|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 29, 2021 23:31:29 GMT
"If/then" observes if one phenomenon occurs then another follows. However it does not explain how the connection occurs but rather there is a connection. This connection as undefined necessitates that what follows "if" is as undefined as the connection which follows.
The connection is purely assumed and as assumed is relegated to a belief as to what ought happen. This "ought" is purely an assertion and as an assertion necessitates that multiple other "thens" may follow "if" with no one "then" being greater than another. The "if/then" dichotomy does not lend itself to a clear answer given multiple "thens" may be observed.
|
|
antor
Junior Member
Posts: 87
Likes: 51
Country: Sweden
Politics: Middle Left something
Religion: Apatheist
Age: 35
|
Post by antor on Jun 30, 2021 3:56:10 GMT
Interesting observation and chain of thoughts but what's the "problem"?
|
|
Kasperanza
New Member
Posts: 49
Likes: 16
Ethnicity: White
Country: USA
Politics: Libertarian Capitalist
Religion: Atheist
Age: 22
|
Post by Kasperanza on Jun 30, 2021 9:02:34 GMT
There is no problem. This guy is overcomplicating things for no reason.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 30, 2021 14:15:56 GMT
There is no problem. This guy is overcomplicating things for no reason. I see a problem: From the viewpoint of Logic, 'If...., then....' has to be taken in this sense, "If..., then NECESSARILY....." but as 9x explicitly says, no explanation is given as to why this is so -- as to the connection between the antecedent part and the consequent part. To put it differently: while reasoning, a person may provide an explanation, but "beginners" are hereby advised not to rely on the formal hypothetical syllogisms [Modus Ponens & Modus Tollens] to draw conclusions about the real world. Furthermore, there can be a semantic problem while using ordinary language, since we are not strict about dfferentiating "If.... then...." and "If and only if.... then...."
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 30, 2021 19:38:56 GMT
There is no problem. This guy is overcomplicating things for no reason. I see a problem: From the viewpoint of Logic, 'If...., then....' has to be taken in this sense, "If..., then NECESSARILY....." but as 9x explicitly says, no explanation is given as to why this is so -- as to the connection between the antecedent part and the consequent part. To put it differently: while reasoning, a person may provide an explanation, but "beginners" are hereby advised not to rely on the formal hypothetical syllogisms [Modus Ponens & Modus Tollens] to draw conclusions about the real world. Furthermore, there can be a semantic problem while using ordinary language, since we are not strict about dfferentiating "If.... then...." and "If and only if.... then...." "Double-Talk" Is What Describes the Socratics and Their Academized BoytoysMost "fallacies" are true and logical. Writers tend to use confusing terms because they are sheltered and isolated from the public and don't care about communicating effectively. A "fallacy" merely means that some method of reaching a conclusion is not true in all cases. So what if it isn't? Perfectionism leads to paralysis. Unreasonable doubt, hesitation (Common Sense: "He who hesitates is lost"), and inaction is the goal that our academic clique sets for us.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 30, 2021 20:51:48 GMT
"If/then" observes if one phenomenon occurs then another follows. However it does not explain how the connection occurs but rather there is a connection. This connection as undefined necessitates that what follows "if" is as undefined as the connection which follows. The connection is purely assumed and as assumed is relegated to a belief as to what ought happen. This "ought" is purely an assertion and as an assertion necessitates that multiple other "thens" may follow "if" with no one "then" being greater than another. The "if/then" dichotomy does not lend itself to a clear answer given multiple "thens" may be observed. A master kept on twisting the arm of servant, who happened to be a Stoic. So, the servant said, "If you keep on twisting my arm, you will break it", but he gave no explanation as to why this would happen. Probably he had in mind, "and then I will not be of any service to you". // To me, all this is very clear; the multiple consequences [albeit undefined, unjustified] of the twisting do not preclude any clear answer ["conclusion"]. The servant's arm was broken and proved the truth of the initial "if-then" assertion. No fallacies occurred in the whole episode, and the IF-Then structure should not be viewed as a dichotomy to begin with. Consequences were tacitly ranked....
|
|
Kasperanza
New Member
Posts: 49
Likes: 16
Ethnicity: White
Country: USA
Politics: Libertarian Capitalist
Religion: Atheist
Age: 22
|
Post by Kasperanza on Jun 30, 2021 21:02:04 GMT
There is no problem. This guy is overcomplicating things for no reason. I see a problem: From the viewpoint of Logic, 'If...., then....' has to be taken in this sense, "If..., then NECESSARILY....." but as 9x explicitly says, no explanation is given as to why this is so -- as to the connection between the antecedent part and the consequent part. To put it differently: while reasoning, a person may provide an explanation, but "beginners" are hereby advised not to rely on the formal hypothetical syllogisms [Modus Ponens & Modus Tollens] to draw conclusions about the real world. Furthermore, there can be a semantic problem while using ordinary language, since we are not strict about dfferentiating "If.... then...." and "If and only if.... then...." If I stick my hand in the fire, it will necessarily burn. I need to give an explanation for this necessity? Why does that matter? The logic we use already has an explanation built into it. If we're talking in the context of fire and danger, then saying my hand will necessarily burn doesn't require an explanation.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 30, 2021 21:28:43 GMT
I see a problem: From the viewpoint of Logic, 'If...., then....' has to be taken in this sense, "If..., then NECESSARILY....." but as 9x explicitly says, no explanation is given as to why this is so -- as to the connection between the antecedent part and the consequent part. To put it differently: while reasoning, a person may provide an explanation, but "beginners" are hereby advised not to rely on the formal hypothetical syllogisms [Modus Ponens & Modus Tollens] to draw conclusions about the real world. Furthermore, there can be a semantic problem while using ordinary language, since we are not strict about dfferentiating "If.... then...." and "If and only if.... then...." If I stick my hand in the fire, it will necessarily burn. I need to give an explanation for this necessity? Why does that matter? The logic we use already has an explanation built into it. If we're talking in the context of fire and danger, then saying my hand will necessarily burn doesn't require an explanation. What you said seems to be very reasonable, but now a new issue looms on the horizon: You speak from experiences and should say: It is a FACT that if I stick my hand in a fire, it burns, but NOT :"it will necessarily burn". The idea of necessity is not present in the fact; it may be present linguistically in the Logic's formulation, "If....., then (necessarily)...", which reflects repeated experiences, but, thank old Hume, don't add Necessity to the empirical data.
|
|
Kasperanza
New Member
Posts: 49
Likes: 16
Ethnicity: White
Country: USA
Politics: Libertarian Capitalist
Religion: Atheist
Age: 22
|
Post by Kasperanza on Jun 30, 2021 22:06:12 GMT
What you said seems to be very reasonable, but now a new issue looms on the horizon: You speak from experiences and should say: It is a FACT that if I stick my hand in a fire, it burns, but NOT :"it will necessarily burn". The idea of necessity is not present in the fact; it may be present linguistically in the Logic's formulation, "If....., then (necessarily)...", which reflects repeated experiences, but, thank old Hume, don't add Necessity to the empirical data.
The burning of my hand is a fact and a necessity. Meh.. whatever I guess I won't understand this. (oops I quoted wrong, still trying to figure out this website)
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 1, 2021 14:40:06 GMT
The burning of my hand is a fact and a necessity. Meh.. whatever I guess I won't understand this. (oops I quoted wrong, still trying to figure out this website) When something keeps on happening in the same way, primitive man is likely to think that 2+ events are really one event. (I dealt with this phenomenon elsewhere: the mind unifies wherefore the objective events or entities are said to be consubstantial.) The modern reflective mind rejects consubstantiality and supposes that a repeated event merely induces the mind to suppose that a single event (such as the morning rise of the sun) repeats itself out of Necessity -- out of the sun's nature.... or out of the natural dispositions of the universe. Necessity, the Greek Moira to which even the gods are subject. Necessity, the obedience to some divine governance... which is built in the created things. Necessity, a category of the Intellect (Understanding) under which we subsume empirical data {Cf. Kant} in order to explain/understand them. The fact remains that Necessity is not an empirical datum, even if it is a natural compulsion in some things and in the very human mind.// P.S. Necessity as "innate compulsion" was even used by Aristotle about the ""elements"" seeking/moving to the their natural places; Solid bodies {Earths} and Water tend to go downwards; smoke and flames upwards, or because solids and water seem to be heavy and drop downwards [until Galileo's experiments]. And so it goes. Using chemistry, you may make a case for the proposition that if I put my hand in a fire, it must burn, but chemistry assumes that physical things have constant natures....., unless they occasionally mutate spontaneously. You have to cope with many problems. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 1, 2021 17:16:41 GMT
A biblical refutation: Is it true (a fact) that if a human body is thrown in a fire, it will burn? Not necessarily, for 3 biblical characters were thrown in an oven, and they did not burn. Ah!!, somebody says, That was a miracle, not a natural occurrence. Let's think again: p ===> q If a man is thrown in a fire, he will necessarily burn. p took place, but q did not result. Ergo:-(p ==> q In other words, the major premise is refuted: It is not the case that if a man is thrown in a fire/oven, he will necessarily burn. Yes k-esperanza, The truth of the major premise needs to be established; there is nothing in p that automatically necessitates q.
|
|
Kasperanza
New Member
Posts: 49
Likes: 16
Ethnicity: White
Country: USA
Politics: Libertarian Capitalist
Religion: Atheist
Age: 22
|
Post by Kasperanza on Jul 1, 2021 21:05:57 GMT
The burning of my hand is a fact and a necessity. Meh.. whatever I guess I won't understand this. (oops I quoted wrong, still trying to figure out this website) When something keeps on happening in the same way, primitive man is likely to think that 2+ events are really one event. (I dealt with this phenomenon elsewhere: the mind unifies wherefore the objective events or entities are said to be consubstantial.) The modern reflective mind rejects consubstantiality and supposes that a repeated event merely induces the mind to suppose that a single event (such as the morning rise of the sun) repeats itself out of Necessity -- out of the sun's nature.... or out of the natural dispositions of the universe. Necessity, the Greek Moira to which even the gods are subject. Necessity, the obedience to some divine governance... which is built in the created things. Necessity, a category of the Intellect (Understanding) under which we subsume empirical data {Cf. Kant} in order to explain/understand them. The fact remains that Necessity is not an empirical datum, even if it is a natural compulsion in some things and in the very human mind.// P.S. Necessity as "innate compulsion" was even used by Aristotle about the ""elements"" seeking/moving to the their natural places; Solid bodies {Earths} and Water tend to go downwards; smoke and flames upwards, or because solids and water seem to be heavy and drop downwards [until Galileo's experiments]. And so it goes. Using chemistry, you may make a case for the proposition that if I put my hand in a fire, it must burn, but chemistry assumes that physical things have constant natures....., unless they occasionally mutate spontaneously. You have to cope with many problems. Cheers. Yeah, you make a lot of sense with that nonsensical jargon.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 2, 2021 14:54:47 GMT
What gives you certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow? MUST the sun rise tomorrow? And while you are at it, consider whether "tomorrow" makes sense apart from the re-rising of the sun.
|
|
Kasperanza
New Member
Posts: 49
Likes: 16
Ethnicity: White
Country: USA
Politics: Libertarian Capitalist
Religion: Atheist
Age: 22
|
Post by Kasperanza on Jul 2, 2021 20:57:36 GMT
Questioning my certainty in the sun-risings is absurd and irrational. If you take this skepticism to the extreme, as Hume did, everything becomes chaotic, meaningless, and empty. You don't approach the world with skepticism, you approach it with convictions. And the questions you ask should not dissolve your sense of reality, but ground and stabilize your approach to life.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 2, 2021 21:47:54 GMT
Questioning my certainty in the sun-risings is absurd and irrational. If you take this skepticism to the extreme, as Hume did, everything becomes chaotic, meaningless, and empty. You don't approach the world with skepticism, you approach it with convictions. And the questions you ask should not dissolve your sense of reality, but ground and stabilize your approach to life. I did not question anybody's certainty.... I asked for information as to what gives you certainty. Different people may have different reasons or arguments. Anyway, what may be absurd is your faith that the sun will rise tomorrow... Ah, I just forgot that you did not deal with the issue about the idea of tomorrow and the idea of the sun rising again. Or is the issue in the Twilight Zone?
|
|