|
Juju and Whit, I think you're kind of stumbling into the crux of what I was working through. In the real world, there are two parts to establishing a rational argument. The first is the reliability of data from which to work, and the second is the integrity of the logical construct within which you frame the data.
My point was, you may use bad data and prove a wrong conclusion, but the structure of a sound logical argument does not in itself yield wrong conclusions. The reason for defining a closed system is to make sure that you use only "good" data (self defined terms and ideas).
The importance is this, I think. Instead of throwing up hands and saying "you can make a logical argument for anything", you have to disect your opponents argument by either questioning his data, or demonstrating the fallacy of his logic. If the data is good, and the logical argument is sound, then the argument stands
sorry, its late, I'm a Scotch or three to the good, and I'm being long winded.
-sm
|