nimble
-
Posts
621 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by nimble
-
-
actually inductive arguments are not derived from particulars. Thats a common misconception. And that arose from a misinterpretation/mistranslation of philosophic works.
Inductive argument is defined as "claims to support its conclusion only with some degree of probability: one of two classes of arguments"
-
Just so that my argument is clearer. Here is an example of an inductive argument.
99% of people get sick
I am a person
Therefore I get sick.
It is flawed because it leaves room for error.
Deductive Argument
All life uses respiration
I am alive
Therefore I use respiration.
Its the same form of the argument, only difference is that deductive leaves no room for error. How can it be worse?
-
Are you familiar that the ONLY difference between inductive logic and deductive logic is that the structure of inductive arguments are flawed? How is induction better?
-
I think I am done with this thread. If you are just trying to incite people to argue for the sake of it, I'm not interested in carrying on. If you really believe what you are saying, then I release you into Capitalism Forever's tender care.
d_s
I won't argue this or with you any longer, but just as a curious person, why does believing what I say have anything to do with the argument itself?
-
I'm not sure why people argue that inductive is more important than deductive logic. The ONLY difference between inductive and deductive logic is that inductive logic is an unsound argument. Why would unsoundness be useful or valuable?
-
I think that would be a really bad idea. Offhand, I can't think of anything of value that you can derive from deductive logic and the replacement of words that refer to concrete concepts with the ultimate floating abstraction, the capital letter variable (standing for arbireary predicates) and the lower case variable (usually restricted to the letters i, j, k, x, y and z). If you know of some case where some good might come from such an exercise, perhaps you could bring it out.
I do think that some discussion of logic (not just "deductive logic") is quite appropriate, but there's an area for Epistemology topics already.
Are you serious? First off, variables have value. In fact, Aristotle was the first to notice that (the man who invented logic). Second, we use variables because words dont refer to concretes so well. They are often imprecise and distracting from the argument. Third, deductive logic is MUCH more important than inductive. ALL OF MATH rests on deductive logic, ever used a proof before?
Lastly, I want to hit on this again. How is a variable a floating abstraction? It can represent a term as efficiently and more clearly than words can. Whats the difference between calling a Banana a banana or just calling it B? You still refer to the same thing, it just takes letters out to make it more clear. Or in math, we don't write the word variable everytime we use a variable, instead we use x or y or any letter, so that it makes the equation clearer.
-
I'm not so sure that's the tutor's motive...which tutor is this, anyway?
What do you think the motive was? I think the professor didnt like that a student critiqued him, so he was going to let the student try to prove something, then critque him.
-
nimble, you do not capitalize your name so that is why his sentence did not start with a capital letter. The timing was a bit odd however. Not my forum though. As to Anarchism as a philosophy I agree it would be bad for the reasons already suggested. It may work for those with the biggest guns but I for one would not like to live there. Eventually thuggism would become the norm and no-one would produce anymore because it would be pointless. Armed marauders would roam the countryside raping and pillaging. It would be like the Middle Ages with bigger better ways to kill people. If that is appealing I think there is something very wrong with you.
Well the beginning of a sentence ALWAYS starts with a capital letter, but that is trivial and off topic, and that's why I was curious why he brought it up. Also, I DO NOT SUPPORT ANARCHISM.
-
nimble, please use proper capitalization in your posts or else I'll delete them.
In addition, you should be advised that the forum rules do not allow spreading ideas contrary to Objectivism, and libertarianism IS contrary to Objectivism.
First, I would like to say that I am very upset by your reaction. I don't see how proper capitalization is necessary, even you didn't capitalize the beginning of your sentence, yet I somehow managed to derive some meaning from the statement.
Second, I am not libertarian, anarchist or any party affiliation. I simply enjoy a discussion where people's views are challenged. I see no problem with "speading" ideas, if the person doing so is respectful. If the ideas are incorrect, then show the flaws in the argument. If the person is correct then it is your moral and epistemic duty to change your views to conform to that which is true.
However, it is your forum and you can do as you wish. I just find it sad that you would boot an arguer based on his argument without addressing it first. (also, i was arguing devil's advocate)
-
If objective law is unnecessary, how are disputes resolved?
Independent companies make and enforce laws and trade and contracts.
okay...i can agree here, but i think this will only work, if and only if the majority of people under that government comes to some kind of consensus about morality.The government's responsibility is to protect individual freedom. This is a consequence of moral views, not the source. This means: the government is not dictating what is moral, it is acting on what is moral.What would there be to prevent people from organizing into gangs with the intent of exploiting others through theft and coercion?private protection agencies would be your protection...its in everyone's best interest to be rational. Those who arent will be "weeded" out of society quite quickly by the protection agencies.
okay, but it does take money to sustain a large gain of looters, how will they get their weapons, and how will they last against a trained army (private protection) if they dont have funding. And is it worth fighting for your life just to steal a bit here and there?Also, it takes no money to be a brute. One need not become wealthy before becoming a thief or a murderer.Hmmm... a pragmatist who doesn't see anything philosophically wrong with anarchy. What a shock.
Ill ignore that ad hominem, and im not a pragmatist.
If you believe that anarchy is 'impractical', then please explain why. On what basis is practicality judged?its impractical because it will never be like that. We'll be lucky if we ever elect someone other than democrats and republicans. Its a huge stretch to demand some change in govt style.
-
i know why your professor did this. He wants to show you that things are really hard to prove. Mathematics is about the only subject where things can be "proven." All observational science is inductive and therefore not proof. And math relies on definitions, the exact notion that you critiqued him about. So i would be very careful, in fact, i think it would be best to just not challenge him here...think economically does the benefits outweigh the costs?
-
I think to actually have a section devoted to deductive logic would be really neat. We could find arguments in news, TV, and even boards, and replace the argument with variables and critique the arguments. I think that might be a good addition to the site.
-
well what makes you think that objective law is necessary. I do not believe that morality is a responsibility of the government, so i dont consider the 'objective law is moral' argument to hold. I dont think that there would be warring factions of people. How would they make enough money to gain access to that type of power. And who would pay them for their "brute" services. (im not actually an anarchist, because i believe its impractical. But i dont see a huge problem with it philosophically)
-
I see the benefits and even the reasoning behind governments. But I do not think that one can say that anarchism is evil. There are often many environments where governments are necessary (small communities away from the majority of society). Also, wasn't Galt's Gulch an anarchist state. All they had was a independent judge (private) who charged as a form of law. There was no government in that "utopia."
-
well my mother never went to college....came real close to living on the streets when she had me....and now after pursuing her dream of designing furniture, she makes about 5000/month just picking up furniture out of the trash, painting it and sanding it and magically it becomes shabby chic.
As for my dad, he is an engineer for a railroad company and he only attended 2 years of college. He makes 100000+ per year.
-
yea...simply put the phrase "tax exempt status" should answer your question.
-
Is there an online text of Atlas Shrugged???
could you handle reading a 1000 page book online? I dont think i could. My eyes would fall out of my head. Its much easier on the eyes to read a book in real life. Just buy the book. you can get it for like 2 bucks from a used book store. I havent seen one of those type of stores that doesnt have AS.
-
so does that give the universe an infinite characteristic, since the universe is made of matter and matter cannot be created or destroyed?
-
Does anyone know how this works? Is time a physical property of the universe? Or is it a man made concept?
-
No, what I'm saying is that rational, egoistic ethics drive me to make the best of the situation in which I find myself. To be moral is to flourish in the real world. It is immoral to spend your life as a curmudgeon, angry at the world, cursing it with your every breath.
who curses the world? Not me. I love it.
-
My friend, I have some very sad news for you: the constitution that you know and love is dead. It's been dead for some time now.
Now we have the new, improved "living" constitution.
i think you have some issues...that "living constitution" you named is the same one that was "born" in 1779.
Doctor says, "I have some sad news for you my friend, you are mentally handicapped."
You reply, "What does that mean?"
(sorry, I just found it hilarious that you said "sorry my friend....." like you were going to tell me i had cancer or something)
-
Even in an ideal Randian world (I'm going to avoid the "libertarian" term which seems to raise hackles) one is prohibited from stealing. That is a limitation (even it is one you like).
As important, this is academic. The government is not limited. Trial lawyers get rich raping "innocent" businesses. If your son has a knack for it, you should encourage him to become a trial lawyer and fill him with a sense of indignation against big ketchup.
The government IS permitted to act only by the governed consent. Do you know the purpose of the Constitution?
The difference between the government and the people is that the government can ONLY DO what it is permitted to do in the Constitution. The people can do ANYTHING EXCEPT that which is explicitly forbidden.
-
Im not familiar with Aristotle's views on morality, was it similar to Rand's?
-
nimble:
You're closer to Rand than me, but I'm farther from Kant
16. Kant (52%)
haha. Yea I guess thats true. It isnt a definitive thing. Its an internet survey that i found interesting. Some questions are ambiguous. But why would liberty be simply there by itself. Thats why i asked that collective happiness has nothing to do with YOUR morality.
as for question 5. Yes objectivism acknowledges empirical evidence, but morality isnt strictly from that. One could claim that since one sees suffering, that is evidence that morality should eliminate suffering.
We Should Have A Logic Area In Here!!!
in Website Policy and Announcements
Posted
EXAMPLE 3-1
All Republican presidents have been in favor of a strong military.
President Bush was a Republican president.
It follows that President Bush was in favor of a strong military.
EXAMPLE 3-2
John is on the softball team and has short hair. Dan is on the softball team and has short hair. Kenji is on the softball team and has short hair. It seems likely that all the members of the softball team have short hair.
EXAMPLE 3-3
All members of the softball team must have short hair. Jay has short hair.
Therefore, Jay must be on the softball team.
EXAMPLE 3-4
If Hansen is the serial murderer, then his fingerprints would be on the gun. His fingerprints were on the gun. Therefore, it is clear that Hansen is the serial murderer.
EXAMPLE 3-5
Most presidents of the United States did not die in office. Therefore, it is doubtful that the twelfth president of the United States died in office
Example 3-1 is a valid deductive argument. The author is not attempting to persuade us that it is only likely that Bush was in favor of a strong military, but rather that the conclusion follows conclusively from the premises. Example 3-2 is an inductive generalization. From the particular cases of a few members having short hair and being on the softball team, the author generalizes that all the members of the softball team are likely to have short hair. Example 3-3 is an invalid deductive argument. Although the word "must" can be ambiguous, suggesting either high probability or conclusive necessity, it appears that the author of this argument is attempting to provide conclusive evidence for the conclusion, thinking that the premises are sufficient for knowing that Jay is on the softball team. If the author intended only something like "Jay is probably on the softball team" for the conclusion, then we would have to appraise this argument by inductive standards. But the tone of the argument appears to be deductive, even though the inferential claim fails from this perspective.
Number 3-4 (invalid deductive) is a good example of how easy it is to turn an apparent deductive argument into an inductive argument. As the argument is presented, the phrase "it is clear that" indicates that the author thinks that the premises provide conclusive evidence for the conclusion. They don't. It is possible that the premises are true, but Hansen is not the serial murderer. This could be a classic case of circumstantial evidence. There are many ways Hansen's fingerprints could have been on the gun. He could have picked up the gun shortly after the shooting or touched the gun in some way prior to the actual murder in which the real murderer used gloves, leaving only Hansen's fingerprints on the gun. Suppose in discussing this situation with the author of the argument, after reminding him of these possibilities, he backs off from his initial claim. He tells us that he meant it is reasonable to tentatively suspect Hansen, to bring him in as a prime suspect for questioning. If so, we would then appraise the author's argument based on inductive standards. How strong is the evidence, his fingerprints on the gun, for the conclusion that Hansen is the serial murderer? What other kinds of evidence are needed to strengthen our confidence in the conclusion?
Example 3-5 shows that it is a misconception to believe that deductive arguments always move from general premises to particular conclusions and that inductive arguments always move from particular premises to general conclusions. Although this is often the case-3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 fit this alleged rule-it is not always the case. Although 3-5 has a general premise (a statement about most presidents) and a particular conclusion (a statement about the twelfth president), the nature of its inferential claim is inductive. Because the premise states only that "most" presidents have not died in office, it is impossible to conclude with certainty that the twelfth president of the United States did not also die in office. The nature of the premise indicates that only probability is generated for the conclusion and that no attempt is made to provide certainty for the conclusion.
~Indiana Univ. Press