Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Hiring a prostitute does not imply low self esteem.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

On another forum a member posted this... there is a on-going debate on this issue. DISCUSSION HERE

Hiring a prostitute does not imply low self esteem.

The Logical Proof

P = Prositute

A = Someone

J = John

LSS = LowSelfEsteem

CGS = CanGetSex

Claim:

(CGS(A) & Hires(A,P)) -> LSS(A)

But:

CGS(J) TRUE

Hires(J,P) TRUE

LSS(J) FALSE

Thus:

A = J -> ((CGS(A) & Hires(A,P)) -> ~LSS(A))

Therefore:

~((CGS(A) & Hires(A,P)) -> LSS(A))

The claim is made that hiring a prostitute when you can get sex implies implies that the person has low self esteem. John can get sex. John hires a prostitute. John does not have low self esteem.

Thus, hiring a prostitute when you can get sex does not imply low self esteem.

Therefore, the claim that hiring a prostitute when you can get sex implies low self esteem is false.

The Truth Table

X = CGS(A)

Y = Hires(A,P)

Z = LSS(A)

X Y Z | (X & Y) -> Z

T T T T T

T T F T F

T F T F T

T F F F T

F T T F T

F T F F T

F F T F T

F F F F T

A logical statement is valid if and only if there exists no counter example. The bolded line proves the claim is moot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading through a few of the posts, and it is clear that the person who posted that proof has no understanding of logic. Yes, a counterexample disproves a statement, but only if that counterexample is true. He has yet to show that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been reading through a few of the posts, and it is clear that the person who posted that proof has no understanding of logic. Yes, a counterexample disproves a statement, but only if that counterexample is true. He has yet to show that.

he says that a counter-example is true by default... then technically he didnt give a counter-example since what he said requires further proof?

Link to post
Share on other sites
What's the point of formalizing this when English sentences work better to convey ideas?

Classic rationalism. As long as the "math" works out, it matters not one whit to this guy wether or not anything corresponds to the facts of reality.

CGS is great. It leaves out the entire question of why would anyone want that type of sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites
he says that a counter-example is true by default... then technically he didnt give a counter-example since what he said requires further proof?

Exactly... His John counterexample is only useful if he can prove that there exists some John who doesn't lose self esteem when buying a prostitute... If we were to use his logic, no statement would be valid. As an example: All true statements are true. But I say that there is a true statement which is not true! Thus, not all true statements are true... Since there is no proof of the "I say" part, the conclusion is not valid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly... His John counterexample is only useful if he can prove that there exists some John who doesn't lose self esteem when buying a prostitute... If we were to use his logic, no statement would be valid. As an example: All true statements are true. But I say that there is a true statement which is not true! Thus, not all true statements are true... Since there is no proof of the "I say" part, the conclusion is not valid.

thats why I brought this up in the first place. I didnt understand where he was coming from. Whenever I have questions or need help understanding something, I come here, for the objectivity. Thats why this was important. To me anyway.

Thanks for the clarification cogito and kendall

Link to post
Share on other sites
i understand that, but does it really disprove / prove anything>? So what exactly is his point in saying anything.
Well, if I say "all men are mortal" and you show me a man who is immortal, then that's going to throw a spanner in my assertion. Similarly, if I say "men of type X have low self-esteem" and you show me a man of type X with high self-esteem, then I have to go back to the drawing board. So, his "point" (though put forward in an amazingly complicated way) is simply to say: "No, John is a counter-example".

I haven't looked at the original thread, but I suspect it would be very inefficient to try arguing with someone who is going to say simple things in such a complicated way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, of the logic tricks out there, this one is pretty lame. First, it's poorly symbolized. Secondly, a sentence of logic of logic can only be "accepted" in one of three cases: Tautology, provisional assumption, or observational proof. None of the claims are tautologous (i.e. of the empty form, P v ~P, or any other such form), and none of them demonstrated by observation. That leaves provisional assumption. But if both are provisional assumptions, then the argument runs, "Suppose all people who can have sex, but who opt to hire a prostitute, have low self-esteem. Now also suppose that John can have sex but opts to hire a prostitute, and John does not have low self-esteem. Contradiction." What you conclude is not the denial of the first provisional assumption, since the second provisional assumption has not yet been discharged. What you conclude is that, only under the first provisional assumption, the second one is a reductio (reduces to contradiction). In formalization,

PA

(x)([Cx & Hxp] --> Lx)

PA (RAA)

(Cj & Hjp) & ~Lj

Cj & Hjp

Lj

~Lj

PA (RAA) closure

~([Cj & Hjp] & ~Lj)

And you could further add, rather vacuously,

PA closure

(x)([Cx & Hxp] --> Lx) --> ~([Cj & Hjp] & ~Lj)

Note that this only comes after ALL provisional assumptions have been discharged. The proof is not an atomic sentence or conjunction of atomic sentences, but a conditional sentence. That is, it doesn't give us a hard fact like, "John is a counter-example," but only something like, "IF John is a counter-example to the rule, THEN the rule needs revision."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thus, hiring a prostitute when you can get sex does not imply low self esteem.

(italics mine)

This is a good example of why deduction without induction is extremely unuseful. The implication here is that proper self-esteem is derived from the ability to get sex without paying for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
(italics mine)

This is a good example of why deduction without induction is extremely unuseful. The implication here is that proper self-esteem is derived from the ability to get sex without paying for it.

Is that the implication? I thought it was the implication that poor self-esteem is derived from employing a prostitute. The strict implication of this being that failing to employ a prostitute does not eliminate the possibility of high self-esteem. That is to say, high self-esteem may be derived from some other means (of which it is ambiguous whether sex of any kind is involved).

Doesn't this "proof" assume the conclusion?

Which "proof"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. But that's among the least of its problems.

I didnt reply to his question of 'why this topic is important' because I dont believe it was sincere or relevant. If it wasnt an important topic, Id imagine a discussion wouldnt of taken place, or that he'd return.

But thanks for hashing over it. aleph_0's posts were really helpful. Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that the implication? I thought it was the implication that poor self-esteem is derived from employing a prostitute. The strict implication of this being that failing to employ a prostitute does not eliminate the possibility of high self-esteem. That is to say, high self-esteem may be derived from some other means (of which it is ambiguous whether sex of any kind is involved).

Which "proof"?

I think it was that poor selfesteem is not derived from a prostitute so long as he can get sex otherwise. I take that to mean, that if he went to a prostitute because he could not otherwise get sex, then this would be indicative of poor selfesteem. So the ability to get sex without paying is the key indicator of self-esteem. I think. Really hard for me to understand. I haven't read the contextual discussion however.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...