This discussion is closed.
Sidhe
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#61
Report 11 years ago
#61
(Original post by MetalA)
Nobody has worse rep than me
Oh I don't know I must be close and take alook at Silverwings and the other usual suspects. And don't forget neg is halved so she has in the region of 80-100,000 neg rep points.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/memb...ort=reputation
0
Ethelred the Unready
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#62
Report 11 years ago
#62
Hmmm, I understand exactly what you are saying and exactly where you coming from. However, consider:

All bags are white
White is not black
All bags are not black.

All parts of the bag are white.
White is not black.
All parts of the bag are not black.

By including the explicit extra premise, I think you can now make the inference. Perhaps another premise would be that: Bags can only be one colour at anyone time. By including such common sense premises it might make the argument more realistic.

It doesn't require a huge leap of faith to understand the situation better, that the "all parts of the bag are not black". With that information you can continue.

Perhaps it was a bad example, but formal logic can involve many more premises that the mere basic two format. My point is that it can help conclusively see invalid arguments and valid arguments thruogh the mere structure of the premises and conclusion. It's far from a redundant tool within philosophy (even if it is perhaps the dullest).

Sidhe, you seem to have missed the point. I even put "colours" in inverted commas, knowing fine well that it isn't a colour. It didn't require a greater expansion on why it was not a colour. It misses the point - green could have been used instead. One learns that black is not a colour at GCSE level, pretty much. But it's fairly meaningless in this discussion. Perhaps one ought to have said, "The bag appears black" rather than it is the colour "black".

edit: And I didn't give out the rep calling you a nob, Cartesian; although I can see why you might think I did. To be fair, calling formal logic merely "symbols" is quite foolish. I shan't bother responding to your humonguous quoting line by line; partly because some of your comments don't even make sense when addressed against my points! :p:
0
wanderer
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#63
Report 11 years ago
#63
The deduction as you set it out isn't formally valid (predicates aren't generally exclusive). Compare:

All cats are furry
Furry is not four-legged.
All cats are not four-legged.

Also, you can't even translate the second premise into predicate logic unless you use second-order language, which is controversial.

What you want for your hidden premise is something more like 'black things cannot be white things' or 'being entirely black and entirely white are mutually exclusive'. But you can't use a hidden premise without failing to acheive what we want - 'X is all black, therefore it is not all white' is only a logical truth if it doesn't require any premises.
0
Iago
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#64
Report 11 years ago
#64
Surely it is though? Just because you have to 'unpack' the predicate with another premise ('something totally black can't be totally white') doesn't mean it's not a logical truth or tautology. All that's being done is that 'black' is being analysed, being defined (or partly defined, in the sense that 'white' and 'black' are defined to be mutually exclusive predicates). The additional premises aren't empirical propositions. If the premises that lead validly to a conclusion are themselves analytic truths, then the conclusion is also an analytic truth - isn't it? Or have I misunderstood what you're trying to say?

Not that, y'know, I don't think it's all *******s anyway. We all know perfectly well why something can't be all black and all white at the same time, because we all speak English and were trained to use colour words. I can't paint something totally black and totally white because when I come around to putting the white paint job on I'm going to be painting over the black one. Logic may not be totally useless, but the strange breed of autism it's given rise to in some areas of analytic thought is.
0
Ethelred the Unready
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#65
Report 11 years ago
#65
Wanderer, your argument seems perfectly valid to me, but simply that the "furry is not four-legged" premise is totally unsound. Expanding upon it, you mean "furry things", not furry. You must use a noun in your predicate.

I think the problem is linguistic in nature. Removing all the pedantics, white and black are mutually exclusive "colours" in the sense that "all white" is inherently "not all black".

Thus the argument that "each part of the item is all black" along with the premise that "all black things can't be white" leads to an accurate conclusion.

That said, I accept that, on closer inspection, it was perhaps a rather shakey example to use, considering that formal logic shouldn't really assess such small details. Then again, you suggested it initially.

And X is something therefore it is not something isn't a proper argument without including other premises to show that it is the case (i.e. setting out the common knowledge premises to prove the case - that "all black" and "all white" are mutually exclusive, for example). You can organise that, I suppose, to construct your argument to support your desired conclusion. There's stronger and better uses for formal logic than this, though; but it still works, I suppose.

To remove the second-order language you could simply rephrase this example to: No black is "white" instead of "Black is not white".

It's pretty much a tautology, and thus the phrase is self-evident, not needing much of a argument that one would construct using the traditional formal logic setup.

All this said, formal logic is merely one part of philosophy which does have its uses (albeit minor but rather useful, almost essential) in detecting validity and invalidity of certain statements, and how arguments are formed. This, please appreciate, formed merely one part of my "advertisement" for philosophy. Often, and you're right, questions of ethics (and so on) cannot be solely discussed in this form of framework, I feel.

Cartesian, I don't feel that philosophy somehow makes you a "better, more qualified person to have opinions about life". However it does make you more informed about the nature of arguments, how other people have consolidated their thoughts on the world and does equip you with the necessary tools to discover the world. I've, admittedly controversially, mentioned formal logic (which I feel is most fulfilling to study and certainly helps me follow and organise arguments in a strict framework). However the more liberal, discussive side of informal logic has its different uses. You can't rely on just one form.

That said, I don't claim to be an expert philosopher. These are just my opinions from my own experiences. But because I've had at least some form of experience, I am more informed in some way. In the same way, just because you study philosophy doesn't mean you always have the correct answers, but just that you may be more informed of what the answers may be, what other people have said they are, and how they precisely arrived at that conclusion.

I feel I'm rambling, so I won't dwell/prolong on the many other trails of thought that come into my mind...
0
wanderer
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#66
Report 11 years ago
#66
The reason I suggested it is that it's a classic example (Wittgenstein was very concerned with it - didn't I mention that already?). It's difficult to come up with a definition of what logic is supposed to be that doesn't include statements like that as logical truths. But such a statement simply isn't a logical truth in classical logic, or any other logic that I know of. Sure, you can construct a valid argument with it as a conclusion - you can do that for any statement you like. But that's a different issue.
0
Ethelred the Unready
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#67
Report 11 years ago
#67
Sounds a bit like the image of a child asking "Why?" to every statement (would that be the munchausen trilema, or something ). And I would agree. I can examine formal logic and state, "Yes, but why does the law of non-contradiction work." Why does "X cannot equal not X" work? It's quite hard to prove; it's simply common sense - and knowledge that pretty much builds upon the philosophical framework and logic constraints from which we judge an argument. If there's a contradiction, I call that illogical. Why? Because that's how I understand illogical to be. That's what I deduce using my formal logic skills. It's merely a tool for consolidating ideas and classing them as valid or invalid based on what we realistically "know" - i.e. rules such that X cannot equal not X. Black cannot equal not black. If all the item is black, it cannot be not black (including white). Therefore it's within a set but understandable framework.

That takes it to a ridiculously primitive level. But you get my point, hopefully. I don't think I advertised that side of philosophy too strongly. Perhaps I did...

And yes, you did mention Wittgenstein
0
CartesianFart
Badges: 0
#68
Report 11 years ago
#68
(Original post by Ethelred the Unready)

edit: And I didn't give out the rep calling you a nob, Cartesian; although I can see why you might think I did.
I never assumed that you did. All I wanted to know is who was the one who did it.

By the way: What make you think that You can see me thinking that I might have had thought that it was you?

To be fair, calling formal logic merely "symbols" is quite foolish.
What is odd of this statement? - "Formal Logic and Mathematics are nothing but symbolic notations."

I shan't bother responding to your humonguous quoting line by line; partly because some of your comments don't even make sense when addressed against my points! :p:
"humonguous" - I know that what the chicks say all the time.:p:

(Original post by Ethelred the Unready)

Cartesian, I don't feel that philosophy somehow makes you a "better, more qualified person to have opinions about life". However it does make you more informed about the nature of arguments, how other people have consolidated their thoughts on the world and does equip you with the necessary tools to discover the world. I've, admittedly controversially, mentioned formal logic (which I feel is most fulfilling to study and certainly helps me follow and organise arguments in a strict framework). However the more liberal, discussive side of informal logic has its different uses. You can't rely on just one form.

That said, I don't claim to be an expert philosopher. These are just my opinions from my own experiences. But because I've had at least some form of experience, I am more informed in some way. In the same way, just because you study philosophy doesn't mean you always have the correct answers, but just that you may be more informed of what the answers may be, what other people have said they are, and how they precisely arrived at that conclusion.

I feel I'm rambling, so I won't dwell/prolong on the many other trails of thought that come into my mind...
Very well. And I hope I can also partake in the trails with you in the unseenable future. Just don't push me off the edge of the cliff! Or I will surely grab you as I fall.
0
Woolsthorpe
Badges:
#69
Report 11 years ago
#69
(Original post by wanderer)
Plenty of philosophers would deny that that's what philosophy is about. Even continental ones.
Definitely. Plus continental philosophy is not that different from British philosophy. Rousseau was an empiricist and Voltaire supported Locke's ideas.

There was, actually, quite a big difference in the 17th century, with Descartes being a rationnalist and Hobbes and Berkeley having a totally different approach to philosophy.
0
RawJoh1
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#70
Report 11 years ago
#70
(Original post by West Lake)
Definitely. Plus continental philosophy is not that different from British philosophy. Rousseau was an empiricist and Voltaire supported Locke's ideas.

There was, actually, quite a big difference in the 17th century, with Descartes being a rationnalist and Hobbes and Berkeley having a totally different approach of philosophy.
Continental vs Analytic Philosophy is a post-Kantian divide. It's not so applicable to pre-Kantians.
0
wanderer
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#71
Report 11 years ago
#71
(Original post by Ethelred the Unready)
Sounds a bit like the image of a child asking "Why?" to every statement (would that be the munchausen trilema, or something ). And I would agree. I can examine formal logic and state, "Yes, but why does the law of non-contradiction work." Why does "X cannot equal not X" work? It's quite hard to prove; it's simply common sense - and knowledge that pretty much builds upon the philosophical framework and logic constraints from which we judge an argument. If there's a contradiction, I call that illogical. Why? Because that's how I understand illogical to be. That's what I deduce using my formal logic skills. It's merely a tool for consolidating ideas and classing them as valid or invalid based on what we realistically "know" - i.e. rules such that X cannot equal not X. Black cannot equal not black. If all the item is black, it cannot be not black (including white). Therefore it's within a set but understandable framework.

That takes it to a ridiculously primitive level. But you get my point, hopefully. I don't think I advertised that side of philosophy too strongly. Perhaps I did...
Hmm. I'm not sure I see the relevance. You want to include colour exclusivity in the axioms of logic?
0
Laus
Badges: 13
#72
Report 11 years ago
#72
Is this thread worth reading through?

Does anyone know anything about the philosophy course at York?
0
The Solitary Reaper
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#73
Report 11 years ago
#73
(Original post by Laus)
Is this thread worth reading through?

Does anyone know anything about the philosophy course at York?
No, most of it is an argument about whether colour exclusivity is a logical necessity.

York is very good for philosophy - generally considered better than Durham - and the course seems almost exclusively analytic (which is a good thing :p: ).

There's a list of example modules (there may very well be more) here: http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/phil/ugrad/module.htm

0
Laus
Badges: 13
#74
Report 11 years ago
#74
(Original post by The Solitary Reaper)
No, most of it is an argument about whether colour exclusivity is a logical necessity.

York is very good for philosophy - generally considered better than Durham - and the course seems almost exclusively analytic (which is a good thing :p: ).

There's a list of example modules (there may very well be more) here: http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/phil/ugrad/module.htm

:ta:

If I do receive an offer from Durham, it looks like I will be in a bit of a pickle! Durham is generally rated as the top for English Literature whereas, from what you have told me, York is better for Philosophy! :confused:
0
The Solitary Reaper
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#75
Report 11 years ago
#75
(Original post by Laus)
:ta:

If I do receive an offer from Durham, it looks like I will be in a bit of a pickle! Durham is generally rated as the top for English Literature whereas, from what you have told me, York is better for Philosophy! :confused:
To be honest, I don't think there's enough in it either way for reputation to be a factor in your decision - if you do get the Durham offer, I think you should choose it solely on course modules and the actual university and place (I would choose York because I get this pompous 'delusions of grandeur' vibe off of Durham, and people I have met from York have been nicer, but that really is just me and my experience).
0
organised_chaos
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#76
Report 11 years ago
#76
I live half an hour away from Durham, and I assure you, you could get bored of the place after about 5 days. Good university, obviously, but the delusions of grandeur idea is definitely true and is spurred on by the collegiate system, which everyone seems to think makes it just like Oxbridge (as if that's the sodding be all and end all), but in reality, it's not all that. I vote York.
0
tommorris
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#77
Report 11 years ago
#77
(Original post by Laus)
Is this thread worth reading through?
Yes, it proves that philosophers can do off-topic on a grand scale.
0
electric-wars
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#78
Report 8 years ago
#78
It's amusing that this thread started out as a simple question about the best place to study Continental Philosophy and turned into a full blown argument on whether one should even study Philosophy at all. Oh TSR...
0
User722716
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#79
Report 8 years ago
#79
(Original post by electric-wars)
It's amusing that this thread started out as a simple question about the best place to study Continental Philosophy and turned into a full blown argument on whether one should even study Philosophy at all. Oh TSR...
Still amusing? Even after three and a half years?
0
faber niger
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#80
Report 8 years ago
#80
Warwick.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • University of Surrey
    Postgraduate Open Afternoon Postgraduate
    Wed, 23 Oct '19
  • University of Bristol
    Undergraduate Open Afternoon Undergraduate
    Wed, 23 Oct '19
  • University of Exeter
    Undergraduate Open Day - Penryn Campus Undergraduate
    Wed, 23 Oct '19

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (53)
25.73%
No (153)
74.27%

Watched Threads

View All