Recent Responses
Just what is a definition? Are definitions ever proved or are they all man made? If they are man made, what good are they?
Stephen Maitzen
February 11, 2015
(changed February 11, 2015)
Permalink
Just what is a definition?
To answer your first question, I looked up "definition" (in the linguistic sense of the word) and got this: "define: to explain the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.)." If that definition is accurate, then a definition is an explanation of the meaning of a word... Read more
On April 10, 2014, in response to a question, Stephen Maitzen wrote: "I can't see how there could be any law more fundamental than the law of non-contradiction (LNC)." I thought that there were entire logical systems developed in which the law of non-contradiction was assumed not to be valid, and it also seems like "real life" suggests that the law of non-contradiction does not necessarily apply to physical systems. Perhaps I am not understanding the law correctly? Is it that at most one of these statements is true? Either "P is true" or "P is not true"? or is it that at most one of theses statements is true? Either "P is true" or "~P is true"? In physics, if you take filters that polarize light, and place two at right angles to each other, no light gets through. Yet if you take a third filter at a 45 degree angle to the first two, and insert it between the two existing filters, then some light gets through. Based on this experiment, it seems like the law of non-contradiction cannot be true in this situation. Thanks for any clarity you might bring!
Because the present
Stephen Maitzen
May 7, 2015
(changed May 7, 2015)
Permalink
Because the present questioner refers to my reply to Question 5536, I'll chime in here to clarify what I said there.
My point was about the fundamentality of LNC. I wrote, "I can't see how there could be any law more fundamental than the law of non-contradiction (LNC)." I gave th... Read more
On April 10, 2014, in response to a question, Stephen Maitzen wrote: "I can't see how there could be any law more fundamental than the law of non-contradiction (LNC)." I thought that there were entire logical systems developed in which the law of non-contradiction was assumed not to be valid, and it also seems like "real life" suggests that the law of non-contradiction does not necessarily apply to physical systems. Perhaps I am not understanding the law correctly? Is it that at most one of these statements is true? Either "P is true" or "P is not true"? or is it that at most one of theses statements is true? Either "P is true" or "~P is true"? In physics, if you take filters that polarize light, and place two at right angles to each other, no light gets through. Yet if you take a third filter at a 45 degree angle to the first two, and insert it between the two existing filters, then some light gets through. Based on this experiment, it seems like the law of non-contradiction cannot be true in this situation. Thanks for any clarity you might bring!
Because the present
Stephen Maitzen
May 7, 2015
(changed May 7, 2015)
Permalink
Because the present questioner refers to my reply to Question 5536, I'll chime in here to clarify what I said there.
My point was about the fundamentality of LNC. I wrote, "I can't see how there could be any law more fundamental than the law of non-contradiction (LNC)." I gave th... Read more
On April 10, 2014, in response to a question, Stephen Maitzen wrote: "I can't see how there could be any law more fundamental than the law of non-contradiction (LNC)." I thought that there were entire logical systems developed in which the law of non-contradiction was assumed not to be valid, and it also seems like "real life" suggests that the law of non-contradiction does not necessarily apply to physical systems. Perhaps I am not understanding the law correctly? Is it that at most one of these statements is true? Either "P is true" or "P is not true"? or is it that at most one of theses statements is true? Either "P is true" or "~P is true"? In physics, if you take filters that polarize light, and place two at right angles to each other, no light gets through. Yet if you take a third filter at a 45 degree angle to the first two, and insert it between the two existing filters, then some light gets through. Based on this experiment, it seems like the law of non-contradiction cannot be true in this situation. Thanks for any clarity you might bring!
Because the present
Stephen Maitzen
May 7, 2015
(changed May 7, 2015)
Permalink
Because the present questioner refers to my reply to Question 5536, I'll chime in here to clarify what I said there.
My point was about the fundamentality of LNC. I wrote, "I can't see how there could be any law more fundamental than the law of non-contradiction (LNC)." I gave th... Read more
Suppose I have never played a game of chess. If I now make the claim that I've won all the games of chess I've ever played, is that claim true, false, or undefined? A group of friends had an argument over this, and I figured that philosophers are deeply logical thinkers that can give us the answer and also to get a proper understanding of why the answer is what it is.
Stephen Maitzen
February 12, 2015
(changed February 12, 2015)
Permalink
It would, of course, be equally true that you've lost every game of chess you've ever played. Bad news to go with the good.
Log in to post comments
So I'm reading The Power of Logic, 4th edition. While on a section describing Modus Tollen it says that, Not A; If A, then B; So, Not B is an example of Modus Tollen. My question is how can that be if the conclusion of Modus Tollens is suppose to deny the consequent? Am i reading it wrong or just missing something? Keep in mine im still not beyond chapter 1.
Richard Heck
February 9, 2015
(changed February 9, 2015)
Permalink
There is either a typo in the book you are reading, or else you reported its contents wrong. Modus tollens is: If A, then B; not-B; so not-A. The version you reported is fallacious. It's a version of the fallacy of asserting the consequent.
Log in to post comments... Read more
In sports (especially boxing) fans love to rank the best boxers, players or teams. So when ranking the Greatest Boxers of All-Time -- is it ethical to include boxers you or anyone else (alive) have never seen before (for no footage exists of them - e.g., Harry Greb)? (Provided that you put in as much research as possible - e.g., books, news archives, boxing historians writings.)
Gordon Marino
February 7, 2015
(changed February 7, 2015)
Permalink
I am a professional boxing writer who has to vote on who gets into the Boxing Hall of Fame so this question certainly resonates with me. With your mention of Harry Greb it is clear that you know your boxing because based on his record and opposition there are many of us who believe he is on... Read more
Is there really such a thing to do naturally? For example is there really a specific way to play a sport or do an activity? Or is the term "naturally" or "specific" something that we had just created to keep order and make everyone follow rules? Or is there a "specific" way to do something?
Gordon Marino
February 7, 2015
(changed February 7, 2015)
Permalink
Usually when say that someone does something "naturally" we mean they don't have to think about it or practice very much. The other day I accompanied my friend to his son's high school basketball game. He looked a little stiff, afraid to take his shots. And he is a good shooter. We surmised... Read more
If a store provides a customer with poor service, is it moral for that customer to steal something and leave? Businesses cannot exist with customers, not the other way around, so if most customers are not satisfied, then the business has no right to exist.
Allen Stairs
February 6, 2015
(changed February 6, 2015)
Permalink
How is this supposed to work? Suppose I go to my local grocery store and I get bad service. Would it be okay to slap the cashier? How about breaking his jaw? Or if we stick with stealing, how much? A bag of chips? A wedge of Stilton? (Could easily be $10.) A bag of chanterelle mushrooms? ($4... Read more
I will be taking my first philosophy class soon although my major is not philosophy. I already know the basics of philosophy and the philosophical positions of my professor so I can anticipate what kind of essays I will be writing. I know for a fact that my philosophical views are radically different from both his and society in general so should I just argue for the sake of arguing or should I take the safe route and agree with what I think his views are so that I can be judged to lesser standard and get a higher mark? Just how biased are philosopher professors really?
Charles Taliaferro
February 6, 2015
(changed February 6, 2015)
Permalink
Addressing your last question first: Although some of my colleagues will probably disagree, I think that on the whole philosophers tend to be (by training and disposition) quite adept at distancing themselves from their own convictions and are pretty good (sometimes excellent, sometim... Read more