issue of a logical fallacy needs to be examined – judges are far too intelligent to be victimised by that law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of nice lines from my man Phaze I have come across recently
“If you can talk, you can sing. If you can walk, you can dance”
“My notepad is my third hand; my pen, my eleventh finger”
And a teaser of my own:
My name in pencil,
Stencilled,
5 inches from the left breast of failure.
It is almost crunch time-
Time to erase all the fun and laughter
And move up to the heart of success
Out of the neighbourhood with mothers who have to sell sex.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home