Given modus ponens as an inference rule. (And thus not a theorem.)
Actually constructing arguments requires some system of deduction, not just the definitions of the logical constants.
What is the relevance here? — Count Timothy von Icarus
This is a logically valid argument. — Count Timothy von Icarus
We're not talking about disagreements about scientific theories. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I've yet to come across any radically different versions of how thermodynamics, etc. were developed. — Count Timothy von Icarus
But per your view, how can we actually know why a scientific theory was advanced or why others were rejected? — Count Timothy von Icarus
when Einstein says he added the Cosmological Constant to have his theory jive with the then widely held view that the universe was static I think that is a good reason to believe that is why Einstein added the Cosmological Constant. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The pioneers of quantum mechanics published papers throughout their lifetimes, conducted interviews, were taped during lectures, and wrote memoirs, all describing how the theory evolved. In many cases, their personal correspondences were made available after their death. Most of this is even free.
Now tell me where I can get access to a free particle accelerator and a Youtube on how to properly use it so I can observe particle physics findings first hand? — Count Timothy von Icarus
Einstein added the Cosmological Constant to fit current models is an empirical fact. In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue is an empirical fact. The Catholic Church harassing advocates of heliocentrism is an empirical fact. People have had sensory experiences of those things and reported them. — Count Timothy von Icarus
When was the last time you wanted to learn something and held a double-blind clinical study? — Count Timothy von Icarus
Do you replicate the experiments after you read a scientific paper? No. Then you're trusting the institution publishing it and its authors, right? — Count Timothy von Icarus
Plenty of people don't trust the scientific establishment. This cannot be a good criterion for justification. — Count Timothy von Icarus
the stranger claim that if an argument is in a valid form we should be persuaded by the argument — Count Timothy von Icarus
I only skimmed the exchange you were having with Isaac, and don't want to take sides. — Srap Tasmaner
The question was about verifying the narratives in textbooks on the history of ideas. Are you suggesting that such evidence troves exist for all ideas.
Yes. again, I've no clue what point you're trying to make here. /quote]
The point above. I would be convinced by your arguments if you could show me why claims about the history of some idea are specially unknowable such that: "We cannot make any compelling arguments about the history of ideas, why a theory was adopted, etc."
Could we do this self-checking with the argument of the OP regarding post enlightenment thought?
I don't know where you're headed by providing these hyper-specfic examples which are not illustrative of the form in general.
Baffling.
And to emphasise, this is not the case with arguments relying of basic rules of thought and empirical observation.
History is so open to interpretation that virtually any theory can be held without issue. Not so with empirical facts, not so with informal logic (not so with formal logic either but that wasn't my point).
For a logical argument to have persuasive force it is only necessary that I agree with the rules of logic. I could not, of course, but it's not a big ask.
For an argument from analogy to have persuasive force, like the one you presented, I'd need to already agree that the situations are, indeed, analogous....
Exactly. It has persuasive force. If we just swap out all the premises for letters and produce a long, non-obvious, logical argument that, say , if A> B and B>C then A>C, that has persuasive force. I can look at that and think "yes, that's right, A is greater than C in those circumstances" I've been persuaded by the presentation. The longer an more complex the argument, more likely it is to draw out entailment from believing one logical move on other logical moves. I'm persuaded by the argument that I must accept the entailment, regardless of whether I accept the premises.
what was an interesting conversation we here having seems to have fizzled out and been replaced by yet another truly bizarre argument — Isaac
Why should we talk about the history of this conversation? — Srap Tasmaner
If I say, "we can be justified about some historical facts and narratives," you respond with "so, you don't get that people can disagree over historical facts and narratives?"
If I say, "we must sometimes rely on the authority of institutions and base our beliefs on trust because it is impossible for one person to conduct more than a minute fraction of all experiments in the sciences," you respond with "so you always blindly trust authority?" — Count Timothy von Icarus
I don't think the problems you point out are at all specific to history. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Trust in both individuals/institutions and in the process of scholarship is just as essential for science. — Count Timothy von Icarus
My argument is simply this: "if the history of an idea is sometimes relevant, and if we can sometimes have justified beliefs about the history of ideas, then sometimes arguments made from the history of an idea are relevant. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Whether we accept or reject the argument should be based on the data supporting the premises and if the conclusion actually follows from the premises — Count Timothy von Icarus
this doesn't seem like a difference in kind. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Nor is it clear that all scientific empirical claims are easier to verify than many historical fact claims. — Count Timothy von Icarus
What I found weird was the claim that "[if] I'm persuaded by the argument that I must accept the entailment, regardless of whether I accept the premises," which seemed to imply that the logic alone was persuasive. But a valid argument with false premises isn't persuasive. I didn't, and still don't really know how to take the claim that: "For a logical argument to have persuasive force it is only necessary that I agree with the rules of logic." — Count Timothy von Icarus
So still on topic. — Srap Tasmaner
My eyes glaze over when there's a lot of "That's not what I said," and "That's not what I meant." — Srap Tasmaner
Sorry to clutter up your thread — unenlightened
This thread is still very much on my mind, so I'll probably come roaring back in another day or two. — Srap Tasmaner
D. H. Lawrence's first book of poems was called "Look! We Have Come Through."
Robert Graves reviewed it, saying, "Perhaps you have, and a good thing too, but why should we look?"
That was roughly the mood in which I wrote the OP. — Srap Tasmaner
He is quick, thinking in clear images;
I am slow, thinking in broken images.
He becomes dull, trusting to his clear images;
I become sharp, mistrusting my broken images.
Trusting his images, he assumes their relevance;
Mistrusting my images, I question their relevance.
Assuming their relevance, he assumes the fact;
Questioning their relevance, I question the fact.
When the fact fails him, he questions his senses;
When the fact fails me, I approve my senses.
He continues quick and dull in his clear images;
I continue slow and sharp in my broken images.
He in a new confusion of his understanding;
I in a new understanding of my confusion. — Robert Graves, In broken Images.
The claim isn't that they are specific to history, it is that history is at the further end of a spectrum.
In general, I think that, if you agree with the logic being employed, accept the inference rules, etc., if the argument is valid, and if the premises are all true, the argument should generally be persuasive. — Count Timothy von Icarus
However in these areas it's more about assigning probabilities to explanations than establishing certainty. — Count Timothy von Icarus
In general, I think that, if you agree with the logic being employed, accept the inference rules, etc., if the argument is valid, and if the premises are all true, the argument should generally be persuasive.
— Count Timothy von Icarus
But it just isn't. This whole site is clearly evidence of that. Scores (if not hundreds) of people failing to convince others of positions they believe have valid logic and true premises. so the interesting question is why doesn't it work? — Isaac
This isn't a testable claim, we can't go back to 1986 and, while Daryl Strawberry and Kieth Hernandez were great, I doubt the have championship baseball skills we can verify. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The other thing is that: "the best way to ensure true future beliefs is to subscribe to verificationism," isn't a claim that can be verified by verificationism. — Count Timothy von Icarus
That's a shame, because what was an interesting conversation we here having seems to have fizzled out... — Isaac
Do you think the fizzling might be somewhat a consequence of excessive politesse on your part? — wonderer1
I suspect that as a psychology professor you have insight into the topic of the OP that you haven't brought up in the thread. (And I understand there may well be ethical standards for someone in your position, and abiding by such standards requires limiting what you say.)
Thoughts? — wonderer1
I suspect other members might have a very different impression of my tendency to politesse... — Isaac
People don't like psychology as rule. I think there's something immediately offensive about someone claiming to know how you think. — Isaac
I'm more keen to just learn how different people respond to interrogation, that's my wheelhouse really (one of them, anyway). How people defend and attack beliefs in a social context - the rules of engagement, the tactics, the impacts... that sort of thing. — Isaac
It's a rare thing that a thread addresses this directly as this one has, but really, there's more meat to found on the ones that are talking about something else. — Isaac
That said, if you have a specific question, I'm happy to risk it, but fair warning, the answer will be about narratives and won't mention Freud once, unless in place of an expletive. — Isaac
But also, Srap Tasmaner has probably heard my 'insight' on these matters to the point of fatigue and I fear if I use the word 'narrative' one more time in any post I might well inspire physical damage. — Isaac
I want to bring your views into alignment with mine, and that's why I make arguments in favor of my belief. — Srap Tasmaner
a lack of a model for 'the generic person' — wonderer1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.