Philosophy Now Forum

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:42 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:38 pm What do you mean?

He doesn't seem too keen on seeing it from any other perspective except the one that agrees with his current point of view.

Okay.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:38 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:21 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:52 pm There are 12 definitions for may: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/di ... nglish/may. Please pick up one which is relevant to the discussion.

2. modal verb
You use may to indicate that there is a possibility that something is true, but you cannot be certain.

EB

Well, it depends what do you mean with possibility. Chance?

???
You don't know what "possibility" means?!
You think "possibility" means the same as "chance"?!
Can't you look up a dictionary?

Possible
1. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances: Is it possible to move faster than the speed of light?

EB

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:23 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:38 pm Well, it depends what do you mean with possibility. Chance? "You cannot be certain" is more restrictive than chance since it means that you cannot know. That is strange way of defining a word to me unless by uncertain you mean chance again.

I think what he means is "pick the definition which means I don't have to adjust my beliefs"

bahman asked what I meant by "may".
I provided the definition that corresponds to what I meant with "may" in my argument.
This is also pretty obvious since "may" is standard vocabulary for a modal argument, i.e. an argument about modalities such as possibility, necessity, knowledge etc.
And the definition I provided is indeed that for "may" as a "modal verb".
So, there is no other definition applicable to the argument in this thread.
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:59 am

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:23 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:38 pm Well, it depends what do you mean with possibility. Chance? "You cannot be certain" is more restrictive than chance since it means that you cannot know. That is strange way of defining a word to me unless by uncertain you mean chance again.

I think what he means is "pick the definition which means I don't have to adjust my beliefs"

bahman asked what I meant by "may".
I provided the definition that corresponds to what I meant with "may" in my argument.
This is also pretty obvious since "may" is standard vocabulary for a modal argument, i.e. an argument about modalities such as possibility, necessity, knowledge etc.
And the definition I provided is indeed that for "may" as a "modal verb".
So, there is no other definition applicable to the argument in this thread.
EB

So if 'may' is a modal verb, can you provide the truth-table for your modalities?

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:00 pm So if 'may' is a modal verb, can you provide the truth-table for your modalities?

So you need a truth table to do any logic at all?!
You think a truth table proves anything?!
Prove to me that the truth table of the material implication correctly represents the logical implication as it it has been understood since Aristotle, as used by mathematicians when they prove their theorems on the basis of their own private logical intuitions rather than any truth table, as used by most human beings in the course of their lives?
Nobody has done that yet, so if you can do it, there might be a Nobel Prize for you.


But oyu're not going to do it because you've just prove yourself an ignoramus.
You've just proved here you don't even know what is the Modus Tollens:

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:01 pm Modus Tollens says If ¬C ⇒ ¬P.

Look here what the Modus tollens really says: ¬B ∧ (A → B) ⊢ ¬A.
Ignoramus.
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:43 pm Nobody has done that yet, so if you can do it, there might be a Nobel Prize for you.

They don't give the Nobel prize to logicians. Because all logic is tautological.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:43 pm Look here what the Modus tollens really says: ¬B ∧ (A → B) ⊢ ¬A.
Ignoramus.
EB

You really are this fucking stupid, aren't you?
(A → B) is the validity criterion itself.

A →B is true if and only if B can be true and A can be false but not vice versa .

IF IF (A → B) ⇔ T then ¬C ⊢ ¬P is Modus Tollens!

( ¬C ⊢ ¬P ) ⇔ (¬C ∧ T ⊢ ¬P ) ⇔ ( ¬C ∧ (A → B) ⊢ ¬P ) ⇔ ( ¬B ∧ (A → B) ⊢ ¬A )

All that Modus Tollens says that IF the argument is valid e.g (A → B) ⇔ T
THEN
IF the premises are true, the conclusion is true
IF the conclusion is false then the premises are false

Modus Tollens doesn't tell you IF the argument is valid.

I am still waiting for you to PROVE (A → B) ⇔ T. You know. Using logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:50 am

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:38 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:21 pm

EB

Well, it depends what do you mean with possibility. Chance?

???
You don't know what "possibility" means?!
You think "possibility" means the same as "chance"?!
Can't you look up a dictionary?

Possible
1. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances: Is it possible to move faster than the speed of light?

EB

Okay so we are working with this definition for may: You use may to indicate that there is a possibility that something is true, but you cannot be certain. Uncertain in here can be defined as unknown (you have doubt) therefore it is unknown if your premise is valid or not.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:43 pm So you need a truth table to do any logic at all?!
You think a truth table proves anything?!

The truth table defines your grammar and semantics. Unless you define your grammar and semantics it's impossible to 'prove' anything.
That's how all logic works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_language

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:43 pm Prove to me that...

OK. Define your criterion in logic. What 'proof' would convince you that you are wrong?

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:43 pm the truth table of the material implication correctly represents the logical implication

Moron. That is PRECISELY why you need empiricism! So that the material implication can confirm or falsify the logical implication.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:43 pm as it it has been understood since Aristotle, as used by mathematicians when they prove their theorems on the basis of their own private logical intuitions

Most mathematicians (myself included) think Aristotle was an idiot. Classical logic is a tautology. It's a religion.

Constructive mathematics rejects the law of excluded middle.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:43 pm rather than any truth table, as used by most human beings in the course of their lives?

Nobody has done that yet, so if you can do it, there might be a Nobel Prize for you.

Sure. All mathematical proofs are equivalent to working algorithms.

Somebody did do it. 50 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence

Logic is computer science. That's why I am kicking your ass in this debate.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:54 pm You really are this fucking stupid, aren't you?
(A → B) is the validity criterion itself.

No.
Go learn logic, please.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:54 pm All that Modus Tollens says that IF the argument is valid e.g (A → B) ⇔ T
THEN
IF the premises are true, the conclusion is true
IF the conclusion is false then the premises are false

But that's not what you said. You said: "Modus Tollens says If ¬C ⇒ ¬P."

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:54 pm I am still waiting for you to PROVE (A → B) ⇔ T. You know. Using logic.

Idiotic.
The true of A → B obviously depends on what A and B stand for and therefore on each particular scientific theory.
I'm still waiting for you to prove Newton's Theory of Gravitation not valid.
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:15 pm No.
Go learn logic, please.

That is great advice. You should follow it.
But first you should unlearn all the bullshit you have been taught in classical logic.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:15 pm But that's not what you said. You said: "Modus Tollens says If ¬C ⇒ ¬P."

That is what Modus Tollens says.

If C ⇔ A and P ⇔ B

( ¬C ⊢ ¬P ) ⇔ (¬C ∧ T ⊢ ¬P ) ⇔ ( ¬C ∧ (A → B) ⊢ ¬P ) ⇔ ( ¬B ∧ (A → B) ⊢ ¬A )

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:54 pm The true of A → B obviously depends on what A and B stand for and therefore on each particular scientific theory.

No it doesn't.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols
A → B is true if and only if B can be true and A can be false but not vice versa .

If there is any possibility that A is true and B is false, then (A → B) is false.
Spelled out. If you are doing induction and not deduction then (A → B) is always false.


I'm still waiting for you to prove Newton's Theory of Gravitation not valid.
[/quote]
And I told you that's strawman.

Newton's theory is Inductively valid! it is not deductively valid.

Seems like you can't tell the difference between induction and deduction after all...

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:18 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:02 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:08 am How do you prove that the conclusion cannot be false if we assume both premises as true? Are we supposed to recognise you as the Oracle of Validity, or is there a method to prove that kind of arguments?
EB

To be honest I simply see the argument as a tautology. A and B are subsets of X. Is A = B possible? Yes, end of story.

Well, yes. OK.
Still, it seems curious to me that our science computer loud spoke-person here should have no ready method for dealing with such a simple argument you and me find just so obviously valid. Isn't that curious?
EB

I've been researching Logik/Timeseeker's rather unique brain damage for a while. Looks like he can somehow neither properly process logic nor properly process context, he has a major inferiority complex which he compensates with an apparent superiority/superhero complex, and is just generally a super-annoying narcissistic fucktard desperate for infinite attention. A kinda interesting mix.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:35 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:18 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:02 pm
To be honest I simply see the argument as a tautology. A and B are subsets of X. Is A = B possible? Yes, end of story.

Well, yes. OK.
Still, it seems curious to me that our science computer loud spoke-person here should have no ready method for dealing with such a simple argument you and me find just so obviously valid. Isn't that curious?
EB

I've been researching Logik/Timeseeker's rather unique brain damage for a while. Looks like he can somehow neither properly process logic nor properly process context, he has a major inferiority complex which he compensates with an apparent superiority/superhero complex, and is just generally a super-annoying narcissistic fucktard desperate for infinite attention. A kinda interesting mix.

Your career in psychology will be even less successful than your career in physics.

Stick to philosophy. Get some crayons maybe.

To assert that another cannot properly do X requires you to skilled in X. So why is it that you can never keep up on the topics at hand?

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:34 pm 2nd argument

P1 - For all we know, A may be the state of some part of B;
P2 - What C does is determined by the state of some part of B;
C - Therefore, for all we know, what C does may be determined by A.

P1 - For all we know, Green may be the state of one of the three lamps in the traffic light.
P2 - If the light is Red, the cop will issue a citation.
C - Therefore, for all we know, the citation may be determined by green.

I don't understand how it is obvious that the 2nd arg is valid.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:26 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:15 pm But that's not what you said. You said: "Modus Tollens says If ¬C ⇒ ¬P."

If C ⇔ A and P ⇔ B

If C ⇔ A and P ⇔ B then what?!
This is a nonsensical statement.
A conditional in English has the general form "If P then Q".
Here, you've only written the beginning of your condition,"If P".
You just forgot to finish the conditional! Where's the "then Q"?
If C ⇔ A and P ⇔ B then what?!
EB

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:35 pm I've been researching Logik/Timeseeker's rather unique brain damage for a while. Looks like he can somehow neither properly process logic nor properly process context, he has a major inferiority complex which he compensates with an apparent superiority/superhero complex, and is just generally a super-annoying narcissistic fucktard desperate for infinite attention. A kinda interesting mix.

Ah, you've noticed as well?
Yes. I think it's a seriously bad case.
I'm sure he is a nice guy in "real life". You can't possibly keep insulting people again and again for no reason unless you really like being punched hard in the face. So, I'm quite sure he behaves himself rather nicely with the neighbourhood where he lives. Maybe he does the shopping and house cleaning for the big guy next door.
Still, do we even know where he lives? I'm not sure if asylums have Internet connections for the inmates?
And, the fact is, lots of people posting on forums are somewhat beside there shoes, so to speak. He is only the worst case I've ever seen.
Please send me a private message if you know of any place where it's possible to have rational conversations.
EB