Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mimsy!flink
From: flink@mimsy.UUCP (Paul V Torek)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Logic and Coercion
Message-ID: <7836@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Aug-87 22:03:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: mimsy.7836
Posted: Mon Aug  3 22:03:57 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Aug-87 06:34:34 EDT
References: <9962@duke.cs.duke.edu>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 22
Keywords: belief, proof, explanation, Nozick
Summary: distinction between "proof" & "explanation" doubted

What is the difference between proof and explanation supposed to be?
Presumably, not in logical form:  most of what I would commonly call
explanations would take the form of modus ponens; and a proof can
certainly have this form.  Is it that with explanations one is
allowed to reject the premises; but in proofs one is (somehow, but
how?) "not allowed"?  But no proof can do more than present the choice
of either rejecting some of the premises, or accepting the conclusion.
And any explanation must assert some premises, if only tentatively.
(Further, surely those premises are asserted or entertained because
they are thought particularly probable, or plausible.)

Understanding a logical discussion provides a kind of freedom, not
coercion.  If psychologically, one feels "forced" upon reading a
proof, why is that?  Perhaps because one is attached to inconsistent
beliefs.  But one has the option to release that attachment, and
reconsider things afresh.

Arguments can be put forward with hostile or with benevolent intent,
of course, and they can hurt, or not.  But these are different issues
--right?
--
Paul Torek				torek@umix.cc.umich.edu