Cats & Dogs

Lausanne: hotelroomsearchdotnet: Forward, January 2018

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

The Langer philosophy text review, continues.

Some key symbols from the textbook:

≡df = Equivalence by definition
: = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as
⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ = There exists
∃! = There exists
∴ = Therefore
· = Therefore
 < = Is included
v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives).
x = variable
· = Conjunction meaning And

To combine various classes, that are not the same, through the use disjunction or conjunction, positive statements are required to connect membership. (145-146). Langer's example:

C = Cats
D = Dogs

(x) : x ε C ⊃ (x ε -D) (146).

Variable equals variable is Cats, is the same as variable is not Dogs.

Also

C < -D

Cats is included in not Dogs.

D < -C

Dogs is included in not Cats.

Langer explains that this principle of dichotomy provides liberty to logical expression. (146). Negative statements can be turned into positive statements, and positive statements can be turned into negative ones. This approach assumes that if something is not A or B it is -A x -B. (146).

Everything that is not in the class of Cats or Dogs, is not Cats or Dogs.

H = Horses

H ` C < H ` D

Horses are not cats is included with horses are not dogs.

(x) : (x ε H) ⊃ (x ε -C) ⊃ (x ε -D)

Variable equals variable is Horses, means variable is not the same as Cats, means variable is not the same as Dogs.

Horses are not the same as cats and horses are not the same as dogs.

(x) : (x ε H) ⊨ (x ε -C) ⊨ (x ε -D)

Variable equals variable is Horses, entails variable is not Cats, entails variable is not Dogs.

Horses are not the same as cats and horses are not the same as dogs.

You Tube: Ah, like childhood memories

The moderate view is always the correct one?

Switzerland: Facebook

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The argumentum ad temperantiam

This fallacy reasons the moderate view is always the correct one. (195). Moderation equates to soundness. (195).

Taking an average or moderate view does not mean it will be a correct view. (195).

I describe myself online as a moderate conservative in regards to religious studies and philosophical views and as well, political views. I attempt to take moderate positions, even when I am stating that a premise is true and therefore, contradictory positions are false. In other words, I attempt to take reasonable, researched positions.

Example

Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation.

Non-exhaustive from the New Testament

John 14:6 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

6 Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Acts 4:12 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

12 And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” 

Hebrews 9:27-28 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

27 And inasmuch as it is [a]appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

Footnotes: Hebrews 9:27 Lit laid up

Through the use of the scripture, biblical studies, theology and even philosophy of religion, I can make reasoned, researched positions that I consider moderate. But, I can admit, in a sense, as the exclusivity of Christ is not inclusive of contradictory views, it will be considered an extreme view by many.

There is an aspect of semantics and interpretation is defining what is moderate and what is extreme.

The moderate view, defined in a certain context, is not always the correct one. Agreed.

A correct view, may be achieved fortuitously, such as being born into it via parents and culture. But a reasoned, researched view that is true (it could be false) is likely to have a higher level of correctness.

The Straw Man

TTGonline: Lausanne, Switzerland: January 2018...

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Tin Man October 17 2016

Pire reasons this has also been called the 'Tin Man' fallacy as in the Tin Man, from the Wizard of Oz (1939) has no heart. (93). This is opposed to the 'Straw Man' fallacy. (93). The Straw Man fallacy will be discussed in a future entry, but it misrepresents an opponent's position, and then knocks that misrepresented position down. (193).
---

The straw man fallacy occurs when one misrepresents an opponent's position; this is created to knock down the opponent's position. (193).

Example from my Columbia Bible College experience (Paraphrased).

Student: You do not hold to Mennonite non-resistance and pacifism.

Student: You support the maintaining of law and order through state force (Romans 13, 1 Peter 2).

Student: You support 'just war.'

Student: Therefore, you support 'preventive war', under the guise of 'just war', theory.

Undergrad Russ: No, I clearly stated that I do not support, 'preventive war' theory. Nor do I think every war defined by governments as 'just war' is always a just war.

Student; Yes, you do.

Undergrad Russ: No, I clearly do not based on what I have stated. You are twisting the terminology I have used. Further, you should not be attempting to tell me what I believe.
---

The student misrepresented my law and order and just war position as equating with preventive war theory. This student built a straw man.
---

Traditionally, the straw man deliberately overstates an opponent's position. (193). This was done by my opponent at Columbia Bible College. The adversary is portrayed as the extremist. (193).

As was I in my example, as I did not hold to the classic Anabaptist/Mennonite position.

The real position of the opponent is not adequately reasoned with when this fallacy is used. (193).

This will be frequently used in religion and philosophy debates.

At church a few months ago, a teacher and proponent of incompatiblism stated to me that 'You do not want to be a compatibilist', as he implied that equated to a hard determinist. In other words, anyone that holds to any form of determinism is a hard determinist.

This is academically and philosophically, false and a misrepresentation of my position. I explained:

Incompatibilism

There can be no antecedent (prior) conditions or laws that will determine that an action is committed or not committed. Feinberg (1994: 64). With this view, freedom is incompatible with contingently sufficient nonsubsequent conditions of an action. The contingently sufficient nonsubsequent actions would be God making people in such a way that they only freely did one thing or another. Feinberg (1994: 60).

Hard determinism v Soft determinism/Compatibilism

Within hard determinism God (theistic model) would be the only cause of human actions, while with soft determinism God would be the primary cause of human actions and persons the secondary cause.

Compatibilism, like incompatibilism, holds to free will but in a limited form. Pojman (1996: 596). Feinberg, a noted compatibilist, describes compatibilism as stating certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions in conjunction with human free will performing these actions. Feinberg (2001) explains that with this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed. Feinberg (2001: 637).

Technically, hard determinism and soft determinism/compatibilism are not defined identically and in fact have significant differences.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds.), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

In Three Minutes: Why I still blog?/New work?

Six reasons, not all of them. Abbotsford today: Smog+manure.