Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Skepdick]

Sorry, but what you pose as the excluded middle overlooks something. When each premise is evaluated, P may be true or false and not P may be true or false, leaving both indeterminate.

That's fine. The law of excluded middle already encodes this.

P means "I accept P as true"
-P means "I accept the negation of P as true"

If you accept neither as true (e.g you are still busy evaluating) then shut up.

There is simply no fence for skeptics in Classical logic.

You can't reject P but refuse to accept not-P.
You can't reject not-P but refuse to accept P.

The law compels you.

The only thing to note while doing evaluations. P and not-P are complementary - evaluating one determines the other.

It may be much much easier to evaluate P.
It may be much much easier to evaluate not-P.

As is the case here. Evaluating not-P (negation of impossibility) requires a single counter-example
Whereas evaluating P (impossibility) requires simply observing the lack of a counter-example.

[commonsense]

Sorry, but what you pose as the excluded middle overlooks something. When each premise is evaluated, P may be true or false and not P may be true or false, leaving both indeterminate.

That's fine. The law of excluded middle already encodes this.

P means "I accept P as true"
-P means "I accept the negation of P as true"

If you accept neither as true (e.g you are still busy evaluating) then shut up.

There is simply no fence for skeptics in Classical logic.

You can't reject P but refuse to accept not-P.
You can't reject not-P but refuse to accept P.

The law compels you.

The only thing to note while doing evaluations.

It may be much much easier to evaluate P.
It may be much much easier to evaluate not-P.
But once you evaluate one you know the value of the other.

So there is a strategic advantage in choosing to evauate the one that requires less effort.

Good point, however if you don’t know the value of P, you may not know the value of not P, and you should shut up without being admonished to.

[Skepdick]

Good point, however if you don’t know the value of P, you may not know the value of not P, and you should shut up without being admonished to.

Nobody will admonish you for shutting up...

But when you claim to reject P without taking up the burden of proof for not-P then you are simply breaking the rules.

[commonsense]

If you know the value of one, you know the value of the other. But you may not know the value of either. The agnostic waits for knowledge.

I think there’s a difference between rejecting and waiting.

[Iwannaplato]

Sure. One can be agnostic. But Skepdick offers a powerful argument.

I'm taking it as a practical approach to interaction. I don't mean he limits it to this, but rather that's how it works best for me. If you perform the act of rejection, and you there are burdens of justification, you just took on a burden. If you read the argument/assertion and you aren't sure, perhaps you ask questions, perhaps you simply move on. No burden. It's not that everyone must at any time justify their positions or even confusion, it has to do with the active rejection of someone's position.

And I had some to me related thoughts on the idea here...
viewtopic.php?p=667564#p667564

[Skepdick]

I think there’s a difference between rejecting and waiting.

Precisely that.

Waiting is passive.
Rejection is active.

[commonsense]

I think there’s a difference between rejecting and waiting.

Precisely that.

Waiting is passive.
Rejection is active.

Agreed. Your point?

[Skepdick]

I think there’s a difference between rejecting and waiting.

Precisely that.

Waiting is passive.
Rejection is active.

Agreed. Your point?

No point.

Truth has no point. It's just true. Do with it as you will.

It fits neatly in speech-act theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act

[commonsense]

Precisely that.

Waiting is passive.
Rejection is active.

Agreed. Your point?

No point.

Truth has no point. It's just true. Do with it as you will.

Would it be fair to say that the agnostic asks questions, then passively waits for answers?

[Skepdick]

Would it be fair to say that the agnostic asks questions, then passively waits for answers?

Works for me.

The trouble with that is you don't have infinite time at your disposal - how long should you wait for answers?
If you don't have the luxury of suspending judgment indefinitely... You evaluate all the avaiable evidence and pick a side.

The side claiming impossibility has tons of evidence.
The side claiming possibility (by actively rejecting impossibility) has no evidence whatsoever.

Truth be told, suspending judgment indefinitely == death of human values.

[commonsense]

Would it be fair to say that the agnostic asks questions, then passively waits for answers?

Works for me.

The trouble with that is you don't have infinite time at your disposal - how long should you wait for answers?
If you don't have the luxury of suspending judgment indefinitely... You evaluate all the avaiable evidence and pick a side.

The side claiming impossibility has tons of evidence.
The side claiming possibility (by rejecting impossibility) has no evidence whatsoever.

My time is not infinite, but I am happy to be agnostic until I die.

Just to be sure, impossibility of what?

[Skepdick]

My time is not infinite, but I am happy to be agnostic until I die.

Hence my point.

Suspending judgment indefinitely/infinitely amounts to suspending all judgments infinitely.

Such as judgments of true/false.
Judgments of good/bad.
Judgments of love/hate

That IS the rejection of excluded middle (refusing to choose). That IS nihilism.

It's the death of the human soul.

Just to be sure, impossibility of what?

See P1 and P2.

[commonsense]

My time is not infinite, but I am happy to be agnostic until I die.

Hence my point.

Suspending judgment indefinitely/infinitely amounts to suspending all judgments infinitely.

Such as judgments of true/false.
Judgments of good/bad.
Judgments of love/hate

That IS the rejection of excluded middle (refusing to choose). That IS nihilism.

It's the death of the human soul.

Just to be sure, impossibility of what?

See P1 and P2.

OK. Thanks for the stimulating conversation. I yield to your classical logic.

[Skepdick]

OK. Thanks for the stimulating conversation. I yield to your classical logic.

Oh no! Don't yield. Just make a choice.

Choose another logic and see the world differently

If you want a logic in which you reject choice/excluded middle - there's plenty of those.

[commonsense]

OK. Thanks for the stimulating conversation. I yield to your classical logic.

Oh no! Don't yield. Just make a choice.

Choose another logic and see the world differently

If you want a logic in which you reject choice/excluded middle - there's plenty of those.

I’m not very familiar with logic. Would you please name one of the logics that reject LEM so that I can research it?