Letter to Editor | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2690-1919/176
Ph.D. in biology from Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
*Corresponding Author: James F. Welles, Ph.D. in biology from Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Citation: James F. Welles, (2021). A Limit on Logic. J Clinical Research and Reports, 8(3); DOI:10.31579/2690-1919/176
Copyright: © 2021 James F. Welles. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Received: 01 June 2021 | Accepted: 05 June 2021 | Published: 12 June 2021
Keywords: logical extension; dubious at best; control mechanism; future efficacy; oxymoronic–debases; limitation in mind; intellectually
One of the problems with logic is that it cannot be self-refuting–if it is, it is not logical. This make logic its own sacred cow. It likewise makes the expression “By logical extension” irrelevant or at least suspect in a curved universe. One may extend logic, but even after one step, its use is dubious at best.
One of the problems with logic is that it cannot be self-refuting–if it is, it is not logical. This make logic its own sacred cow. It likewise makes the expression “By logical extension” irrelevant or at least suspect in a curved universe. One may extend logic, but even after one step, its use is dubious at best.
Limits on logic must come from outside the thought pattern. For example, there is no way to identify logically the dangers inherent in deficit spending. Once an economic system engages in such conduct, it can run to excess without any control mechanism invoking itself: “If we spent 1% more than we took in last year, it worked pretty well, so let’s go for 2% this year”. There is theoretically no limit imposed by the system itself on its future efficacy.
The limit on such a system comes from beyond logic–inflation. Any rational, economic system–if that is not itself oxymoronic–debases itself by rendering its unit of currency worthless. How- ever, this logical assumption invokes an external factor into the previously self-contained system: the value of the unit of currency (e.g., the dollar, pound, Mark, etc.) With this limitation in mind, it is best to accept one-step logic as helpful and intellectually useful in a pristine setting, but eschew extensions of logic beyond their functional bases.
The value of the unit of currency can then be manipulated logically by restricting (or expanding) the money supply. The unit of currency then represents not just a unit of public debt but also how many units there are to represent it. If this step itself is logical, it is logic extended to yet another realm–like a net thrown over an ever expanding problem, with no logical end in sight because logic cannot limit itself.
Dear Editorial Team, Clinical Medical Reviews and Reports. My experience with the journal was highly positive. The peer-review process was rigorous, constructive, and completed in a timely manner. The reviewers provided valuable comments that helped improve the quality and clarity of our manuscript. The editorial office was professional, responsive, and supportive throughout all stages of the publication process. Communication was clear and efficient, and any questions were addressed promptly. Overall, I found the journal to maintain high scientific standards and an excellent publication workflow. I would be pleased to consider submitting future work to this journal. Best wishes from, Elena Popa.
It was my pleasure to submit my testimonial concerning the Reviewer Board of our Scientific Journal “Brain and Neurological Disorders”. The Reviewers focused on some modifications and their contribution was helpful. The ladies of our Editorial Office were also supported my efforts. It was my honor to have such a co-operation and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports, Thank you for the speedy and efficient peer review process. I appreciate the fact that your peer reviewers do not take months to respond like with some other journals. I would also like to thank the editorial office for responding quickly to my questions. It is an excellent journal. I plan to submit more manuscripts in the future. Best wishes from, Robert W. McGee
Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports, Working with you and your team on our recent publication in JCRR has been a truly wonderful and enjoyable experience. The responses were prompt, and the reviewers were patient, constructive, and highly professional. One reviewer in particular gave me the feeling that a professor was carefully reading and commenting on my coursework, which was deeply touching. The entire process was straightforward and hassle‑free, with no tedious online forms to complete. I highly recommend this journal. Best wishes from, DR Aibing Rao, Head of R&D
I Appreciate the Opportunity to Share my Experience with the Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. The peer review process was timely and constructive, and the feedback provided helped improve the quality of our manuscript. The editorial office was professional, responsive, and supportive throughout the process, ensuring smooth communication and efficient handling of the submission. Overall, it was a positive experience collaborating with your team.
Dear Mercy Grace, Editorial Coordinator of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, We would like to express our gratitude for your help at all stages of publishing and editing the article. The editors of the magazine answer all the necessary questions and help at every stage. We will definitely continue to cooperate and publish other works in the Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences! Best wishes from, Alla Konstantinovna Politova,
