| The author cares about that, it's his abstract. In the same way a scientist would care about the precision and conclusions of results obtained from an older study--you are forced to use the original researchers had. Of course you can verify it with new tools, but what's the point if the research is systemically flawed to begin with? The childhood quote hammered into our ears continues to ring true: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."- Newton I agree that newer technical formal languages describing our own methods of sound predicate are useful, but that's excessive and even pretentious in this case. Would you use quantum computation to verify the result of addition on a classical computer? It adds nothing, especially when it is quantum computation that is being construed to emulate classical computation! >How are we to investigate this intuitive logic without probing the technical structure of logic and finding out what is really its essence? Its essence cannot be discovered, there are "exigent way[s] to surface it", but like experience, it's atomic. In the end the models will just become more comprehensive in terms of formalizing experience. Yet the experience of logic is the essence; how are you able to describe what makes up experience in terms of experience? If this is the purpose of these "tools" (it's not) then they ought not to be limited by objects of human experience, as the noumenon (the negation of experience) is not even guaranteed to be symbolic to objects of perception—by definition they are not. I would be flummoxed to find fundamental physics constructed, described, and extended from axioms through logic had no connection with logic. Philosophy of logic continues to discuss other logics, it is only that this particular article that it's of no concern to. |