Weird - caught us in mid conversation.

[Don]

A philosophical argument is basically an assertion that is justified by reasons.  There are good philosophical arguments and bad ones.  But you can't just make a statement.  You have to back it up with something.

I don't know much about nothingness, myself.  I've never really considered it.  There's plenty of somethingness to keep my mind occupied.

And logic..  Western philosophers will tell you that Aristotle invented logic.  It's been refined significantly since.  But that's just part of the answer.  Formal logical systems are man made, but they follow natural laws.  I almost took a class on this this semester, but I opted out at the last minute.  Interesting stuff.

Take the idea of logical consequence:

We have two premises:

1) If I stick my hand into the flame, then my skin will burn
2) I stick my hand into the flame.

What's the logical consequent of these two statements?

[Don]

Yes, for example http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Solipsistic_Sanity_(3.5e_Feat)

And the question of what is a phylosophical question is very interesting indeed.

 

[Ms Duck]

A philosophical argument is basically an assertion that is justified by reasons.  There are good philosophical arguments and bad ones.  But you can't just make a statement.  You have to back it up with something.

I don't know much about nothingness, myself.  I've never really considered it.  There's plenty of somethingness to keep my mind occupied.

And logic..  Western philosophers will tell you that Aristotle invented logic.  It's been refined significantly since.  But that's just part of the answer.  Formal logical systems are man made, but they follow natural laws.  I almost took a class on this this semester, but I opted out at the last minute.  Interesting stuff.

Take the idea of logical consequence:

We have two premises:

1) If I stick my hand into the flame, then my skin will burn
2) I stick my hand into the flame.

What's the logical consequent of these two statements?

if a, then B
A
therefore B

[Dina]

I can only say thank you 

Well, thank you for reading it, and it is true.

Don, my skin will burn, as Duck said.

[Ms Duck]

actually i crinkle and trun golden brown

[Dina]

LOL, but that is not "B". It doesn't matter if the proposition is true.

[Don]

if a, then B
A
therefore B

Modus Ponens..  A man-made rule of inference.  If the two above premises are true, the conclusion (my skin will burn) must be true.  It's a logical consequent.  And it works in reality.  Logic also demands consistency.

Logic doesn't deal with truth or falsity.  It deals with validity.  An argument can be valid, but still have false premises:

If I kick a duck, then it will cry like a little girl
I kick a duck
Therefore, it will cry like a little girl.

This is a perfectly valid argument, because the premises, if true, lead to the conclusion.  It is of course not true, If I kick a duck, odds are I'd be using my health insurance card 

It is a tool, but it works on principles about reality that we have discovered.  Sorry, I'm tired, and I'm not doing the explanation justice.

[Arkham8]

I'm going to have to pull out of this debate. I'm starting to mentally internalize it and question myself, which never ends well.

When I start taking my own BS seriously, I tend to self-destruct 


Philosophy gives me a hard time because it is so far removed from my usual thought process.

[Dina]

That is what I wanted to say, Don

Arkham, well, let's talk about other things. How is the weather there?

[Ms Duck]

Modus Ponens..  A man-made rule of inference.  If the two above premises are true, the conclusion (my skin will burn) must be true.  It's a logical consequent.  And it works in reality.  Logic also demands consistency.

Logic doesn't deal with truth or falsity.  It deals with validity.  An argument can be valid, but still have false premises:

If I kick a duck, then it will cry like a little girl
I kick a duck
Therefore, it will cry like a little girl.

This is a perfectly valid argument, because the premises, if true, lead to the conclusion.  It is of course not true, If I kick a duck, odds are I'd be using my health insurance card 

It is a tool, but it works on principles about reality that we have discovered.  Sorry, I'm tired, and I'm not doing the explanation justice.

thing is, you only have the statement- to be true, it must be tested mathamatically, thorugh regression or somethign simillar

[Don]

I like it.  It really has taught me a lot.  What philosophy really does for someone is teaches them to think critically.  I think I'm a good critical thinker because of it. 

When I post here it's always strem-of-consciousness, so don't judge me solely by what you see here

Given time to deliberate on a topic and produce something solid, I'm hell on wheels.  I just wish I could figure out what's going on in the DV..

Btw, this is from my philosoph of mind text.  It deals with a question you asked a little while ago:

John Heil

1.3 Science and metaphysics
Some readers will be impatient with all this. Everyone knows that philosophers
only pose problems and never solve them. Solutions to the important
puzzles reside with the sciences. So it is to science that we should turn if
we are ever to understand the mind and its place in the world. Residual
problems, problems not susceptible to scientific answers, are at bottom
phony pseudo-problems. Answers we give to them make no difference; any
‘solution’ you care to offer is as good as any other.
Although understandable, this reaction is ill-considered. The success of
science has depended on a well-defined division of labor coupled with a
strategy of divide and conquer. There is no such thing as science; there are
only sciences: physics, chemistry, meteorology, geology, biology, psychology,
sociology. Each of these sciences (and of course there are others) carves
off a strictly circumscribed domain. Staking out a domain requires delimiting
permissible questions. In this way, every science passes the buck. The
practice of buck-passing is benign, because in most cases the buck is passed
eventually to a science where it stops. Sometimes, however, the buck is
passed out of the sciences altogether. Indeed, this is inevitable. The sciences
do not speak with a single voice. Even if every science were fully successful
within its domain of application, we should still be left with the question of
how these domains are related, how pronouncements of the several sciences
are to be calibrated against one another. And this question is, quite clearly,
not a question answerable from within any particular science.
Enter metaphysics. One traditional function of metaphysics – or, more
particularly, that branch of metaphysics called ontology – is to provide an
overall conception of how things are. This includes not the pursuit of
particular scientific ends, but an accommodation of the pronouncements of
the several sciences. It includes, as well, an attempt to reconcile the sciences
with ordinary experience. In one respect, every science takes ordinary
experience for granted. A science is empirical insofar as it appeals to observation
in confirming experimental outcomes. But the intrinsic character of
observation itself (and, by extension, the character of observers) is left
untouched by the sciences. The nature of observation – outwardly directed
conscious experience – stands at the limits of science. It is just at this point
that the puzzle with which this chapter began rears its head.
Scientific practice presupposes observers and observations. In the end,
however, the sciences are apparently silent about the intrinsic nature of
both. The buck is passed. Our best hope for a unified picture, a picture that includes the world as described by the sciences and includes, as well,
observers and their observations, lies in pursuing serious ontology. The buck
stops here. You can, of course, turn your back on the metaphysical issues.
But to the extent that you do so, you are diminished – intellectually, and
perhaps in other ways as well.

[Don]

thing is, you only have the statement- to be true, it must be tested mathamatically, thorugh regression or somethign simillar

For the premises themselves, you mean?

I was always taught to separate logic from the truth/falsity of the premises.  The latter concern is a matter of discussion between the various disciplines.

[Ms Duck]

I studied engineering and accoutning. while we understand the math in logical philosophy we dont believe in it.

any assumption that start off with an oversilpified idea like ' first, assume a perfectly spherical chicken' is just angels on a pin- pretty ,uch useless.

[Dina]

woa! Agressive text!

[Ms Duck]

For the premises themselves, you mean?

I was always taught to separate logic from the truth/falsity of the premises.  The latter concern is a matter of discussion between the various disciplines.

any logic without error checking is inherintly flawed, and will onyl leed to unverifable conclusions

for example: 90% of ecconomics. allt he rule sof supply and demand are base don the assumption that we are in a comptetive economy( and that p[eople make perfectly logical deciions). we are not, tis a cartel economy. therefore, 90% of clasical ecconomics is useless