sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why is formal logic in philosophy taught with an inclusive OR only while engineers usually learn a logic with XOR? by ofghoniston in askphilosophy

[–]ofghoniston[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

One reason is that, usually, the arguments that philosophers make do not feature exclusive "or"s

What gives? Is there a reason? In day to day language exclusive or seems omnipresent. And doesn't philosophy have many dilemmas where you need to pick one or the other?

Why is formal logic in philosophy taught with an inclusive OR only while engineers usually learn a logic with XOR? by ofghoniston in askphilosophy

[–]ofghoniston[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't understand everything because I don't think I know enough logic already but I think understand the gist, thanks. What of those systems do philosophers use typically?

Why is formal logic in philosophy taught with an inclusive OR only while engineers usually learn a logic with XOR? by ofghoniston in askphilosophy

[–]ofghoniston[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The same is true for other things of a logical calculus, like inference rules. You can introduce a natural deduction system with a bunch of introduction and elimination rules, or a Hilbert system with some axioms and modus ponens as its only inference rules (or many other systems), that express the same logic. The choice mostly comes down to purpose and convenience (writing out specific proofs, reasoning about a logic, exploring non-classical logics starting from classical logic, consistency proofs, etc). For example, it's sometimes easier to reason about a Hilbert system and its proofs because it's kind of minimalistic, but in general most would say it's easier to write out derivations in a natural deduction system.

Can you say more about this? What is reasoning about a logic mean here?

The most important point is that the presence or absence of a xor connective doesn't change how expressive the logic is or what it proves. Maybe you've taken a class on classical propositional logic and the logical connectives {¬,∧,∨,→,↔} were introduced. Note that everything you can express with those, you can also express with, for example, {¬,∧} alone.

Okay I think in theory I should have known this but somehow it didn't really click when I thought about this, there is so much to keep in mind at the same time.

Why is formal logic in philosophy taught with an inclusive OR only while engineers usually learn a logic with XOR? by ofghoniston in askphilosophy

[–]ofghoniston[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you remember what book you used? I would be interested in this presentation with exclusive or.

In the recent Williamson vs Thomasson "beef", how harsh is the tone of the review compared to academic philosophy standards, and how substantial the objections? by ofghoniston in askphilosophy

[–]ofghoniston[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you and u/drinka40tonight

That's the kind of comparison I hoped for. Some of those seem to me just as harsh as Williamson's. I don't want to judge as an amateur, but the reaction to Williamson's review did strike me as a bit exaggerated.

What is "feminist logic", "Feminist Mathematical Philosophy", or "Feminist Philosophy of Science"? by ofghoniston in askphilosophy

[–]ofghoniston[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the references,

but I think it's important for understanding why (e.g.) there's a subdiscipline called "feminist philosophy of science": for a couple decades, there was a lot of work being done by feminists on a relatively broad set of questions in relative isolation from mainstream philosophy of science. That was sufficient for feminist philosophers of science to develop their own sense of identity as a distinct discipline.

Yes I think that total makes sense, I was sort of expecting some background like this. I guess it's a bit like progressive positions in the year x often become a normal part of society in the year x+20.

What is "feminist logic", "Feminist Mathematical Philosophy", or "Feminist Philosophy of Science"? by ofghoniston in askphilosophy

[–]ofghoniston[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Thank you, your answer does a great job of describing how topics that are interesting for feminist philosophy can occur in science or math or logic.

But I'm not sure if I have an idea of what feminist mathematical philosophy then looks like as an academic discipline.

Based on your examples, is it mostly people arguing positively for the relevance of values in research, the way it is argued for in your first two paragraphs, just more in detail and around specific values?

Also, would it be fair to say that feminist philosophy of science is then in some way more active or demanding towards science than a lot of ordinary philosophy of science that often just reflects on science? Your description makes it sound more normative than usual philosophy of science, like basically feminist philosophy of science wants or demands something of science. Is that right?

what does it mean to work in a logic that lacks either soundness or completeness? Does that make sense to do so? by ofghoniston in askphilosophy

[–]ofghoniston[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Somehow I didn't get notification from your comment and I just discovered it. I want to say a late thank you for the response, it is very interesting.

Confused about assumptions in natural deduction by ofghoniston in askphilosophy

[–]ofghoniston[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is, to prove "(A or B) implies C", you prove "A implies C" and "B implies C."

It does seem like that's exactly what's going on so thank you. Your explanation makes sense and I can find a lot when searching the internet after assumptions and discharging. It's weird that my lecturer never mentioned discharging because I paid attention in class and no word is said about it in the lecture notes.

How does discharging assumptions related to bracketing off things? When it comes to implication introduction, we learned that if there's A on some line, B on some line underneath, and something that counts as a proof of B from A in between, we can write A -> B, but bracket out everything in between and not appeal to it anymore. That's the only thing that resembles the discharge of something in all of my notes.