Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nelson on December 23, 2011 at 2:50pm

But so far I'm not buying this argument.

But it's not a question of buying the argument. None of us buys the argument. It's a question of whether your critique is valid when it comes to the argument. It's not. Because you're ignoring the modal logic concepts on which the argument is based.

It's as if someone were to argue that 1+1=3 and you replied with a critique that said "That's not accurate because you first need to stipulate what color 3 is." While it IS true that the argument is false, your critique of it has no merit.

One concedes my point because, lets be honest, how can you even claim something is *possible" if you cannot define *what* it is that you are claiming is "possible"?

This is what I'm talking about...

On modal logic, the assumption is that we are talking about possible worlds already. There is NO need to back up and question whether the world is possible. The argument doesn't stand or fall or whether indeed a particular world is possible. So to insist that the a particular world needs to be defined so that you can determine whether it is in fact possible is such a fundamental irrelevancy as to render your critique without merit. It's actually less than wrong. Because if it were wrong it at least would be on same page as the argument. But it's not.

I understand the finer point you are making, but I think the objection I'm making is yet more slippery than yours.

No I don't think you do. And no your objection isn't. I'm sorry. It's not.

I am not the only one who has made objections of this type before to numerous philosophical arguments.

That some other person or persons has been ignorant of the modal logic assumptions of the argument and as a consequence has offered the same objection doesn't mean that the objection therefore has merit.

A slew of mathematical physicists have made this point time and again and that is where I first learned of it. And the type of objection is an objection related to *definition itself* and how that determines what one can say about reality

I would venture that, no, they haven't; not with regard to the modal ontological argument. And if they did they'd be just as wrong as you are.

I hope that makes more sense.

I'm afraid not. =/

What I need to hear from you to be sold is that I do not need to define the very thing I am claiming is possible in order to say it is possible

Except that's irrelevant to the argument. So... no, you don't. Not when you understand the argument.

to me this statement is utterly meaningless

And it will be to anyone that doesn't understand the modal logic assumptions of the argument.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on December 22, 2011 at 7:01pm

If you have no clue what something means, you probably should not voice your opinion on it.

I'd modify this to say that you probably shouldn't voice your opinion in a way that is authoritative. You shouldn't sound more confident in your opinion than you have any right to be given your ignorance. Of course, this is often complicated because if you've misunderstood the argument then you may not be aware of your ignorance. And I think that's what's going on here. Some of the critiques aren't taking into account modal logic because so few people are aware of it or know enough about it that they can recognize it when they see it and apply it in their critique of the argument.

Also, if the experts think an argument is serious and you are not an expert and think it is easily defeated, you are probably dead wrong and just don't understand the topic.

I agree. But then to apply this advice you'd first have to be aware that experts think an argument is serious. And someone without any knowledge of modal logic is perhaps unlikely to know this.

This may sound condescending, but non-experts simply have no place openly dismissing concepts from a legitimate field of study.

And here's the same issue. Few people without some knowledge of modal logic will know that arguments using modal logic are representative of a legitimate field of study. Because, let's be honest, even with a bit of knowledge of modal logic, because of the counterintuitiveness of the implications of S5, there's still something inside you that goes "Wut? C'mon! You can't be serious!" LOL

Nevertheless, I do agree that there's enough in the discussion so far that should caution a person from ending their post to tell the person they're addressing "You can just copy and paste my critique as your own!" That's being way, WAY overconfident given the concepts under discussion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ed on December 22, 2011 at 8:50pm

"Few people without some knowledge of modal logic will know that arguments using modal logic are representative of a legitimate field of study."

Just reading this thread made my phreakin' head hurt! I am completely ignorant about a lot of subjects and modal logic is there at the top.

But I do have one simple honest question: Are there practical applications for modal logic? If so, what would be a layman's example? Thanks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on December 22, 2011 at 8:55pm

Don't think that you're alone in having your head hurt reading modal logic. LOL.

Not practical applications I wouldn't think, no. At least not one I can think of. It's all philosophical and academic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lewal on December 23, 2011 at 10:35am

Also computer science to an extent I think. I'm pretty sure it's the Matrix.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on December 23, 2011 at 10:39am

LOL. Right. My mistake. :)

"...or you take the red pill and I show you how modal logic works. The choice is yours..."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Isaac on December 23, 2011 at 2:39am

I'll send you a message about the modal logic. Sounds interesting.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg Gorey on December 23, 2011 at 1:40pm

Aside from the fact that what you just typed is at least semantically incoherent and makes patently false accusations about what I said, your entire critique is self defeating.

You are trying to attack logic with logic. If you succeed, you undermine logic and your argument's logical underpinnings are wrong. Therefore, it fails. If you try to retort with logic, you are admitting that logic is needed to argue, thus admitting your entire argument is wrong. QED

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg Gorey on December 23, 2011 at 1:51pm

you can't accuse people of ad hominems because that entails formalized logic. Accusing people as such defeats your earlier post attacking logic that Nelson responded to. Also, you can not deconstruct anything without logic because it requires logic to do so. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg Gorey on December 23, 2011 at 2:40pm

"I disagree. I think you are trying to attack the messenger for reasons that I will let the reader observe candidly. This also sounds like an attempt to attack the messenger by implying - or just stating - that the messenger is incapable of logic. Did I misunderstand your statement?"

No, I attacked your nonsensical argument. You confused me saying "you can't use logic (meaning that if your argument is correct, then logic doesnt work)" with me saying "you can't use logic (you have some kind of mental deficiency)." I said the first and am nowhere near big enough of a jerk to say the second to anyone.  I'll repeat my argument again.

"You (meaning your argument) are trying to attack logic with logic. If you (meaning your argument) succeed, you (your argument) undermine logic and your argument's logical underpinnings are wrong. Therefore, it fails. If you (any future use of logic made by another argument) try to retort with logic, you (that argument) are admitting that logic is needed to argue, thus admitting your entire argument is wrong. QED"

I am not saying "you lack the skills use logic". I am saying if your argument succeeds then the entire discipline of logic is wrong. Thus, your argument and any other which uses logic, is also wrong.

Just because someone shows why your argument is abjectly self defeating does not mean they are personally attacking you. I am not conceding anything. I showed that your argument is self defeating because it attacks its own logical underpinnings (as I just restated). I am at a loss if proving an argument is completely wrong is counted as avoiding it.

Also, your other argument is wrong about possible worlds. The point of a possible world is merely to see if something is necessary, possible, or contingent. This is a logical construct, not a physical world. Logicians use this method by stipulating only what is different. If something is like 1+1=2 is true in every possible world, then they would conclude that it is a necessary truth. Since this is a logical testing method, it does not require them to speculate about anything else. Nelson already answered this mischaracterization.

If you would like to learn about this, I recommend the following books:

1. Eric Steinhart's More Precisely

2. Ken Konyndyk's Intro to Modal Logic

3. Brian Chellas' Modal Logic: an Intro

Modal logic is so well accepted that you could pretty much open any college level logic textbook and find a discussion on it. These books are particularly easy to read though.

It should also be noted that modality is a core concept used in computer language, so if your argument is right that possible world semantics don't work, your computer doesn't work. Since your pc works, possible worlds modal logic is correct. Therefore, your argument attacking modal logic is incorrect if you can respond to this post. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg Gorey on December 23, 2011 at 4:16pm

"Ok, no worries about the logic thing, it just sounds to me like you're saying your "opposite number" is incapable of logic."

Where did I say that? LOL

"In reading your post I cannot find anything that addresses my objection at all. It is certainly informative and educational, but I don't see any mention of "definition", "possibility", etc. which is where I think this discussion has landed.

As for the explanation of logic, I'm sorry, but I do not understand where or how you answered my earlier question regarding this digression, if I can call it that:

... how am I attacking logic? Did I say that? Where?"

your entire argument (everything you have said) has been an attack on modal logic, which is the foundation of modern logic. Thus, if you are right, logic (which modality is the foundation to) is wrong.

Also, possible was defined. Something is logically possible if and only if it is not logically impossible (nessecarily false) in any possible state of affairs (a possible world). 

or as dictionary.com put it.

— adj
	capable of being described without self-contradiction

"but I think the objection I'm making is yet more slippery than yours."

in philosophy, slipperiness is a really bad thing. it means your argument is vague and vacuous. Thanks for the compliment. 

If you understood what I am saying you would have seen that modality is the foundation to logic and computer science. Thus, you are wrong if you can post a response (computer science and modality would be right if you could and your argument wrong) or if you can even make a successful argument (your argument based on logic would mean that your argument against logic fails. -self defeating). 

Who has made these objections you are talking about? If you do not name them, you are comitting a logical fallacy of appealing to unnamed authority. So who are these physicists who have disproved logic?

Permalink Reply by Greg Gorey on December 23, 2011 at 4:07pm

well what you mean by those terms is irrelevant. If your arguments are not addressing the terms as they are used by professional logicians then your argument is committing the logical fallacy of straw maning (categorically redefining words to make the opponents case into something they do not mean it to be).

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page