Woman and man's highest calling- Cherokee proverb

[rav3n]

At the expense of logic. Uh huh.

 

[sprinkles]

A spirit is conscious. And we know a prefrontal cortex is necessary for consciousness. And we know a tree does not have a prefrontal cortex. So a tree is not conscious. So a tree doesn't have a spirit.

A forblesnoot has three toes so therefore a four toed banana split is not a forblesnoot.

References:
Thraslebort, Johanes B. Moar because Moar! 3rd ed. Northwestingham, 1879
Herbert von Mockabrack The Spaghetti That Doesn't Have Bones and The Fish That Eat It vol. 27 Furthingston & Furthingston, 1919

 

[greenfairy]

At the expense of logic. Uh huh.

What's this in reference to?

 

[rav3n]

What's this in reference to?

Exactly.

 

[greenfairy]

Exactly.

Oh yeah, silly me. It's in reference to every single thing I've ever said. Including the bits that come directly from my logic textbook, because you know more about logic than my professor.

 

[rav3n]

Oh yeah, silly me. It's in reference to every single thing I've ever said. Including the bits that come directly from my logic textbook, because you know more about logic than my professor.

Fallacy. Appeal to authority.

 

[sprinkles]

What? Why would "women love apples" be automatically translated to "some women love apples?" The sentence "women love apples" would be translated as "for every x, if x is a woman then x loves apples."

Ravens Paradox:

http://www.mathacademy.com/pr/prime/articles/paradox_raven/index.asp

This is a deliberately simplistic example, but it lays bare what the first step in the scientific method, commonly understood, really amounts to: one makes observations, and forms an inductive hypothesis. The next step, of course, is experimentation to confirm or refute the hypothesis – and it is here that the trouble occurs. In a case like this, experimentation amounts to observing as many ravens as possible, and confirming that they are all black. Now it is impossible, even in principle, to observe every raven, for many no longer exist, many do not yet exist, and it is conceivable that there are creatures one would also wish to call ravens that exist in inaccessible places, such as other planets.

There are always limits to an experimental apparatus, even if the apparatus is just a matter of observing as many ravens as possible to check their color. Nonetheless, we feel justified in saying that each new observation of a black raven tends to confirm the hypothesis, and in time, if no green or blue or otherwise non-black ravens are observed, our hypothesis will eventually come to have the status of a natural law.

But is this logical? Note that, logically put, our hypothesis “all ravens are black” has the form of a conditional, that is, a statement of the form “if A then B.” In short, we are saying that if a given object is a raven, then that object is black. According to the laws of logic, a conditional is equivalent to its contrapositive. That is, a statement of the form “if A then B” is equivalent to the statement “if not B then not A.” For example, the statement “if I live in Denver then I live in Colorado” is logically equivalent to the statement “if I do not live in Colorado then I do not live in Denver.” This rule of logic is incontrovertible.

Our hypothesis “all ravens are black” therefore has the equivalent form “all non-black things are non-ravens,” or more precisely, “if an object isn't black then it is not a raven.” Consequently, if every sighting of a black raven confirms our hypothesis, then every sighting of a non-black non-raven equally confirms our hypothesis.

I look at my shirt. It's blue. And it is not a raven. Confirmation! My hypothesis that all ravens are black is strengthened! My coffee cup is red. More confirmation. The grass is green, the sky is blue, my computer is gray, my dog is white – all confirming the hypothesis “all ravens are black.”

Silly, isn't it? (Isn't it?) But by the laws of logic, if I accept inductive hypotheses and confirmation by experiment, then every observation except one that refutes my hypothesis – confirms it. Even if it is totally irrelevant.

 

[greenfairy]

Fallacy. Appeal to authority.

Wrong. Translating statements as outlined in a textbook is not persuasion, or an argument; so appealing to authority does not apply. Contradicting the correct application of logic as an academic discipline would be illogical.

 

[Orangey]

It might imply a universal quantifier, but you can't assume one if it's not there. Context clues require interpretation. That's what it says in my textbook anyway. All we can be truly sure about is that "women love apples" means that at least one woman loves apples.

No, this is a fairly unambiguous case of universal quantification.

If I were to ask you to write the natural language sentence version of (∃x)(Wx ∧ Ax), you'd be wrong if you wrote "women love apples" because without extra specification that restricts the number, the word "women" refers to the entire class.

 

[greenfairy]

It could be translated as "All women love apples", and usually is, but not necessarily is what I'm saying. It could be argued that it is ambiguous. Natural language translation would imply a universal quantifier. I'm just pointing out that if it isn't there, you can't automatically assume it.

 

[Orangey]

Ravens Paradox:

http://www.mathacademy.com/pr/prime/articles/paradox_raven/index.asp

This is utterly irrelevant to the conversation I'm having with [MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION].

 

[Orangey]

It could be translated as "All women love apples", and usually is, but not necessarily is what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is how the hell could "women love apples" ever be translated to "some women love apples?" Adding "all" to "women love apples" doesn't change the meaning, because "women" implies the "all." Adding "some" to "women" changes the meaning because it restricts the number that we'd normally assume "women" to encompass.

 

[greenfairy]

What I'm saying is how the hell could "women love apples" ever be translated to "some women love apples?" Adding "all" to "women love apples" doesn't change the meaning, because "women" implies the "all." Adding "some" to "women" changes the meaning because it restricts the number that we'd normally assume "women" to encompass.

Well, I was thinking of this example. Say you go to a different planet and you encounter these beings called women. You are recording your observations of them. You discover that some of them appear to love apples. You write that loving apples is an attribute of this species, because you observe examples of it. So "women" as a category and "loving apples" overlaps. Women as a category does not necessarily include every example of the species, but we know that the act of loving apples can be applied to the category of women.

 

[greenfairy]

Alright my bad, I think it is usually translated as universal. Still, the above post is a good argument for ambiguity, and seeing ambiguity where it may not be does not validate the claim that I completely ignore logic, or that I employed a fallacy. I seem to recall us translating it as ambiguous, but maybe it's faulty Si.

I wasn't trying to prove anything, just using what I learned because I enjoy it.

Wrong. Translating statements as outlined in a textbook is not persuasion, or an argument; so appealing to authority does not apply. Contradicting the correct application of logic as an academic discipline would be illogical.

I guess I'm illogical in this instance. Which means I'm an NF. Or faulty Si. For the record I got an A in the class.

 

[sprinkles]

This is utterly irrelevant to the conversation I'm having with [MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION].

I disagree.

They are over there talking about "women love apples" and "women hate apples" not being true simultaneously.

greenfairy took a presumably practical approach by putting the statements into a context where they make sense in the world. She showed that by logic the two statements are contradictory, and it seems pretty much concluded that they must mean something else in a practical setting.

I brought up the Ravens Paradox because the essential part of the paradox is the fact that if something that doesn't contradict your hypothesis helps confirm it, then paradoxically it also helps confirm the inverse of that same hypothesis.

e.g. the hypothesis "All ravens are black" can be given confirmation by a red coffee cup. Paradoxically, "All ravens are white" is also confirmed by a red coffee cup. So in the end making an all inclusive hypothesis isn't worth much in a strict logical setting as opposed to a practical setting. You can say "all x's are y's" on paper until you're blue in the face but when it comes time to verify it in reality in the same strict logical sense, it's kaput.

There's really no sense in bothering to phrase it that way to begin with because it can't be backed up physically to the extent that the logic is actually making the claim.

 

[Hawbawbowba]

Hah hah yeah right - a woman is going to help me find me soul. Gooby pls.

 

[Orangey]

Well, I was thinking of this example. Say you go to a different planet and you encounter these beings called women. You are recording your observations of them. You discover that some of them appear to love apples. You write that loving apples is an attribute of this species, because you observe examples of it. So "women" as a category and "loving apples" overlaps. Women as a category does not necessarily include every example of the species, but we know that the act of loving apples can be applied to the category of women.

Then it would be treated as a hypothesis to be tested, not an assertion. "Women love apples" is still a universal statement, and instances of women not loving apples, if observed, would still contradict it.

 

[Orangey]

They are over there talking about "women love apples" and "women hate apples" not being true simultaneously.

Yes...

She showed that by logic the two statements are contradictory, and it seems pretty much concluded that they must mean something else in a practical setting.

What?

I brought up the Ravens Paradox because the essential part of the paradox is the fact that if something that doesn't contradict your hypothesis helps confirm it, then paradoxically it also helps confirm the inverse of that same hypothesis.

e.g. the hypothesis "All ravens are black" can be given confirmation by a red coffee cup. Paradoxically, "All ravens are white" is also confirmed by a red coffee cup. So in the end making an all inclusive hypothesis isn't worth much in a strict logical setting as opposed to a practical setting. You can say "all x's are y's" on paper until you're blue in the face but when it comes time to verify it in reality in the same strict logical sense, it's kaput.

There's really no sense in bothering to phrase it that way to begin with because it can't be backed up physically to the extent that the logic is actually making the claim.

Still not seeing the relevance.

Hah hah yeah right - a woman is going to help me find me soul. Gooby pls.

You win the thread!

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=4490]Orangey[/MENTION]

Translation:

It's impractical to expect people to be absolutely, syntactically correct at all times.

greenfairy is correct that when someone says "women love apples" they generally mean "some women love apples" or even "in general, women love apples"

Perhaps you expect that it should imply 'all' - and maybe it should - but rarely do people actually operate in the way you expect them to.

You may as well expect someone to mean 'this object has a low temperature' when they say something is 'cool'. And even if you do expect that, it doesn't mean anyone is going to, so get used to it.

 

[Orangey]

[MENTION=4490]Orangey[/MENTION]

Translation:

It's impractical to expect people to be absolutely, syntactically correct at all times.

greenfairy is correct that when someone says "women love apples" they generally mean "some women love apples" or even "in general, women love apples"

Perhaps you expect that it should imply 'all' - and maybe it should - but rarely do people actually operate in the way you expect them to.

You may as well expect someone to mean 'this object has a low temperature' when they say something is 'cool'. And even if you do expect that, it doesn't mean anyone is going to, so get used to it.

When did I ever say that I expect people to be syntactically correct all the time? Greenfairy is the one who brought formal logic into this, and in formal logical terms, the translation of "women love apples" would require a universal quantifier.

Nevertheless, you're going to make category mistakes in real argumentation if you don't watch your language. It'll just be called a fallacy at that point.