>Only if you can't step outside the system to talk about its weaknesses
>and strengths. In any logical system it is useful to step outside from
>time to time in order to see where you need to work once you're back
>/inside/ the system, no?
I'm having trouble imagining it. Maybe you could give an example of
something you could conclude without using logic that would be useful
once your back inside.
>> Do you think every belief system is equally valid?
>
>Of course not. No more than mathematics is the best way to write music
>(and all the composers who *do* write music based on number theory do a
>lot of tweaking with the outcome afterwards in order to make it aestheticaly
>interesting). Some systems are better for answering some questions. Some
>better for answering others. *They all have blind spots.* (Godel anyone?)
>Do you agree with that statement?
Godel's theorem only applies to formal systems.
How can you judge whether some system is better at answering questions
without using logic? And even if you could, how would you know that
your conclusions aren't nonsensical? Or do you care?
>Why do you think the scientific/logical system is immune from Godel's
>Incompleteness?
Godel stated that there are truths that can't be proven deductively from
within a sufficiently complex formal system. Statements like "this statement
cannot be proven". I believe that is true and I don't see that as much
of a limitation.
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/