Recent Responses
Although I am aware of the distinction between deduction and induction in logic, which relies on the strength of the link between premises and conclusion, with deduction a matter of necessity and induction a matter of probability, I find the distinction problematic. For instance, the argument "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. So, Socrates is a mortal" is a classic example of a deductive argument. But the first premise is based on particular cases, so it cannot be universally guaranteed that it would be always true. But the fact that it may not always be true makes it one of probability and not necessity. Would this consideration make a difference as to the argument is deductive or inductive?
Whether an argument is
Michael Cholbi
August 20, 2015
(changed August 20, 2015)
Permalink
Whether an argument is deductive or inductive depends on the nature of the link between its premises and its conclusion. As you say, a deductive argument is one in which the premises entail the conclusion as a matter of necessity, i.e., that its conclusion must be true... Read more
I am reading "The Philosopher's Toolkit" by Baggily and Fosl, and in section 1.12 is the following: "As it turns out, all valid arguments can be restated as tautologies - that is, hypothetical statements in which the antecedent is the conjunction of the premises and the conclusion." My understanding is the truth table for a tautology must yield a value of true for ALL combinations of true and false of its variables. I don't understand how all valid arguments can be stated as a tautology. The requirement for validity is the conclusion MUST be true when all the premises are true. I must be missing something. Thanx - Charlie
I don't have Baggily and Fosl
Allen Stairs
August 20, 2015
(changed August 20, 2015)
Permalink
I don't have Baggily and Fosl's book handy but if your quote is accurate, there's clearly a mistake—almost certainly a typo or proof-reading error. The tautology that goes with a valid argument is the hypothetical whose antecedent is the conjunction of the pre... Read more
I seem to remember there was a medieval philosopher--maybe Russell mentions him in his History of Western Philosophy--who talked about peer influence or what a social scientist today might call regression toward the mean. He advised that, to live a saintly life, one should surround oneself with saintly people. Who was he? Did he write anything available today? Any pithy quotes?
Blaise Pascal, though not a
Eugene Marshall
August 20, 2015
(changed August 20, 2015)
Permalink
Blaise Pascal, though not a medieval philosopher but an early modern one, did recognize that his famous wager was not always sufficient to cause an unbeliever to believe. Thus he recommends spending time with believers, performing the rituals with them, and, even... Read more
Does the identity of indiscernibles principle indicate that, for example, a person with N number of hairs, who then loses a hair, is not identical to the person with N -1 number of hairs? Unless I'm mistaken the principle is basically that entities having all of their properties in common are identical entities, but is it also true that two entities not having all of their properties in common (like Bill with N hairs and Bill with N -1 hairs) are not identical? Can entities with different properties nevertheless be identical? If so, how can we determine that Bill and Sally aren't identical, since merely not having all of their properties in common does not exclude the possibility of identity?
You're correct that the
Stephen Maitzen
August 20, 2015
(changed August 20, 2015)
Permalink
You're correct that the Identity of Indiscernibles says that qualitative identity (i.e., identity of properties) implies numerical identity (i.e., just one individual rather than more than one).
You then asked about the converse principle, which says that numeric... Read more
Whenever ethics and aesthetics come into conflict, is it always aesthetics that must give way? What is so bad about killing ugly people to decrease the net ugliness in the world?
A postscript: the larger
Allen Stairs
August 14, 2015
(changed August 15, 2015)
Permalink
A postscript: the larger question was whether ethics always trumps aesthetics. A closely-related question is whether a life that always puts moral considerations above all other considerations, no matter how apparently trivial the issue, is a good one. Susan Wolf had i... Read more
Whenever ethics and aesthetics come into conflict, is it always aesthetics that must give way? What is so bad about killing ugly people to decrease the net ugliness in the world?
A postscript: the larger
Allen Stairs
August 14, 2015
(changed August 15, 2015)
Permalink
A postscript: the larger question was whether ethics always trumps aesthetics. A closely-related question is whether a life that always puts moral considerations above all other considerations, no matter how apparently trivial the issue, is a good one. Susan Wolf had i... Read more
Do you think that contempt of court through judicial discretion is unjust especially in jurisdictions that allow for jury nullification? Lawyers conduct character assassinations in the witness box all the time, and judges don't always enforce contempt rulings consistently even within the same day. I know character assassinations are something most philosophers and even some lawyers frown upon but as long as that CAN lead to uncovering the truth why not let up to twelve jurors decide for themselves--because judges either don't care or are unable to recognize this (not that they should) why does it matter what the judge thinks and why should lawyers care either? Juries decide serious cases and the role of judges in any just society is merely to enforce procedures, and even then they are not required by law to inform juries of the option of jury nullification and are not required to defend their state-protected deontic legitimacy.
Justice Joseph Story of the U
Michael Shenefelt
August 14, 2015
(changed August 14, 2015)
Permalink
Justice Joseph Story of the U.S. Supreme Court once wrote, “Every person accused as a criminal has a right to be tried according to the law of the land—the fixed law of the land, and not by the law as a jury may understand it, or choose, from wantonness or ign... Read more
If neuroscience were to prove that one particular person has free will, does that imply that everyone else in the world would have to have free will as well? If neuroscience tests show that not everyone has free will, how would philosophers explain that other than redefining free will?
I notice that your question
Stephen Maitzen
August 14, 2015
(changed August 19, 2015)
Permalink
I notice that your question leaves "free will" undefined, so let me propose the definition found at merriam-webster.com: "the ability to choose how to act; the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God."
I presume that no one imagines that neu... Read more
If something can’t be defined can it exist? and vice versa
Some things can be defined
Charles Taliaferro
August 13, 2015
(changed August 13, 2015)
Permalink
Some things can be defined that cannot exist, such as "A square circle in two dimensional space" or "2+2=1" --and some things can be described that do not exist but could have existed or might come to exist (unicorns). And, I suggest, that there may be indefini... Read more
Mathematics seems to accept the concept of zero but not the concept of infinity (only towards infinity); whereas Physics seems to accept the concept of infinity but not of nothing (only towards zero). Yet there is a discipline of 'mathematical physics' . Is there an inherent fault in mathematical physics?
I'm pretty sure that
Allen Stairs
August 13, 2015
(changed August 13, 2015)
Permalink
I'm pretty sure that mathematicians and physicists would both reject the way you've described them.
Mathematics not only accepts the concept of infinity but has a great deal to say about it. To take just one example: Cantor proved in the 19th century that not all infin... Read more