Prove to me, I am not the most handsome man ever to exist!

Majorca, Spain, Facebook (Would be nice today).

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

Prove to me, I am not the most handsome man ever to exist!

April 18

The argumentation ad ignorantiam is committed when the lack of knowledge is presented to infer that the opposite is true. (126).

Pirie opines that shifting the burden of proof is a specialized form of argumentation ad ignorantiam, asserting a premise without justification. (187). The audience must disprove of the premise for it to be rejected. (187).

'Give me a good reason this is not true'.

This is an example based on what was presented by the author. But, it is the assertion, the premise that needs to be justified in an argument, not the resistance to it, or the arguments against it. (187). It is assumed that something is acceptable unless proven otherwise. (187).

Prove to me I not the most handsome man ever to exist!

(Yes, this is fallacious. My photos are a clue this is a questionable proposition. I am somewhere between pretty boy and tank on the looks scale)

Pirie explains this fallacy fuels belief in UFOs, monsters, demons, etcetera. (188).

On the point of demons, I differ:

I acknowledge that demonic belief can be presented with fallacious premises.

But a reasonable theological belief in Satan and demons is based in scriptural, documented, history, not in premises of lack of knowledge. I do not focus on 'prove to me, it is not true' premises in regard to the supernatural. Demonic belief is primarily based on scripture, even for those of us that reason we have seen and heard demonic activity in humanity.
---

FOF

I listen to Focus on the Family (FOF), 'Boundless' occasionally. Here are reasoned premises based on listening. The Focus on the Family American (Canadian), philosophy of dating.

Non-exhaustive and not in every case.

He reads his Bible.
He leads at church.
He has Christian maturity.
He has good employment.
He is attractive.
He is relatable.
He is within five years of age.

Therefore, he is a potential date.

He reads his Bible.
He leads at church.
He has Christian maturity.
He has good employment.
He is attractive.
He is relatable.
He is ten years plus older.

Therefore, he is a potential acquaintance.

He has secular views.
He attends church.
He has Christian background.
He has good employment.
He is attractive.
He is relatable.
He is within five years of age.

Therefore, he is a potential date.

My suggested

He reads his Bible.
He leads at church.
He has Christian maturity.
He has good employment.
He is attractive.
He is relatable.
He is youthful.

Therefore, he is a potential date.

If my evaluation of FOF views are reasonably correct, a reason why many young women reject attractive older men is because age difference is more important than Christian walk. The generally greater physical attraction of younger men and social rules are more important than spiritual maturity when comparing younger men to older men.

This article and a related one were used for an entry on academia.edu, 2024/02/10.

Are we on shifting ground?

Are we on shifting ground?

Amsterdam (2025) photo from Civil Engineering Discoveries, LinkedIn 

Preface

Originally published 20170730, revised on Blogger for an entry on academia.edu, 20250215.

The Pirie entry by entry review continues...

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

The Definitional Retreat

'A definitional retreat takes place when someone changes the meaning of the words in order to deal with an objection raised against the original wording. By changing the meaning, he turns it into a different statement.' Pirie uses an example: 'When I said I hadn't been drinking, officer, I meant that I hadn't had more than I get through in a normal social evening.' (77-78). 

My examples: 

When I said I was a Christian, I meant that I think there is probably a God. 

When I said you were fat, I meant that you were phat, as in excellent. 

The author explains that a definitional retreat allows a person to save face when their argument has been demonstrated to significantly lack merit. (78). Pirie reasons that philosophers often change definitions when shown as questionable. (78). Definitions are not to be subjective, they have objective meanings. This is a reason I revise my writing, because sometimes corrections have to be made in premises, conclusions and reasoning. 

Definition twisting, does not assist with my pursuit of the truth. My revisions are documented when significant. I admit that minor revisions are often made after publish, because some problems are not apparent until after publish. That is a visual issue, not an integrity one. But if I do change my mind...it is better to revise statements and/or arguments when needed and to note it. 

Pirie mentions that UK finance ministers are good at the use of this fallacy. (79). They use definitional retreat. I think politicians often use fallacies when definitions are changed to portray a different story. Statistics can be stated to mean one thing in January and something else in December. 

Shifting ground?

When making arguments, people may hedge with ambiguous premises. (185). Or people may use a definitional retreat to make words within premises mean something else. (185). A type of this defensive type of argumentation is to use shifting ground. (185). This fallacy is used with attempts to avoid criticism of an original premise (s) by shifting the meaning of premise or premises. (185). This would require a new critique of the argument. (185).

My examples:

Premise: I think x is a bad thing.

Conclusion: Yes, x should be banned.

After negative critique from others, the shifting ground fallacy is used:

Premise: Rather, x is usually a bad thing.

Conclusion: Well, x should probably be banned, anyway.

As Pirie explains the arguer will change the ground he/her is standing on and still maintain the continuity of the argument. (185). It is fallacious to change the substance of what is being stated.

In my example, the premise shifts from 'is a bad thing', to 'is usually a bad thing'.

The conclusion shifts from 'should be banned' to 'should probably be banned, anyway'.

Based on my years of discussion and debating, this is a tempting fallacy for intellectual and non-intellectuals, alike, to use as defence. As with my writing on my websites, sometimes arguments simply require edits in humility. The person in my example is attempting to save face, when he/she should more likely reconsider the entire line of reasoning.

Pirie opines that politicians at times use the shifting ground fallacy rather than admit that he/she changed their mind. (186). The shifting ground fallacy is often used when one cannot prove his/her point but does not want to appear to be wrong, or admit he/she is wrong. (186).

Collins

Cited

'in American English'

'shift ground to change position in an argument or situation' 

2019 by Penguin Random House LLC and HarperCollins Publishers Ltd'

---

Hedging

Tuesday, March 28, 2017 Hedging

'Hedging in arguments means sheltering behind ambiguous meanings so that the sense can be changed later.' (120). To paraphrase the author's example: We stated we did not want a full-fledged war in the Middle East; that is still the position, we entered into limited war. (120). This type of argumentation allows for a 'definitional retreat.' (120). 'Hedging is fallacious because it puts two or more different statements under the guise of one'. (120). It is a semantic game in parsing the difference between a 'limited war' and a 'full-fledged' war. Is any war 'full-fledged' without nuclear weapons? Hedging hopes that the reviewer of argumentation, will not know better (120); the information presented becomes useless because it is not presented accurately. (120). To avoid hedging one could state: 'We are entering into war; we are committed.' Or: 'We are not entering into war, because the risks are too great.' Hedging again... We stated we did not want to colonize Mars, that is still the position, but we have several Mars space missions planned. 

Interestingly, Pirie indicates that Nostradamus used hedging to make obscure predictions. (121). The author reasons that observers look for what they want to see as far as what has already occurred and apply what Nostradamus predicted. This does not assist in making accurate predictions. (121). Hedging uses dishonesty and ambiguity. (121). 

Logically Fallacious

Cited

Description: Refining your claim simply to avoid counter evidence and then acting as if your revised claim is the same as the original.

Logical Form: Claim X is made. Claim X is refuted. Claim Y is then made and is made to be the same as claim X when it is not.

References: Dowden, B. (n.d.). Fallacies | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/ 

---

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York. 

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

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

Luke 9: 28-46: Brief on knowing former strangers

New Westminster: Colourized, originally from trekearth

Luke 9: 28-46: Brief on knowing former strangers

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

I recently listened to an online sermon from Pastor Courson on Luke 9: 28-46. The transfiguration is within this section of the New Testament.

In his commentary, Pastor Courson opines as he did in the sermon, that the transfiguration was the Father's intent for humanity, if the fall did not occur.

I have listened to Pastor Courson since 1987; I reason he is not Reformed theologically, but rather is definitely evangelical and at least has some fundamentalist leanings. However, he is a biblical scholar (based on his commentary) in regard to evaluating the Scripture verse by verse. He, at least, adequately exegetes the Scripture. I do appreciate his commentary which I ordered from his ministry.

Bible and Biblical theology

Based on a Reformed biblical view and biblical theology, God wills all things within good and pure motives. The holiness and goodness of God expressed in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament.

Biblically, from a human perspective, human sin against God occurred willingly and was not forced or coerced as humanity was/is morally accountable. This is documented in Genesis 3 and in Hebrew Bible and New Testament atonement concepts.

Philosophical Theology and Philosophy of Religion

Within my philosophical theological and philosophy of religion approach (s), God causes all things, whether intentionally willing them or willingly allowing them. God is a primary cause of all things.

Human beings can serve as a secondary cause as can angelic and demonic beings. Human beings are the secondary cause of human thoughts and actions where there is significant human moral accountability. This is reasoned to be without divine or angelic/demonic force or coercion in order that humanity significantly embraced these thoughts and actions in moral accountability. If there is no significant moral accountability, I would reason this hard determinism, sometimes defined as determinism, in contrast with my position which is soft determinism, sometimes defined as compatibilism.

Therefore:

The fall of humanity was predestined.

Further:

This was willed by God in order to save those in Jesus Christ through the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ, and the eventual resurrection of humanity in moral perfection and immortality (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 21-22).

Based on the biblical record, Peter knew the names and recognized the other two transfigured individuals other than Jesus Christ, those being Moses and Elijah (v 33). Unless Peter was informed of this by human means (biblically undocumented) it seems to be by supernatural, divine means. Pastor Courson reasons that those that opine persons in the Kingdom of God will not remember the past, including known persons, are incorrect. From the sermon (paraphrased) he opines that human beings will not be as stupid as present, and so therefore those in God's Kingdom would know by appearance and name, each member of the Kingdom of God by supernatural means. Former strangers would be known by supernatural means,

Browning explains that some within scholarship state that this section from Scripture is wrongly placed in the gospels (Also Matthew 17 and Mark 9) and is instead a post-resurrection account. (375).  But, Browning rejects this as the form of the narrative is too different than 'Easter narratives.' (375-376).

Stanley Harakas also notes the theory that this is a misplaced resurrection narrative. There are other theories that this is a largely symbolic story in support of the messiahship of Jesus Christ. (579). Other scholars reason it is an historical event presented in literal fashion. (579). Harakas explains that some Latin Fathers reasoned the story was a revelation of the Trinity. Historically, others reasoned this section has allegorical, symbolic and metaphorical meanings. (579).

But on this particular biblical section, I side with Pastor Courson and his largely plain literal approach to the New Testament. The context and the scholarship I have read has me conclude it is a (an) historical event presented in a literal fashion.

Those in Christ in the culminated Kingdom of God, having been purged of sin and provided resurrected, immortal bodies through limited free will and the guidance of the Holy Spirit should posses greater knowledge and intellect than in the previous earthly realm.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

HARAKAS, STANLEY S, (1999) A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, SCM Press, London.

Hasty generalization, yet another accident

Humorsharing.com

Hasty generalization, yet another accident

Preface

Originally published 20170727. Revised for an entry on academia.edu on 20240824.

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

The fallacy of secundum quid is known as the hasty generalization. (182). The fallacy of converse accident.

Hasty generalization, yet another accident

This occurs when a generalization is reached with unreasonable presentations that could also be 'very few' and  'unrepresentative'. (182-183).

Premises and conclusions would be taken from specific cases in attempt to make them generalizations. These will be based on inadequate premises and conclusions.

Based on the author's example on page 183, I provide this from my actual past:

I was in Bristol for an interview in regards to a possible PhD appointment. There were drunk students all over the streets. People must be always be drunk on the streets of Bristol.

'People must be always be drunk on the streets of Bristol', this part is untrue and would be considered the fallacy of hasty generalization. I just happened to see several drunk students out of the very limited amount of people I viewed walking in Bristol, because I was only visiting there for a short time.

As Pirie explains a sample must be 'sufficiently large and sufficiently representative' (183) and when the hasty generalization fallacy is used, the sample is not a sufficient one. 

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Fallacies 

Cited 

'The fallacy of secundum quid comes about from failing to appreciate the distinction between using words absolutely and using them with qualification. Spruce trees, for example, are green with respect to their foliage (they are ‘green’ with qualification); it would be a mistake to infer that they are green absolutely because they have brown trunks and branches. It is because the difference between using words absolutely and with qualification can be minute that this fallacy is possible, thinks Aristotle.'

Noted citations from that website

'Aristotle, Categories, H.P. Cooke (trans.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938.

–––, On Sophistical Refutations, E. S. Forster (trans.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1955.

–––, Posterior Analytics, H. Tredennick (trans.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960. 

–––, Topics, Books I and VIII, R. Smith (trans.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. 

Hans Hansen, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2020.'

The converse accident fallacy or reverse accident fallacy argues that specific premise (s) leads to a general conclusion. From the qualified (uncertain) to the unqualified (certain).

Converse accident fallacy example:

Y votes for a liberal party

Y is a Christian

Christians vote liberal

Accident fallacy

Accident fallacy has been covered previously on my website and does move from the general premise (s) to the specific conclusion. 

From the unqualified (certain, my add) statement to the statement qualified (uncertain, my add). (7). Blackburn writes that is an (alleged) fallacy. (7). Arguing from the general case to the specific, particular case. (7).

Accident fallacy example:

Christians vote for a conservative party

X is a Christian

X votes conservative

This distinction can be confusing for the reader as I have found via research the converse accident fallacy is considered within accident fallacy. I am not disagreeing with the definitions. The hasty generalization would be within accident fallacy/converse accident fallacy with a specific premise (s) leading to a general conclusion.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

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

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

The runaway train

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

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

The runaway train

The runaway train fallacy occurs when an argument used to support an action, would also further support an action. The argument needs to stop at a particular point...(180).

The author's example:

Lowering the highway speed limit from 70 mph to 60 mph might save lives. (180).

Lowering the highway speed limit from 70 mph to 50 mph might save even more lives. (181).

Lowering the highway speed limit from 70 mph to 40 mph might save even more lives. (181).

The speed limit at 0 mph would save the most lives. (181).

This type of fallacy, according to Pirie, occurs when someone advances a general argument for something the arguer regards as a special case. (182). Should the argument only be limited to a special case or should it have more general ramifications? (182).

To counter this fallacy, with the example provided, premises and conclusions which support higher speed limits should also be considered. Lower speed limits may save more lives, but the effects on transportation, the economy, etcertera, need to be considered.

Further:

There are drivers that drive at higher speeds in a careless fashion.

There are drivers that drive at lower speeds that continually hit the brakes. This could lead to accidents and even multi-car accidents.

Both these groups are potentially, dangerous drivers.

Redness?

Redness?

20160506_135347 Colourized, my photo 

Preface

The review of the Pirie text was entry by entry. This was originally published on Blogger 20170725. Edited on Blogger, 20241222, for an entry on academia.edu.

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

Redness  

The fallacy of reification is also known as hypostatization. It consists in the supposition that certain words denote real things. (178). The 'redness' of the sunset, as example. Pirie reasons 'redness' is not present with a red sun, red ball, or red anything. (178).

The fallacy is turning descriptive qualities into real things. (178).

Perceived redness can vary from wavelengths. Oxford Science defines colour as the sensation produced when light of different wavelengths falls onto the human eye. (178). The visible spectrum varies continuously with wavelength ranges. (178). There is an abstract aspect to the human evaluation of colours and how each set of human eyes would interpret the sensations of light and colour.

I see dark red, you see red-blue, etcetera. It is not an error to describe the redness of something in subjective terms, but it should not be understood as objective terminology.

Reification occurs when it is assumed that the descriptive attributes are as real as the objects they depend on. (178).

Logically fallacious

'Reification (also known as: abstraction, concretism, fallacy of misplaced concreteness, hypostatisation)

Description: When an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity -- when an idea is treated as if had a real existence.

Example #1: How can you not want to go jogging? Look at that street -- it’s calling your name. It wants your feet pounding on it. “Jog on me!”'

'Fun Fact: Reification is similar to anthropomorphism, except that reification does not have to deal with human qualities.' 

'References: reification | literature | Britannica.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/reification ---'

Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy 

Cited 

'Hypostatization 

The error of inappropriately treating an abstract term as if it were a concrete one. Also known as the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness and the Fallacy of Reification. 

Example: 'Nature decides which organisms live and which die. 

Nature isn’t capable of making decisions. The point can be made without reasoning fallaciously by saying: “Which organisms live and which die is determined by natural causes.” Whether a phrase commits the fallacy depends crucially upon whether the use of the inaccurate phrase is inappropriate in the situation. In a poem, it is appropriate and very common to reify nature, hope, fear, forgetfulness, and so forth, that is, to treat them as if they were objects or beings with intentions. In any scientific claim, it is inappropriate.' 

My example: 'Nature chooses the survival of the fittest'. My Reformed, biblical, Christian worldview, also views nature as not capable of making decisions. It is a finite creation of the infinite, eternal, triune God. Nature has various life, but is not a conscious, rational entity in itself.

Cited from Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy website

'References and Further Reading 

Eemeren, Frans H. van, R. F. Grootendorst, F. S. Henkemans, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson, E. C. W. Krabbe, C. W. Plantin, D. N. Walton, C. A. Willard, J. A. Woods, and D. F. Zarefsky, 1996. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. 

Fearnside, W. Ward and William B. Holther, 1959. Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 

Fischer, David Hackett., 1970. Historian’s Fallacies: Toward Logic of Historical Thought. New York, Harper & Row, New York, N.Y. 

This book contains additional fallacies to those in this article, but they are much less common, and many have obscure names. 

Groarke, Leo and C. Tindale, 2003. Good Reasoning Matters! 3rd edition, Toronto, Oxford University Press. 

Hamblin, Charles L., 1970. Fallacies. London, Methuen. 

Hansen, Has V. and R. C. Pinto., 1995. Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings. University Park, Pennsylvania State University Press. 

Huff, Darrell, 1954. How to Lie with Statistics. New York, W. W. Norton. 

Levi, D. S., 1994. “Begging What is at Issue in the Argument,” Argumentation, 8, 265-282. 

Schwartz, Thomas, 1981. “Logic as a Liberal Art,” Teaching Philosophy 4, 231-247. 

Walton, Douglas N., 1989. Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

Walton, Douglas N., 1995. A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. Tuscaloosa, University of Alabama Press. 

Walton, Douglas N., 1997. Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority. University Park, Pennsylvania State University Press. 

Whately, Richard, 1836. Elements of Logic. New York, Jackson. 

Woods, John and D. N. Walton, 1989. Fallacies: Selected Papers 1972-1982. Dordrecht, Holland, Foris.'

Cited

'Website author

Bradley Dowden
California State University, Sacramento
U. S. A.' 

---

Oxford Dictionary of Science, (2010), Sixth Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

Each needs the other to complete the universe

Add caption

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

Fundamentum Divisionis

Whenever there is a class formed within any universe of discourse, then every individual in that universe must either belong to the class, or not belong to it. (142). A class of two-storeyed houses has every house in it that is two-storeyed, or the house is not in that class. (142).

Further from the last review of the Langer text, every class creates a dichotomy, also known as a division in two for every class. (143).

(x ε N)
Variable is N.
Variable = N.

(x ε -N)
Variable is not N.
Variable does not equal = N.

These two classes have no members in common. (143). But, this universe of discourse is divided between them and are known as complementary classes. (143). Each needs the other to complete the universe. (143).

(x ε N) ˜ ⊃ (x ε -N)
Variable equals N is not the same as variable equals not N. (143).

N = Cat

(x ε N)

x equals cat

(x ε -N)

x does not equal cat

˜ means x is unfeline. (144).

This text is from different eras (1953) (1967) but this quote is interesting in today's era as well and demonstrates how the use of the English language evolves.

'Male and female are equally "positive" notions, but in a universe of bi-sexual organisms they are complements.' (144-145). If females are represented by B, then males is -B and vice-versa. (145). In an equation the second class is the negated (negative) class. (145).

Opines on Philosophy of Religion and Apologetics

Yesterday

Opines on Philosophy of Religion and Apologetics

Originally published July 24, 2017, edited for an entry on academia.edu for July 1, 2023.

---

Preface

At church yesterday (2017) a Christian apologist was a guest speaker. He stated (paraphrased) that he was a Christian apologist that presented philosophy, but later stated he was not heavily academic with his use of philosophy.

I realize there are significantly academic apologists that use philosophy/philosophy of religion, but his example had me consider the differences between apologetics and philosophy of religion. I found this blog article below on my mobile during the church service.

I will admit, that I considered the differences between philosophy theology, philosophy of religion and apologetics when pursuing PhD options, and I favoured philosophy theology and philosophy of religion for my career and ministry. Theistic, philosophy of religion, I have found often has significant agreement with philosophical theology, within the Reformed tradition on key points.

Philosophy of Religion and Apologetics

The author link below is now outdated.

Prosblogion April 12 2012: Kenny Pearce: Philosophy of Religion and Apologetics

Updated

Philosophy of Religion and Apologetics

April 12, 2012 This Post is Old! 

The post you are reading is 11 years old and may not represent my current views. I started blogging around the time I first began to study philosophy, age 17. In my view, the point of philosophy is to expose our beliefs to rational scrutiny so we can revise them and get better beliefs that are more likely to be true. That's what I've been up to all these years, and this blog has been part of that process. For my latest thoughts, please see the front page. 

blog.kennypearce

Kenny Pearce received his PhD in philosophy from the University of Southern California in 2014. Kenny is currently Professor of Philosophy at James Madison University.

Citations and my comments from this work from a philosopher...

'Philosophy of religion, as practiced by religious believers, is often confused with apologetics. (Perhaps it is even so confused, on occasion, by some of its practitioners.) Indeed, if we use the term ‘apologetics’ more broadly, to include not just the giving of an apologia (defense) of religion, but of just any belief system, then we could say that philosophy in general is often confused with apologetics. This is, I think, a serious mistake. The philosopher, qua philosopher, is up to something quite different than the apologist, qua apologist. The ‘qua’ clauses are necessary, because of course the same person may engage in both philosophy and apologetics and, as will emerge, it is even possible to do both at the same time, but as activities they have fundamentally different aims.'

---

End citation = ---      

As many readers will know, I studied theodicy, problems of evil, free will, determinism and the nature of God in the United Kingdom, mostly distance learning, from 1999-2010. I have continued with this work and with biblical studies on my website and since 2004. I would define my academic priorities as mainly philosophical theology, philosophy of religion and biblical studies, pretty equally. My approach with philosophical theology reviewed and used moderate conservative, biblical views leading to a Reformed theological approach within my MPhil/PhD work. My approach with philosophy of religion reviewed and used non-biblical, not by definition, always anti-biblical, views within my theses. I reviewed philosophical theological views in agreement and disagreement and I reviewed philosophy of religion views in agreement and disagreement.

But I was not, in my opinion, advised by my British academic tutors to provide apologetics for the Christian faith, but rather to provide 'breadth' and 'depth' in views. I was allowed some academic freedom at the University of Wales, where I earned my two degrees, to present my Reformed theodicy views using philosophy theological and philosophy of religion concepts as support. My tutors were Christians but within secular Universities.

Citation

'Let’s start with apologetics. What the apologist would really like to do is to give arguments which will actually convince a particular audience who does not already believe the conclusion that the conclusion is true. This, of course, is a tall order, especially when it comes to anything so contentious and practically and emotionally important as religion.'

---

From listening to the apologist at church, Sunday and other apologists, I would reason that in the general, the goal is to provide a defence of the Christian faith. The speaker, yesterday, did not prioritize a presentation, that was of 'breadth' and 'depth', that was similar to what I was expected to do within British academia. Rather, he emphasized presenting an apologetic with Christian character. 

Frankly, I agree with the speaker on Christian character, but myself would aim to present rational and true theological and philosophical arguments. I would work to present rationally challenging premises and conclusions. Even if some of these views did not support classically held, evangelical views, but in reality, my biblical approach in within the Reformed tradition. My view are within orthodox, biblical, Christianity. But, clearly my approach is as an academic theologian and theistic, philosopher of religion. To defend this speaker, context is key as he was speaking in an evangelical church and not in a University or academic setting.

Cited

'This, I claim, is not the aim of the philosopher (qua philosopher). The philosopher aims instead to discover arguments which are such that people holding certain views (which real people do, or at least are likely to, hold) will, upon considering the arguments, be rationally obligated to endorse the conclusion.'

---

I will admit here that based on my education and academic approach, an essential priority is to present rational premises and conclusions. My view is that there are strong rational premises and conclusions that rationally support a biblical, Reformed Christian view. This is within an evangelical church, context.

Cited

'Thus the philosopher differs from the apologist in two ways: first, in that the philosopher aims to discover arguments, rather than just to give them to people...'

---

This was the academic approach I was guided to take within British academia.

Cited

'...and, second, the philosopher is not concerned with what will actually convince people, but only about what people rationally ought to be convinced by.'

---

This is largely the truth in many cases. Within the evangelical church, this can make the theistic philosopher of religion seem 'out of touch' with the evangelical agenda at points.

My Reformed, compatiblist (soft determinism) views related to free will and determinism, in particular, were not as accepted publicly in MPhil and PhD surveys as were incompatibilist (non-determinism) views. But, I will admit, I was and am, far more concerned with what by God's guidance, is rationally true than with attempts to convince people. I  primarily, leave the convincing to the Lord, in regards to the gospel and spiritual issues.

Cited

'In sum, the apologist is engaged in what could (depending on one’s attitude to the apologist in question) be classified either as a public education campaign, or a propaganda campaign. The philosopher, on the other hand, is engaged in a research program. This difference is the fundamental one; it is for this reason that the apologist is concerned with whether people actually accept his arguments, but the philosopher is concerned only with whether people are rationally obligated to accept hers.'

---

There is at least some truth to this distinction in general, as in many contexts, the apologist is providing a defence, whereas the philosopher of religion is engaged in a research program. My British work was far more a research program than a defence of my religious, theological, and philosophical views.

However, within my United Kingdom theses studies I was defending a biblical, Reformed theodicy, no question. Christian apologetics, done well, will certainly include a significant amount of research and this will (should) include views which do not support biblical Christianity or the apologist's version of biblical Christianity.

Cited

'Finally, what does this mean for the relationship between philosophy and apologetics? Well, the obvious answer is that, if the apologist adopts the principle of only trying to get people to be convinced by arguments they rationally ought to be convinced by, then the apologist is really a popularizer of philosophy.'

---

I reason an apologist can research and present reasonable philosophy and philosophy of religion. Is this done with every instance, no. But, theology and philosophy is also, at times, presented in a more popularized and less academic form. In the You Tube format, for example.

Cited

'This, furthermore, is why I said earlier that it is possible to engage in both activities at once, especially if philosophers are the target of the apologia. That is, one may publish one’s arguments both as part of the cooperative research program and in the hope of actually convincing one’s fellow researchers. (Or, in an increasingly popular trend, one may publish a book in which one tries to address both one’s fellow philosophers and the educated public at once.) The fact that a particular individual has both aims may effect her mode of presentation, but this need not interfere with doing good philosophy.'

---

Yes, I reason an apologist can present good philosophy.

Cited

'Although philosophy and apologetics may go together, it is comforting to the philosopher that they need not. Being concerned only with the rational force of arguments, the philosopher may ignore the vagaries of human psychology, or of social pressures regarding belief, because, if these are the reasons the argument is not accepted, then the philosopher may nevertheless have succeeded at her aim of giving an argument which rationally ought to be accepted.'

---

I can support the author's aim of rational, philosophy of religion as being in agreement with at least, aspects, of my ministry objectives, but I also focus on philosophical theology and biblical studies. This I write without disparaging the potential for significant academic presentation from the Christian apologist.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York. 

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.

FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company. 

FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1975) Philosophy of Religion, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1978) The Roots of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1996) ‘Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

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

PLANTINGA, ALVIN.C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN.C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

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

SANFORD, DAVID H. (1996) ‘Circular Reasoning', in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

SAMPLES, KENNETH (2014) How to Evaluate an Abductive Argument, Reasons to Believe, Covina, California. 

SZUDEK, ANDY & TORSLEY, SARAH (2018) The Little Book of Philosophy, Landau Cecile (Ed), London, DK Publishing. 

Whitehead & The Infinite God

From Theodicy and Practical Theology, The University of Wales, Trinity Saint David. PhD, thesis. 

Whitehead explains that ‘It is not true that God is on all respects infinite.’ Whitehead (1926: 153). His Process theology is a philosophical approach that does not rely on any kind of divine revelation.Viney (2008: 1). Instead it relies on a process of change over time as a theory of metaphysics. Viney (2008: 1). God’s actual concrete nature is responsive and influenced by the processes that take in the world, and therefore God is limited.

Whitehead claims that if God was infinite in all ways this would make him as infinitely evil as he is good. I doubt logically and reasonably that an infinitely holy and good God could at the same time be infinitely evil and so I can grant Whitehead half a point here. However, God could still be infinite completely in nature and willingly allow evil to exist within his creation, which shall be discussed particularly in Chapter Three as a Reformed view. I definitely agree with Whitehead that an infinitely good and evil God would be a God of nothingness. Whitehead (1926: 153). I doubt this being could logically exist.

July 21, 2017 

What exists as necessary is good.

God exists as necessary.

Therefore, God is good.
---

Evil, if it exists at all, it is a corruption of the good. For God to be proposed as infinitely good and infinitely evil, would mean that the infinite evil is not defined correctly as evil.

VINEY, DAVID (2008) ‘Process Theism’, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Palo Alto, California, Stanford University.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1926) Religion in the Making, New York, The MacMillan Company.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1927-1929)(1957) Process and Reality, New York, The Free Press/MacMillan Publishing Company, Incorporated.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1967)(1986) ‘Adventures of Ideas’, in Forest Wood JR., Whiteheadian Thought as a Basis for a Philosophy of Religion, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, University Press of America, Inc. http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2736&C=2479

Mistakes Columbo Villains Make

Columbo

Mistakes Columbo Villains Make

Preface

Slight revisions of this July 20, 2017 article for an entry on academia.edu on July 8, 2023

Non-exhaustive. I have not seen all Columbo episodes, but I have viewed a significant amount. I am not an expert on Columbo or any television program.

A non-typical, but yet philosophical, article from me...

Mistakes Columbo Villains Make: A man's got to know his limitations

Columbo Wikipedia

'Columbo is an unassuming police detective of Italian descent whose clothes are disheveled and whose trademarks include wearing a rumpled, beige raincoat over his suit, and smoking a cigar. He is consistently underestimated by his suspects who, while initially reassured and distracted by his circumstantial speech, become increasingly annoyed by his pestering behavior. Despite his unassuming appearance and apparent absentmindedness, he is extremely intelligent and shrewdly solves all of his cases and secures all evidence needed for a conviction. His formidable eye for detail and relentlessly dedicated approach, often become clear to the killer (and even the viewer) only late in the story line.'

The Columbo formula:

'In almost every episode the audience sees the crime unfold at the beginning and knows the identity of the culprit, typically an affluent member of society.'

End citations   

This 'typically an affluent member of society' is successful within the world system, and might often be considered an intellectual of sorts. A mistake typically made by the villains is to assume that his/her affluence, success and intellect, is at an extremely high level and therefore he/she can deceive the police and not be charged with murder.

Another related typical mistake made by these villains is to underestimate the intellectual ability of an expert detective, Lieutenant Columbo, to find enough evidence to legally charge him/her with the crime of murder, due to his greater knowledge and experience in crime solving. Because of how Columbo presents himself, as many times, not that smart, he in a sense catches the villain off guard, in most of the episodes I have viewed, it seems to me. Therefore, a lesson from Columbo is that intellectual superiority in the villain's area of expertise does not equate with intellectual superiority in an area where the villain is less familiar; crime solving.
---

For the context of this website, this article serves as a reminder to those critics of biblical studies, theology, religious studies and philosophy of religion that have no significant training in these academic disciplines and yet assume these are pseudo-academic disciplines. The lesson is useful in many other instances as well. But, if I was transported into a fictional Columbo universe, I would not expect to get away with murder because I have a PhD. 

I state that I am finite and sinful...

Romans 6: 23 is appropriate here.

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gracious gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

---

The Kansas City Chiefs are the Super Bowl Champions, but would not be the favourites against a very good American high school, baseball team, playing in a baseball game.

Dirty Harry: Magnum Force (1973)

'A man's got to know his limitations.'

La Campagna: Italy, trekearth

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

BRUCE, F.F. (1987) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

DUNN, JAMES D.G. (1988) Romans, Dallas, Word Books. 

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Refuting the example

Five places to teach abroad: Seoul

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

Refuting the example

Examples are often used in support of arguments. When critics attack the example and not the central thesis, it is considered fallacious and is known as refuting the example. (176).

Based on Pirie's example: (176).

'Teenagers are bad-mannered these days.' 'A teenager was running and bumped into me yesterday and did not apologize to me'

Pirie based reply:

'That is wrong, as the boy in question, was no longer a teenager.' (176).

The interjected complaint and example in regard to the incident with the former teenager does not support the central premise that 'teenagers are bad-mannered these days'. The young male mentioned in the example, is not a teenager.

Example premises:

'Right-wing, American fundamentalist, Christians do not regard science seriously enough.'

'Russ Murray on his blog, mentioned the Kingdom of God, which is not scientific.'

I am not right-wing, I am a moderate conservative, I am slightly right of centre, politically, and it would be a very debatable premise to call me right-wing, if the concept of far right is meant.

I am a moderate conservative, biblical Christian within the Reformed tradition. Incidentally, sadly, some within the University of Manchester, Religions and Theology Department committed the fallacy discussed, on this point, assuming I was an American, fundamentalist, Christian, or at least a Canadian of the same views.

According to my two passports, I am Canadian and British. I do not possess an American passport.

Discussing the Kingdom of God, academically, would make sense in the context of theology and biblical studies. I also do discuss science concepts at times with academic references.

The example does not support the premise.

The red herring

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

Riot Act, Inc

Related entry April 26

Ignoratio elenchi 

'An ancient fallacy identified by Aristotle. (128). When one attempts to argue something, but instead succeeds in arguing something else. (128).'  Based on my reading some commentators view these as the same fallacy. Regardless, they are related. This is a reminder than even technicalities and terminology are debated at times, within philosophy and academia.

The red herring

This fallacy is committed when irrelevant material is used to divert people away from the point being made, and to proceed to a different conclusion. (174).

'You never remember my birthday.'

'Did I ever tell you what beautiful eyes you have?' (175).

Logically fallacious

'Logical Form: Argument A is presented by person 1. Person 2 introduces argument B. Argument A is abandoned.'

Person A premise: I enjoy reading Russ Murray's websites.

Person B premise: He looks a bit like a twelve-pack, kingpin.

My muscular, non-pretty boy, non-six-pack appearance is not related in context with the quality or lack of quality of my written presentations.

Aristotle: Fundamentum Divisionis

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

Fundamentum Divisionis

Whenever there is a class formed within any universe of discourse, then every individual in that universe must either belong to the class, or not belong to it. (142). A class of two-storeyed houses has every house in it that is two-storeyed, or the house is not in that class. (142).

In the universe of creatures there is a sub-class of cats, then every creature is a cat or non-cat. (142).
With Aristotle's class of fundamentum divisionis, there is what is A and what is not A. (142). For every x, either x is an A or x is not an A. (142).

In this example, the variable, x (creatures).

Therefore x ε A, or there are creatures that are cats is one defining form, there is also the defining form ˜(x ε A) that there are creatures that are not cats. (142). Everything in this universe of discourse belongs to A or ˜A. (142).

A creature is either a cat or is not. Therefore  (x ε A) V ˜(x ε A). There are creatures that are cats, therefore it is true, there are creatures that are not cats.

The universe class of all creatures is defined by Langer as I, therefore, I = A + -A (142-143).

All creatures equals cats and non-cats.

I = H + -H

All creatures equals human beings and non-human beings.

(x ε H) V ˜(x ε H)

There are creatures that are human beings, therefore it is true, there are creatures that are not human beings.

Antifeminism?

The Fraser River: July 12

Antifeminism

Lately on You Tube, I have noticed some 'men's movement' videos in the featured videos under 'Recommended'. I have watched a few of these videos. I have viewed over the years several sermons on dating and marriage, which I do use for material for my academic websites. I also have viewed, over the years secular and Christian psychological lectures on human nature. Perhaps this explains why these videos appear.

To be clear, any kind of the 'men's movement' or antifeminism is not embraced within my personal worldview.

Much of the philosophy, so far, is nearly identical to psychological material from secular perspectives on dating and marriage.

One gentlemen I  have listened to, makes some good and reasonable philosophical points that I can agree with based on how I have been treated by many women within western society and the Church. But, he is also so radically negative on women, with unbalanced evaluations, that I will not endorse this person or embed one of his videos. He supports MGTOW: Men going their own way.

This presenter reasons that he needs to share his views with the men of western society. He opines that within evolution, due to feminism, women now have been exposed as having an evil nature.

Of course, with my years of study on the problem of evil, theodicy, free will and determinism, this interests me.

The presenter is correct that women have an evil nature, as do men. A biblical worldview explains the universal fall of humanity (Genesis 1-3) and the corrupted and sinful nature of both male and female (Romans). A finite nature that is sinful by nature and choice, is not perfectly good. Therefore, strictly speaking, humanity is evil. A Reformed theological perspective of total depravity is that humanity is depraved and tainted in nature as a whole. This does not mean that people are maximally evil.

I do not reason that a reasonable solution to degrees of feminism and antifeminism is for both sides to villainize the other sex. As bad as many of the attitudes in western society today are, including  by some in the Christian Church, I do not agree with teaching that each sex should avoid dating and marriage, and only use the other side for sexual activity, which seems to be the implication of many of the radical antifeminism and feminism approaches. I am not stating all the views expressed are radical. As with many worldviews, concepts can range, including from very moderate, moderate to radical.

A biblical, New Testament response is that through divine enlightenment by the gospel message, for male and female to repent of sin within the battle of sexes and seek the guidance of God.

Note:

Blackburn provides a definition of feminism, where feminism is committed to correcting biases leading to the subordination of women. (137). In my view, this is not by definition, strictly equated with 'radical feminism', although radical feminism will take place as forms of feminism.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Quaternio terminorum: The fallacy of four

Near the Fraser River, yesterday

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

Quaternio terminorum

This is the fallacy of four terms. (171). The standard three line argument requires that one term be repeated in the first two lines, and not be within the conclusion. (171). This is in the context of syllogistic reasoning. (171).

Common example within philosophy:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Pirie reasons that 'we cannot deduce new relationships between terms by using a middle term common to both-there isn't one.'

Blackburn explains that a syllogism is the presentation of one proposition from two premises. (368). In other words, two premises (propositions) and then a conclusion.

Logically fallacious

'Description: This fallacy occurs in a categorical syllogism when the syllogism has four terms rather than the requisite three (in a sense, it cannot be a categorical syllogism to begin with!) If it takes on this form, it is invalid.'

However, not all valid and sound argumentation holds to syllogism

University of Kentucky

From the University of Kentucky:

'argument

An Argument is a group of statements including one or more premises and one and only one conclusion. The point of an argument is to give the receiver of the argument good reason to believe new information.'

Premises are not limited, in every case.

University of Windsor 2011

Cited

'G.C. GODDU Department of Philosophy University of Richmond'

'ABSTRACT: Is it possible for an argument to have either zero premises or an infinite number of premises? I shall argue that regardless of how you conceive of arguments you should accept that an argument could have an infinite number of premises. The zero case is more complicated since the matter seems to depend not only on the metaphysics of arguments, but also the nature and function of arguing. I shall argue that at least a plausible case can be made for the possibility of zero premise arguments.'

'How many premises can an argument have?'

'If what I have argued here is correct, then everyone should accept the possibility of infinite premise arguments. On the other hand, whether we should accept zero-premise arguments seems to depend upon the resolution of other highly controversial options in argumentation theory such as—does every argument need a corresponding act of arguing? Does defining argument require an appeal to function? Trying to resolve these issues is a project for another time. At the very least, however, I hope that I have sketched out a position according to which it is straightforwardly possible for there to be zero-premise arguments.'

End citations

I can embrace the idea of many premises and one conclusion. I would present any other conclusion, within another argument. I would prefer this to the rarely used argument with more than one conclusion.

In humility, this material is more within the disciplines of classical/ancient philosophy. I am still a student in regard to fallacies. I am educated at a PhD level in philosophical theology and philosophy of religion. Philosophy of Religion is within the discipline of philosophy, as are my specialties, theodicy, the problem of evil, free will and determinism, but I worked within Religion and Theology departments in the United Kingdom. These disciplines are also under the umbrella of philosophical theology and within that the nature of God can be added as an academic specialty of mine.

I am not a classical/ancient philosopher. I have consistently claimed to only be a philosopher of religion. This also explains why I am reviewing page by page the philosophical texts of Pirie and Langer. To gain more knowledge of classical/ancient philosophy which does overlap with theology and philosophy of religion.

Argumentation presented within my Canadian, Christian, academic career and my secular United Kingdom, MPhil and PhD theses degrees was not by definition, syllogistic. Syllogistic argumentation would be allowed as exception only.

While validity and soundness was required, three or more premises were often provided (and academically required) in arguments, in support of a conclusion, within written text. This is also the case on my websites. I have not attempted to write syllogistic arguments, although I do attempt to present logical and sound arguments.

Non-syllogistic, deductive arguments were used within my academic work and are presented on my websites. When providing four or more premises, I am not attempting a strict syllogistic presentation.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

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

Slight update for an entry on academia.edu on May 27, 2023

Zero class?

Majorca, Spain: Facebook. This is one of my favourites, colourized.

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).

Two classes are mutually exclusive if their product is a null-class, as in class A and class B, then A x B = 0. (142). Langer uses the example that there are no individuals that are both Lords and Commons; this class of persons is zero. (142). There are no carnivorous cows. (142). 'A' means carnivorous and 'B' means 'cows', then A x B = 0. (142).

Is this example, Langer changed from A + B to A x B. It appears she is writing that the amount of Lords x (times) the amount of Commons produces no one class of persons. A zero class.

A related entry: April 2017 null class

Theological examples:

There are no individuals that are both

A = Liberal theologians
B = Conservative theologians

For the sake of this argument, they are mutually exclusive. Of course there are theologians with varying positions, but this is a philosophical symbolic logic article and not a primarily theological entry.

Therefore:

A x B = 0

or

L x C = 0

L ⊨ ˜ C

Liberal theologians entail that they are not conservative theologians.

L ˜ ⊃ C

Liberal theologians are not the same as a conservative theologians.

∃! L + ∃! C ∴ R

There exists, liberal theologians plus conservative theologians, therefore, there are religious scholars.

Based on Langer's philosophical symbolic logic; liberal theologians and conservative theologians would be mutually exclusive in a similar way that would be Lords and Commons. They would be of null class, zero class.

However:

Both Lords and Commons would be British citizens. They are both is the class of United Kingdom citizens.

Both liberal theologians and conservative theologians would be in the class of religious scholars.

quickmeme.com