How do we approach a new proposition?

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:06 am

SEG wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:37 pm
Humanguy wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:32 am
Is there going to be a test on this?
Hahahar!
We'll see if you're laughing after quarterfinal grades.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:42 pm

So let's jump ahead to syllogistic logic:
We can express any SAP or SEP proposition as a General Premise (if / then statement).

"My car is red."
This can be expressed as:
"If it is my car, then it is red."

To this, we can add one of two specific premises:
"It is my car" or
"It is not red."

Using the first specific premise we are affirming the "If" and thus using Modus Tollens, or affirming by affirming (Paying the toll, as a mnemonic).
Using the second specific premise we are denying the "then" and thus using Modus Ponens, or denying by denying.

We formally refer to the "If" as the antecedent, and the "then" as the consequent.
We must never affirm the consequent, "it is red," nor deny the antecedent, "It is not my car," as these do not lead to a conclusion (they don't follow).

But the two allowed specific premises do lead to an obvious conclusion:

"If it is my car, then it is red."
"It is my car"
"Therefore it is red."

OR

"If it is my car, it is red"
"It is not red"
"Therefore it is not my car."
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:53 pm

Now then, how can syllogistic logic go wrong?

Let me count the ways:

1. We can use false premises. My car isn't really red.
2. We can deny the antecedent or affirm the consequent. That is, we can use a conclusion that doesn't "follow."
3. We can use an ambiguous term -- a word with one meaning in one premise and the other in another.

An example of ambiguous definition might be this old joke:

1. Nothing is better than a loaf of bread.
2. Half a loaf is better than nothing.
3. Therefore half a loaf is better than a full loaf.

In this way, we ambiguously use "nothing" to mean "No other item"and to mean "No thing at all" and from two seemingly true premises, we make a conclusion that does not follow.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1869
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:10 pm

Og3 wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:06 am
SEG wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:37 pm
Humanguy wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:32 am
Is there going to be a test on this?
Hahahar!
We'll see if you're laughing after quarterfinal grades.
So it was a test!
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:00 pm

Which of the following is true?
A. It is a test
B. It is not a test
C. It is both a test and a not test
D. It is neither a test nor a not-test.
E. A and B are true
F. C and D are true
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:44 am

So one major error that we can make at this point is the error of fallacy of category. When we draw a specific conclusion from a general proposition, or vice versa, we commit the fallacy of category.

Consider the following propositions:
Poodles are fluffy dogs.
(this includes Poodles are dogs and Poodles are fluffy).
All of these propositions are SAP: I affirm that all Subject are Predicate.

We can generalize it as "If it is a poodle, then it is a fluffy dog."
We cannot generalize it as, "If it is a fluffy dog, then it is a poodle." For example, bisson frisse are fluffy.

Now, consider this syllogism:
GP: It it is a poodle, then it is a fluffy dog.
SP: This is a fluffy dog.
C: Therefore all dogs are fluffy.

Where did we go wrong?
First, we picked a bad specific premise. Remember, we can affirm the antecedent or we can deny the consequent. In this case, we affirmed the consequent. This would imply (by twisting Modus Tollens) that therefore this is a poodle (but it might be a bisson frisse).
Second, we choose a conclusion that is not implied by the premises. Our conclusion "does not follow."

So, on the one hand we can generalize from the specific: This dog is fluffy, therefore all dogs are fluffy.
Of we can specify from the general: Some dogs are fluffy, therefore THIS DOG is fluffy. Even though it's a chihuahua. Trust me, it doesn't look fluffy, but logic is logic, right? So it must be fluffy... maybe the fluffiness is just in another dimension or something...
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:59 am

People specifically tend to make this error with (surprise) religion.

Some religion is odd (violent, strange, ridiculous, fluffy, etc.),
Therefore all religion is odd (v,s,r,f,etc.) <= General from a specific (example or examples)
Therefore YOUR religion is odd (v,s,r,f,etc.) <= Specific from a generalization

If we formalized the first two lines, we would see that there is a hidden premise:
SP: This religion is odd
(GP: If one religion is odd then all religions are odd)
C: Therefore all religions are odd.

See that implied General Premise? AHA!

Now the GP as given here is simply wrong. We might as well say that because poodles are fluffy, all dogs are fluffy. But because it was hidden, it was easy to let it pass by. Except, of course, that we were looking for it. thus, the conclusion does not follow. But it becomes the general premise of the second set:

GP: If it is a religion, then it is odd
SP: Your religion is a religion
C: Therefore it is odd.

To show the issue here, we actually need to consider the truth value of the GP. "All Religion is odd." Unless we have studied every religion, we cannot say that there is not a non-odd religion. All Religion is Odd is a SAP proposition, and the contradictory is a SIP proposition: Some religions are not odd. So if we can show a specific example of a non-odd religion, then we have defeated the GP by showing its truth value to be 0. Thus the conclusion does not follow.

Now, that doesn't prove that my religion is not odd; it merely shows that the syllogism as stated is faulty.

And there are odd religions. The John Frum Cargo Cult comes to mind. But we digress.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1869
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:34 am

What is odd about the cargo cults? They don't have things like talking donkeys, bushes, floating people, walking on water etc. They seem pretty tame compared to Christianity.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:16 am

I am, in this context, merely conceding that there are odd religions. The fact that they build fake airports complete with towers and fake airplanes leads me to believe that they have an odd religion. But there's no accounting for tastes.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:26 am

Digressing -- or looking ahead, as you will -- an excellent example of Kripkean Dogmatism occurred to me today.

If a study is released finding that alcohol is always harmful and never helpful, even in small quantities taken irregularly, then our response is likely to be colored by our preferences vis-a-vis liquor. The tee-totaler will see in this a justification for his views, and the social drinker will assume the study was conducted by far-right religious busybody tee-totalers.

The correct view is to ask (regardless our own views) whether the study was conducted objectively, using adequate controls, in a blind environment. If we accept or reject the conclusion of the study based on an analysis of the study, then we are reasoning properly. If we accept or reject it based on our own viewpoint and biases, then we are Kripkean Dogmatists.

Logically, we might look at it thus:

GP: If this study was conducted properly, then the results are meaningful.
SP: This study was conducted properly.
C: Therefore the results are meaningful.

OR

GP: If this study was not conducted properly, then the results are meaningless.
SP: This study was not conducted properly.
C: Therefore the results are meaningless.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Post Reply