Hi list,
it seems to me, that formal logics for some people are the ultima ratio
when arguing. One basic assumption behind this conviction is the
principle tertium non datur, or the principle of the excluded third, cf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertium_non_datur
It says:
x is either A or Not-A, a third does not exist
There are two main problems with this conviction.
First is the meaning of A. Say, A is a concept of something, then it is
necessary to agree in this concept before starting with formal logics.
It is useless to say "x is A", while another person understands "x is
B", thus these two persons can endlessly argue about whether "x is
either A or Not-B" or "x is either B or Not-A". This often happens in
this mailinglist and cannot be solved by repeating or using strong
words or heavy arguing penetration.
The only way to cope with that, is to talk about the meaning of what we
are talking about. The meaning itself can not be clarified using
true/false logics, but only by understanding what is said and meant.