Basic Logic: are we behind where we were 2,000 years ago?

Three days ago, I put up a couple of comments that I think are worth headlining on what was a commonplace, common-sense understanding of Logic 101, all of 2,000 years ago.

First, a tie-in from core distinct identity to the principle of induction:

>>I feel inclined to start with this . . . to illustrate the principle of induction and its connexion to the law of identity:

Matt 5:13 “You are the [d]salt of the earth; but if the salt has [e]lost its taste (purpose), how can it be made salty? It is no longer good for anything, but to be thrown out and walked on by people [when the walkways are wet and slippery].

14 “You are the light of [Christ to] the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden;

Matt 7: 16 By their fruit you will recognize them [that is, by their contrived doctrine and self-focus]. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the unhealthy tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. [AMP]

Here, we see in ever so familiar commonplace cases, that a thing with a distinct identity has core characteristics and properties leading to observable behaviours that flow from that identity, that nature.

We may then inspect the manifestations and credibly, reasonably, responsibly infer the nature of what we see. Yes, there are limitations of provisionality, but the logic at work is clear.

And yes, we speak here to the core of science and dare to use a much despised and spoken against book as a point of reference.

Are you willing to acknowledge the principle of inductive reasoning?

To acknowledge that this makes sense, however carefully we must manage our investigations, inferences, testing etc and with whatever inherent limitations of induction we may see?

If you cannot, it matters not what you may claim to be, you show yourself to have your own characteristics, properties and behaviours manifesting that nature or distinct identity.

It is high time that the irrationality of a sad, perverse day was exposed for what it is.>>

Second, on the deductive side of the street:

>>I think we can go to a voice even more despised to speak to the other half of the matter:

1 Cor 14: 7 Yet even lifeless things, whether flute or harp, when producing a sound, if they do not produce distinct [musical] tones, how will anyone [listening] know what is piped or played? 8 And if the [war] bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? [AMP]

People understood this 2,000 years ago, understood it well.

Just what is it that is wrong with us?

Distinct identity is the start point for rational thought and communication, so we must recognise this to be self-evident, on pain of reducing ourselves to absurdly irrational chaos.

Why is it that we struggle with distinct identity and what comes from it in this day and age?

We have absorbed a radical fallibilism that is designed to make us doubt that we can know anything with certainty — one supposes, inclduing itself. that is, it is self-referentially incoherent.

But when that is pointed out, it is disregarded and we are denounced for pointing this out.

No, if you make a crooked yardstick your standard of what is straight, level and upright or accurate, then what is really so will never pass your test.

So, the crooked yardstick is the nuke weapon of the manipulator and agit prop operator.

How do you break such cultic indoctrination?

By bringing out a plumbline which is naturally upright, straight and so what is crooked will be exposed for those willing to learn.

However, there are some who will cling to absurdity even in the face of a plumbline test.>>

Are we that backward in our thinking? Where will we end? What can we do? END