How so? — TonesInDeepFreeze

When logic is used in the debates, the debaters might get a false sense of security that they might arrive at true conclusions because they are using logical methods. But in many cases, it is not the case. Because logic can hide the traps. Just guessing :D

Which books are those? — TonesInDeepFreeze

Logic by Wilfrid Hodges
Introduction to Logic by Gensler

Both books are in Amazon, and the 1 star reviews explain the problems with the books in great detail.
I agreed with the reviewer about the books. (the same reviewer for the both books).

https://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/0141003146/ref=acr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

https://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/0415996511/ref=acr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

"This book, like other pseudo-logic texts of the type, does inform us that logical arguments require true premises. And of course, the vast majority of the book is focused upon technical logical rules designed to insure that we are able to spot obvious logical contradiction in an argument. Here's the problem with that;I know of no one who will believe an argument which they know is derived from untrue premises, or which contains obvious contradiction. The real problem is that via appeals to authority and emotion we tend to accept premises as true which are not supported by evidence or which are deceptively incomplete. (Very cleverly, Gensler and his ilk teach us what we we already know naturally.)"

One's idea of self identity largely comes from memory. I would imagine, without memory, there would be no self identity per se. From epistemological and phenomenological point of view, the present consciousness, perception of one's own body with all the sense perceptions and emotions combined with one's past memory constitutes one's self identity.

The logical calculus doesn't permit that inference so your example is irrelevant. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I have started reading a couple of Introduction to Logic books, and still in the 1st chapter. It has not gone to the logical calculus chapter yet.

You gave examples of arguments that symbolic logic rules as invalid. That's not a problem for symbolic logic; it's only a problem for you if you think symbolic logic does rule those arguments as valid. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Sure it is not the symbolic logic issue as such you are right, but the traditional logic which often used by the God debaters seem have the problems like that. Even what looks like valid arguments could have traps of fallacies. Not suitable tool to rely on for more complicated cases, I was trying to prove. I was not trying to say that the OP argument is valid or correct. As TMF said, the enemy of logic is often, the logic itself.

Its a good bet that, if you're not taking a class, then the best way to learn is from a good textbook.

'Logic: Techniques of Formal Reasoning' by Kalish, Montague, and Mar is the best introduction, in my opinion based on having looked at a lot of logic books. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I have a couple of basic logic books, but they seem not great. I will see, if I could get hold of the book you recommended. Thanks.

Ranting! Venting! Blowing off steam! Sorry you had to see this! By the way, did I say anything even mildly inappropriate? Apologies if I did. — TheMadFool

No troublems. Logic had never been an interesting subject for me before, but since reading more forum discussions recently, my interest on logic seems have gone up. I will try to learn more about it through time with more practicing :D

On a more serious note, logic is logic's own worst enemy (it fails its own tests). That's the beauty! — TheMadFool

I would go with that. :grin:

Cause, or Cause and Effect, is one of Kant's Categories of the Understanding. Kant asserted there were twelve such categories. — charles ferraro

I used to think space and time was the condition for all perceptions in Kant, and cause and effect were something to do with the transcendental world. But wasn't too sure. Interesting stuff. Thanks for your confirmation.

How right you are. The angle makes all the difference. From a certain angle, shit looks like shit, from another angle, shit looks like... :chin: — TheMadFool

I thought for the fact that you replied to this thread with the good write up, you must also be very much interested in the topic, but what made you feel that way, I am lost. :) But never mind. I hope you feel better.

I thought they are great practices in the Critical Argument studies. It is certainly helping me understanding the topics more.

It depends on from what angle you are looking at anything. If you feel sh*t, then everything looks sh*t. You can criticise anything, if you want. But it is just a psychology, not the objects out there.

Illicit minor — Michael

Great study material. Thanks :up:

Space and Time, the Forms of Sensible Intuition, and the Categories of the Understanding. — charles ferraro

I think I said "Intuition" somewhere. Would Cause qualify too? You never perceive causes via senses, but postulate them?

Sure. Great explanation. :up:
I also thought, it is possible for the arguments to come to the true conclusion, had the premises came up with the complete set of sufficient and necessary propositions, because obviously the deductive premises above has insufficient conditions for the conclusion.

It is just to show that simple traditional symbolic logic can be a bit inadequate for arriving at true conclusions, even if the arguments look valid and consistent.

And then you will get people claiming that his dog is a copycat, so the conclusion is right, when the others say it isn't. Or some will say that his dog is a hot dog. Hot dogs are not animals, because it doesn't move or breath etc, so that the premise is false etc.

According to your point, it sounds to me that you can only compare God with another God. Not logically possible task, is it?

You're comparing letters in the first example — Harry Hindu

Well, not "letters", but they are "objects".

comparing categories (animals) to elements of categories (cats and dogs) in the latter. Essentially, a, c and are being defined in the same way as animals and dogs and cats, so the relationship between the letters vs animals and dogs and cats are completely different. — Harry Hindu

But surely, cats and dogs themselves can be categories too?

The argument invalid. The middle term is not distributed (it should be). That's why you're able to construct a counter-example. — TheMadFool

What is the middle term, and how should it be distributed? Where is the counter-example? Could you elaborate with more details and examples?

Or perhaps definitions themselves could be some of the topics of the debates just like Socrates used to do often. He keeps asking "What is x?" x= justice, good, bad, beauty, wisdom, soul ...
For example, before going into debates "Does God exist?", perhaps they should debate first, "What is God?"

Indeed. I wouldn't say Feyerband invented post-truth, but his "science fails, therefore God it is" brand of pomo oughtn't to have been difficult to deconstruct. Derrida himself said that deconstruction is not an equaliser. There's a lot more to unpack in a work of theology than in a scientific paper. — Kenosha Kid

I couldn't find any God mentioned by Derrida in his books I own. He seems constantly interpreting texts even in his lecture notes "Life Death".

Anyway, now we really are derailing the thread. I'm waiting with baited breath to see who Wayfarer and/or 180's seconds will be now that Wayfarer has declined the invitation. — Kenosha Kid

Sure, we did veered from the topic a wee bit right enough, but our discussions were to demonstrate and stress on how clarifying, establishing and agreeing on the abstract concepts prior to embarking debates could help the debaters avoid some harsh sophistry dog fights, in the essence, was related to the topic (deconstructively speaking).

Corvus is a bird but also happens to be a constellation in the night sky. One time, I used to dabble with Astronomy.

The idea is that by studying a text, we can determine which side of a dichotomy the author favours. This — Kenosha Kid

I read some Derrida, and in the deconstruction process, they would even bring in the Paraconsistent Logic (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/), which denies the Law of Contradiction. So an object can be both white and black at the same time. It is actually a very realistic system for representing the real world - such as in the country you have a population who are for the policy and at the same time, against it. There is no definite truth to say this is it.

And according to the deconstructionist, the Bible is definitely irrelevant for modern times, because it had been written thousands years ago. Everything has changed. Historicism doesn't work for the present time ...etc. Interesting thoughts and methods, I would say. Great system for art critic analysis of course. The traditionalists will not approve of it of course for obvious reasons.

Sorry to derail the thread, but I'm the sole defender of postmodernism on this forum, gotta put the hours in. :) — Kenosha Kid

Don't get me wrong. I think Deconstruction is great. Aesthetics is of of my favourite subjects. But I have a funny feeling that postmodernism and deconstruction wouldn't go very well with God debates.

I will request a debate when completed my first reading of The Critique of Pure Reason. Could take a few years, if not infinity :D

I see myself a very newbie in the subject, so am just happy reading and learning only for a while.

Deconstruction is a method of isolating the assumptions and biases of a text. Are you suggesting that we get closer to the truth by neglecting these, or rather that it feels like we do? — Kenosha Kid

Maybe your definition of deconstruction is different from mine. I understand it as interpreting thoughts, texts and systems from many different aspects. It is not act of "isolation", but rather interpretation.

Movement in space is real. The concept of infinity is an illusion.

If a characteristic of phenomenal objects exhibits ABSOLUTE NECESSITY and STRICT UNIVERSALITY, then that characteristic is transcendental. — charles ferraro

What are some examples of this case?

The Logical Positivists said all could, using this method. Wittgenstein showed it can't be done. Hence, Post-Modernism. — god must be atheist

Post-modernists would just deconstruct everything - even reasoning. To me they are not philosophers. Post-Modernists are art critics. Their interest is not in truths, but in desconstruction. When you deconstruct something, indeed truths vanishes, and things end up in some possible world.

That being said, this is a philosophy forum, so God-stuff is fair game to bring up. — darthbarracuda

I agree. The topic of God is controversial. Nietzsche didn't even bother proving God's existence. He declared God is dead. It is a good topic for philosophical debate. I feel that philosophers must rise above their faith and beliefs, and engage the debates from rational aspects. If one puts his faith and beliefs before reasoning, then he should be in church or temple, not in philosophical forums.

Will go with the CPR then. Thanks for your info and advice. Much appreciated.

Intuition?

Have you read any Kant?
I am not asking to be intimidating but to know how to reply. — Valentinus

Yes, just a little introduction.
I am planning to read something more substantial.

Having another go - could it be the causes?
If there are causal explanations, then empirical.
If no causal, then transcendental ???

can't bring up the noumenon. — Valentinus

ah ok. then it couldn't be the sense-able objects ...

Would it be, if one can see it, touch it and hear it via the sense organs, then the object is empirical. If the object is in the language as words, or in the mind as concepts, but not perceivable via senses, then it is transcendental? Sounds crude and obvious I know. Just guessing.

Sure, maybe they wont be able to read exact emotions but only vague ones intepreted from actions, but like Dr. Karoly Zsolnai Feher says, 2 more papers down the line, the amount of development would be amazing. — Kinglord1090

I would guess the readings are accurate for the emotions, because they must have gone through many tests, and verified the results. But I still feel that the waves are not identical to the emotions in the brain. :)

Is this sentiment that we need to expelle so we can all evolve as a civilization. If you reduce your self by calling faith as a fairytale than your just throwing out disrespectful babble and no one will take you serious as an intellectual — SteveMinjares

My motto in philosophy is - "All I know is that, I know nothing." Does it sound intellectual?

What I am advocating is civil liberty. And how philosophy can be warped to justify oppression and excuse intolerant thinking.

My fear is not about my faith but warning you all about extremism ideology in any shape and form. And we should be preaching about open mindedness and not this arrogant thinking of I’m right your wrong or vice versa. — SteveMinjares

By the way, bringing in the phrases like "civil liberty ... intolerant thinking and warnings", etc sound like power hungry political threats. No thank you.

I do not believe this claim to be true as humans have been able to read brain waves which are caused by logic as well as emotions, for quite some time now.
Yes, we aren't able to do it quite well, but as Dr. Karoly Zsolnai Feher says, according to the theory of papers, if we go 2 more papers down the line, the amount of development would be astounding.
Neuralink, which is a company created by Elon Musk is already showing amazing progress in this field. — Kinglord1090

Surely the waves they see on the screen are not emotions. That would be an unacceptable reduction. It is like saying, the hot weather during the summer time is the temperature readings on the thermometer. Or the voltage readings on the voltmeter are identical to electricity.

I think emotions are the private mental states in the brain, which are only perceivable by the owner of the state. Others can only read it via the behaviours, linguistic and facial expressions of the individual.

For example, I would only know that you are happy by hearing that your say that you are happy, your facial expression looking happy, and you are jumping up and down making some happyish noise ...etc. There is no other way, that I would know you are happy. Of course, those scientists may look at the brain waves coming out on the device screen connected to your head, and tell ah this is the happy wave it looks like, but that is not the actual happy emotion itself they are looking at, no matter how accurate the device might be, they are just seeing some symbolic quantified representation of the mental states, rather than the emotion as entity itself.

Yes. Some say that 90% of Philosophical problems would resolve by themselves, if they managed to establish valid definitions of the concepts.

When we ask "why do they try to prove God exists", we are NOT saying, they shouldn't. It is really asking about the logical and rational motives and backgrounds for the probes.

In Philosophy, we must ask and argue about anything in doubt and unclear. When we keep silence, Philosophy ceases to be Philosophy.

I prefer happiness to unhappiness, but for plastering a wall, I would go for a plasterer's trowel. That seems to me to be how the the word works. It's akin to asking what's better than good. I have already suggested the evolutionary benefit of intelligence which depends to a great extent on the environment, but as to pursuit of knowledge and wisdom, well I do it (at a leisurely pace) because it makes me happy, or at least happier than pursuit of ignorance and folly. — unenlightened

If you know how to make yourself happy, then that is a great knowhow. The Good thing about happiness acquired via knowledge and wisdom lasts, unlike happiness derived from ignorance or illusion, which is usually short-lived.

Did I say anything? — TheMadFool

I am not sure.

is not language reducible to meaning and therefore being and not to words? — TheGreatArcanum

No, language cannot be reduced to the beings. It represents the beings. You use the language to REFER to the beings. Words refer to the objects. Sentences refer to the facts and situations in the world.

Meanings are just cultural and historical contracts on the words. I can make my own private language with a few made up words with my own meanings, and agree to use the language with the new meanings only amongst a group of a few people, and it will work well although limited at first. In a few years of time, the words will increase, as we add more new words and the meanings to it, and might cover the all the objects in the world.

If abstract objects exist, are propositions abstract objects? If not, what are there dimensions? If abstract objects exist, can they be physically contained within space, or must we then concede to the existence of a non-spatial realm which is transcendent of space? — TheGreatArcanum

Abstract objects do exist, but only in the mind and language, not in the real world space as tangible objects.

Just because you know a word such as "God", doesn't mean that it exists in space as the real object. Of course it depends on what you mean by "God". If you define a willow tree in your garden as "God", yes it does exist, but that would be your own private world, not the world that the other rest of human population believes as world.