This entire article is hilarious

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think a bit too much focus is put on internal consistency.  The only thing consistency provides is that of no conflicting answers to a question of the system...  (i.e. look at the other forms of logic other than boolean, such as Bayesian and Fuzzy etc.)
[right][snapback]85472[/snapback][/right]

I think you are looking at this too simply. Boolean logic is simply the limit of probability in which all propositions are either 'true' ( P(s) = 1 ) or 'false' ( P(s) = 0 ). Except in formal systems, no on uses Boolean logic.

Bayesian 'logic' is not so much logic as it is a means to refine the estimate of the probability of a statement when new information is considered. The topic is huge, especially since it is based on such a simple concept. A brief description is found here.

So called 'fuzzy' logic is simply a set of techniques allowing probability theory to be used for predictions and control. It adds nothing to the underlying principles of probability calculations.

Now, *every* system starts out with assumptions. If working with one subset of those assumptions, we conclude that the probability of a given statement is one value, and working from a different subset of those same assumptions we conclude that the probability of that same statement is some different value, then we know that the assumptions are contradictory.

Although this is seldom done formally, except in the simplest cases, it is done by all who actually examine the world around them. For instance, "I believe that crime is the result of chemical imbalance" and "I believe criminals should be punished" would probably conflict in a Boolean analysis, but, with the right levels of probability (of being true) assigned to each, then they might be able to co-exist.

--Pete