Discussion of A = A seems to have died down some here. As much as people find the topic a fun exercise in logic and philosophy, it might be worth reminding everyone how all this got started here, on a site largely devoted to critiquing creationist and ID arguments.
It started when the owner of the site Uncommon Descent declared that some basic Laws of Thought were being regularly violated by anti-ID commenters on that site.
In a post on February 16, 2012 Barry Arrington wrote, in justification of his policy,
The issue, then, is not whether persons who disagree with us on the facts and logic will be allowed to debate on this site. Anyone who disagrees about the facts and logic is free to come here at any time. But if you come on here and say, essentially, that facts and logic do not matter, then we have no use for you.
The formal announcement of Barry’s policy was four days earlier, in this UD post where Barry invoked the Law of Non-Contradiction and declared that
Arguing with a person who denies the basis for argument is self-defeating and can lead only to confusion. Only a fool or a charlatan denies the LNC, and this site will not be a platform from which fools and charlatans will be allowed to spew their noxious inanities.
For that reason, I am today announcing a new moderation policy at UD. At any time the moderator reserves the right to ask the following question to any person who would comment or continue to comment on this site: “Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?” The answer to this question is either “yes” or “no.” If the person gives any answer other than the single word “no,” he or she will immediately be deemed not worth arguing with and therefore banned from this site.
The example of the moon’s existence and nonexistence called to mind quantum mechanics, and led to lots of people qualifying their answer, and getting banned. The present era of discussion at TSZ began when Elizabeth Liddle offered her site as a home for discussion among the banned, with others welcome too.
Ever since then, the topic has been a favorite here.
But I always wondered: exactly who were the opponents of ID who based their argument on the assertion that True = False? Did anyone there, ever, commit that particular sin? When I argue, I base myself on ordinary everyday logic. If I contradict myself, I hope that I will admit it. If I misunderstand the matter, this will become apparent. But the one thing I don’t do is to argue that because my argument is false, therefore it is true.
I think that this is true of everyone who ever commented on UD, or here. Can anyone find the mythical commenter who Barry was guarding against when he announced the Laws of Thought test?
[Please note that this thread is not for discussion of whether A = A, or even whether B = B].