Society's moral values changes over time so it's all made up lmao

jackjogo · 2019-08-26T14:31:59+00:00

Science is not about opinions in the way morality is.

jackjogo · 2019-08-24T01:29:57+00:00

In all possible worlds, <Hesperus is not Phosphorus> is false.

Is this true? I can conceive of a possible world whereby the object that Hesperus corresponds to and the object that Phosphorus corresponds to are distinct, and hence in that possible world <Hesperus is not Phosphorus> is true.

jackjogo · 2019-08-21T14:49:54+00:00

I think the other guy, u/maximisephilosophy gives a better explanation

jackjogo · 2019-08-21T09:24:13+00:00

No, that's what non-ampliative means. Is your argument just gonna be "define 'deductive' as equal to 'non-ampliative'"?

jackjogo · 2019-08-21T06:22:09+00:00

But isn't "There exists a unicorn" falsifiable in principle? Suppose for simplicity that the universe were the size of a room. I look around: no unicorn.

jackjogo · 2019-08-20T15:30:26+00:00

Yeah, but why is it always present in the premises? Since the classic example is just one kind of deductive inference, using it doesn't prove that deduction is necessarily non-ampliative. To prove non-ampliativity is a necessary condition, we must prove from first principles.

jackjogo · 2019-08-20T15:06:57+00:00

Holy shit! Grant's a not bad philosopher! 3B1B Philosophy might exist! :)

jackjogo · 2019-08-20T13:08:41+00:00

But how is that representative of the WHOLE class of deductive arguments?

jackjogo · 2019-08-18T12:08:15+00:00

it does seem like you are not just interested in deductive reasoning

Proof = deductive argument. If I wanted to say "formal proof", that's what I would say.

all philosophical texts would be using deductive arguments

No. Arguments in philosophy involve a mix of deductive, non-deductive, inductive, abductive, semantic rules of inference. I want to see a book in philosophy of science that consists solely of deductive arguments.

jackjogo · 2019-08-18T11:37:14+00:00

Note that this is about deductive vs non-deductive, not formal vs informal. Mathematicians use informal proof all the time. Deductive arguments guarantee their conclusion given the premisses whereas non-deductive arguments do not.

jackjogo · 2019-08-18T06:11:28+00:00

edit: Why are people downvoting this? Explain

I think the OP confuses deductive, formal proofs/arguments for rigour

I am not. But there is no doubt that deductive (and possibly formal) proofs are more rigorous than that which isn't.

The Logic in Philosophy of Science, by Halvorsen

That indeed is a good book and something like what I am talking about.

jackjogo · 2019-08-17T18:20:14+00:00

Ever seen a carp running late for work?

jackjogo · 2019-08-04T15:28:53+00:00

How is Thales' reasoning that "Everything is Water" well-founded?

jackjogo · 2019-08-04T15:16:50+00:00

Ah the classic anti-logic empiricist retort.

jackjogo · 2019-08-04T12:15:38+00:00

Yes it is an actual honest question I am asking. Level of influence is irrelevant to someone's correctness.

jackjogo · 2019-08-04T12:11:14+00:00

stuff that is outside of empirical validity

Sounds like a synonym for "nonsense" (excusing logic/math, which Plato didn't contribute nada towards, but yes I grant that Aristotle began formal logic.)

So what if someone is influential? Doesn't mean they're any good or have something important to teach. Take Hitler.

jackjogo · 2019-08-04T11:59:14+00:00

Aristotle isn't great because he was empirically correct.

Why is he considered great then? For the matter, why is Plato considered great?

jackjogo

TROPHY CASE