Search Results

You are equalizing thinking and getting knowledge which is not correct. The all-knowing (omniscient) being is able to think because: Aside from thinking to get knowledge, one might think just to cre …

1) whoever does X, except for the reason of Y, commits Z 2) whoever does X, for the reason of Y, does not commit Z Let's formalize it (if X is not done, no reason to investigate Y): 1) X ∧ …

"Someone" means existential quantifier. In case of (a) you can see that someone is under negation and the first formula is "∃x: x is smoking" where second is "¬(∃y: y is smoking)". In (b) second formu …

Formally speaking, he is not even wrong. There is a six-sided dice where each side represent a number from 1 to 6. The statement is: "The outcome can be 1 or 2." If he is wrong then outcomes 1 and 2 …

At first let's look at what cases first formula is true. Since conjunction requires both operands to be true, we know (through simplification): (∀x)(Fx) This means Fx ⇔ 1 Now, since Fx is …

Let us use the original argument: Premise 1: If X is good, then the question "Is it true that X is good?" is meaningless. Premise 2: The question "Is it true that X is good?" is not meaningless. Con …

Indeed, there are ways of thought which are not consistent with logic. I am not talking about such fallacies here. … For example, appeal to science, appeal to logic, appeal to rationality, etc. …

It seems I came to the solution: But what is the epistemological reason for our mind? What is it's purpose in this context? The reason is clear: to acknowledge something that is unknown, to understan …

The logic seems to be that if you drive fast, there is a (considerably) higher probability that you will end up in an accident, which could hurt others, hence you need to be punished. … So, the logic is following: There is an undesirable event E. E is under our control. All actions leading to E are made consciously. All actions leading to E are prohibited. …

From 2 we have ~K. (~K & ~B) > ~K Putting it to 3 we have A. ((~A > K) & K) > A Now let's assume A > B. From 2 we have ~B. Therefore, if A > B then ~A. ((A > B) & ~B) > ~A For simpl …

While this clearly includes ad hominem on fictional (or at least subjective) grounds, I'm asking about the first part of it, which presupposes that I'm too young or lacking logic only because I disagree …

According to wikipedia faulty generalization belongs to the class of informal fallacies. Also, a fallacy is called informal if it originates in a reasoning error other than a flaw in the logical f …

Why does Hume believe that ought brings a new relation? If means-end reasoning, where we can say that one is ought to do X in order to get Y, does not bring a new relation, then in order to tell that …

Deductive reasoning is the one that takes premises for granted. I never do it. Therefore I never do deductive reasoning. Well, enough jokes. It is safe to assume that deductive reasoning never should …

Suppose the following syllogism: It is impossible for anyone to get X without him/her doing Y. It is possible to get X (by doing Y). I want to get X. Therefore I ought to do Y. There is, very like …