Timeline for Is formal logic unsuitable for philosophical reasoning?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 8:34 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| May 22, 2018 at 7:38 | vote | accept | scravy | ||
| Apr 8, 2016 at 13:52 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Apr 11, 2016 at 8:12 | |||||
| Dec 31, 2015 at 20:48 | history | edited | user2953 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 121 characters in body; edited title
|
| Oct 18, 2015 at 1:54 | answer | added | Bumble | timeline score: 3 | |
| Oct 16, 2015 at 17:39 | answer | added | henk korbee | timeline score: -1 | |
| Jul 21, 2014 at 23:16 | comment | added | Paul Ross | Can I ask about the "when" in the 4th quote? I'm not sure that "Dave is in England when Dave is in London" is a fair paraphrase of "If Dave is in London then Dave is in England". The "when" sounds counterfactual - in any situation in which Dave is in London, Dave is in England. But "if" sounds more like a declarative point - Dave might or might not be in London (right now, say); if he is, he's in England. | |
| Jul 21, 2014 at 16:15 | answer | added | Kevin Holmes | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jul 21, 2014 at 15:53 | comment | added | Kevin Holmes | How come no one has mentioned the paradoxes of implication? I would argue that, yes, formal logic shouldn't be used in philosophical reasoning because they still haven't found a system of formal logic that doesn't contain these paradoxes. | |
| Feb 26, 2012 at 18:05 | vote | accept | scravy | ||
| May 22, 2018 at 7:38 | |||||
| Dec 7, 2011 at 8:29 | answer | added | no12 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 5, 2011 at 5:23 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhilosophy/status/143561037185159168 | ||
| Dec 4, 2011 at 0:59 | comment | added | Sim | if he is saying "(if Dave is in London he is in England) AND (if Dave is in Paris he is in France") there is at least no rule which states that he must not be at both place at the same time, you might be right that he didn't state the opposite as I first thought. But my argument, that this doesn't picture anything realistic and therefore will never have a realistic result, might still be valid. | |
| Dec 4, 2011 at 0:57 | answer | added | Rex Kerr | timeline score: 18 | |
| Dec 4, 2011 at 0:27 | comment | added | user1177 | "considering [...] you implicate that Dave is able to be at two places at the same time" -- no, he does not. | |
| Dec 3, 2011 at 23:28 | history | edited | scravy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
visually separated edit and original question
|
| Dec 3, 2011 at 20:15 | comment | added | Sim | considering your and between ((if p then q) AND (if r then s)) you implicate that Dave is able to be at two places at the same time, therefore this doesn't represent anything realistic anyways. What would happen if you say ((if p then q) XOR (if r then s)) meaning, if Dave is in London then he is in england OR if he is in Paris then he is in France but he cannot be at both places, this would seem more realistic and therefore could rather be used as an argument. | |
| Dec 3, 2011 at 19:24 | answer | added | Michael Dorfman | timeline score: 5 | |
| Dec 3, 2011 at 14:23 | history | asked | scravy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |