Re: Objects and Relations

David BL wrote:
> Keith H Duggar wrote:
> > David BL wrote:
> > > What usage of "onus" are you referring to?
>
> > Umm ...
>
> > "You don't seem to appreciate the fact that the onus
> > of proof often depends on the nature of the claim
> > rather that who is making it."
>
> > The general tone of that sentence (and your posts) mesh
> > with "onus" into a precocious whole.
>
> Unfortunately I have already developed a bad case of
> cynicism. In my first post to this newsgroup I was taken
> back with the aggressive nature of posters like Bob.

I'm not sure what you are talking about; but, every post is a new post. It's not too late to stop the train wreck. Please try. Go placidly amid the noise and haste.

> My objective is certainly not to insult anyone. That quote
> above was making a point, associated with the asymmetry in
> ease of proving universally quantified statements compared
> to merely finding a counter example.
>
> Consider the statement "Formal system X is consistent".
> Can this be proven true? Not generally! It is more of an
> unproven conjecture.

David .. it's clear that you are very excited. Relax. Take a deep breath and think about that chill-pill I mentioned previously. Thus far, the posters you have dealt with in this thread (with the exception of One) do not need you to teach them basic logic and philosophy. Certainly I do not.

> In that sense the onus is instead to show that X is
> inconsistent. How is this use of "onus" precocious?

How is it not?

Keith -- Fraud 6 Received on Wed Jan 31 2007 - 05:19:51 CET