:up: :smile:

Forget I even mentioned it. It was irrelevant to the discussion. — TheMadFool

I opened the thread, but immediately realised the topic is one of the subjects, that I am not familiar with. Time permitting and the background reading done, I am inclined to have another go.

Dangerous is not the word I would use. Strict and uncompromising are terms that I think of when reflecting on logic. — Harry Hindu

Deconstructive use of the word :D (All uses of the problematic and unclear words have been contributed or excused to that term by me recently - xD how convenient )
I tend to be sarcastic to my own writings often - never mind.

Did you read this :point: [url=https://thephilosohttps://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/566809phyforum.com/discussion/comment/566809]New Caledanian Crow[/url] — TheMadFool

No I haven't. I have no much knowledge on the medieval time religious topics. I must go back to Russell's History of Philosophy and do some more readings on the chapter to be able to follow the thread, I think.

I like to solve these types of problems using a computer programming language. In every language, the variables need to be defined in order to use them. In every logical process the variables used refer to something in the world. — Harry Hindu

Sure. I used to do some computer programming myself, and used to use, WHILE .... DO, For x> y DO,
or IF ... THEN and write up FUNCTIONS a lot to carry out checking the conditions.

You know fine well, that to check some complicated conditions, the statements needs many lines of coding to check for all the possible conditions. The use of the variables are essential in the programmings. One condition out of many in the loop or IF THEN sections fails, the whole program fails and comes to halt (if the input is out of boundary set in the variables and error handling code is not implemented), or it will return FALSE value from the functions or routines to the calling modules straight, not even bothering going on checking for the next conditions.

Also, if you find that some logical proposition produces a false conclusion, its because so other logical fallacy was made. All logical rules have to be followed - no cherry-picking. — Harry Hindu

Yeah, that was what I have been saying all along. If you get your staring definitions and also any of t he premises wrong, then you can end up with some crazy conclusions as Truth. Dangerous things for sure.

I was not aware of Agrippa before, but it seems also interesting topic to read and learn about. Thanks for the info.
https://ideasinhat.com/2018/11/16/what-is-the-munchhausen-trilemma/

I see.  It was a demonstration OP for showing that logical arguments in philosophical debates do need solid sufficient definitions and premises so that they will arrive at infallible True conclusions.
Truth tables and Venn diagrams are great tools too. But more for the educational purpose, I feel.

Had a quick look at the Venn Diagram section of the Gensler book, and it looks OK.
But I was wondering whether the diagram method is only OK for simple arguments with just 1 or 2 premises.

There are often cases of arguments with 10 - 20 premises in the real life arguments. In this case, I wonder if the diagrams could serve as a practical tool for the arguments at all.

Yes. You do not need extra definitions. The original definitions are quite sufficient. Dogs are animals. Cats are animals. Cats are not dogs. Those last three statements are consistent. You need the diagram and the truth table. — Cuthbert

Hmmm I would have thought you don't need the diagram, but you just need to add more definitions into the premise making it sufficient and necessary condition. Wouldn't it be more convenient and practical than drawing diagrams in the debates? (if it were debate situations) :)

The problem is not in the definitions. The problem is that you say a conclusion follows when it does not follow. — Cuthbert

But did you read the new argument with the extra (sufficient) definitions added in the premises then produces the new true conclusion? = cats are not dogs.

I can see why Hume questions the existence of self. — Jack Cummins

I find Hume's account on Self Identity interesting too. His denial of self identity has brought the speculations that could Hume had been into Buddhism's No Self philosophy? I was being sceptical about the speculations, but then why not.

Freud and Jung's idea of subconsciousness being integral part of self is also very interesting. I wonder if they were meaning the link between the self hidden in the subconsciousness and past and after life alchemy.

The Gensler Logic book has good explanation on the Venn Diagram.
Will have a look.

But I also thought the OP argument problem stems from the premise that there is limited scope for the definition of dogs and cats. Simply saying "are animals" is not sufficient definition for them.
So, dogs are animals and dogs bark.
Cats are animals and cats meow.

from more definitions given in the premises, it would have had a true conclusion.
cats are not dogs (they are both animals, but cats don't bark, dogs don't meow)

So, it demonstrates how insufficient premises render wrong conclusions in the argument, even if they look valid.

In God debates, often the premises they start are either wrong and insufficient, hence the argument arrives at the wrong conclusion, or / and it falls into confusion in the middle of reaching the conclusion.

For instance, the wrong and insufficient definition "God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient" or "God is a necessary being" as the premises of the arguments will not only confuse the following arguments but also arrive at the wrong conclusion.

Because if one start ask and analyse all those concepts of God, then it will be clear there is no ground to assert them as true definitions, and even if we infer them as true definitions, the scope of the premises is limited for the arguments and conclusion.

psychological aspects of identity — Jack Cummins

For psychological aspect of self identity, I would presume Freud and Jung has something to say about it?

I think that we define ourselves as human individuals on the basis of past history, but who we are in terms of ego identity and connection with reality is far more complex. — Jack Cummins

I was under impression that David Hume, being the champion of scepticism, denies idea of self identity, because one cannot grasp the impressions and ideas of the corresponding self in perception ??? ... something like that. What did you think of it after reading Hume?

My criticism of the rants (those are not reviews) is independent of the books. What she said about logic is stupid, no matter what is in the books. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I thought she was not saying Logic is stupid. Rather, she was saying that the books don't mention some important points in Logic. She quotes a few philosophical texts from the other authors and philosophers about logic and how general people study and practice Logic, and why those missed points in the books are critically important.

I have never studied Logic as such in serious manner. Everything I said and wrote about logic was from my common sense and reasoning. Then I thought it couldn't do any harm if I do some reading on logic.
I was then looking for some logic books. There were so many logic books on the market, I could not tell which one is good or bad.

I got the 2x which were randomly chosen, but when I scanned them, thought they are not that great.
I didn't find the writing style interesting or clear.

Then I worked through an introductory book on symbolic logic, and I learned a lot. — TonesInDeepFreeze

But I will say that I just don't know whether I would have done as well with Kalish/Montague if I hadn't previously read that other symbolic logic book that gave me some good chops with symbolization and symbolic deduction — TonesInDeepFreeze

What is your the other symbolic logic book before the K/M which gave you some good chops with symbolization and symbolic deduction?

They're not. They reveal fundamental misunderstanding, confusions, and ignorance of the writer. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Do you, then think both books are good books contrary to the negative review details? How would you compare my 2 books to the one you recommended?

You just quoted her about the ill-effects of emotion in arguments. Your feelings about the books don't make her arguments about them sound. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I don't always quote or post sound arguments only. But the quoted parts are what I felt was good points. I used to believe that one must not start philosophical debates with inferred premises. I still do.

You are quoting from someone who is ignorant. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I was not sure if she was ignorant or not, but there were parts that resonated with my feelings about the books. The reviewer didn't sound like a newbie (she has many Logic books, and read them all) for sure. I am the newbie :D

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?