New answers tagged

0

As exposed by Wolf Larson, there are some problems in the claim. The first point is that it is "self refuting" when you observe that the claim "there are no objective truths" is a objective truth for the relativist. Even if he insists and say that your reasoning to explain that the premise is not relative, is itself a absolute, we begin a infinite regress, ...


1

Well it depends a lot on what kind of philosophy you're doing. The most important split in this case is that between Analytic Philosophy and Continental Philosophy. Analytics generally are much more concerned with standards of proof, rigorous argumentation, logic, and the like. Think Bertrand Russell. For this type of philosophy, you generally actually do ...


0

Mathematical logic has axioms and/or assumptions as the foundation. I am not clear what you mean by SOUND ARGUMENT. If you as a math person require sense verifiable objects and awareness of truth value, you have made a nonsensical statement. Sense verification is needed for Mathematical truth but you want SOUND ARGUMENTS? An issue is existential import ...


3

If the position taken by the relativist is that there are no objective truths, then the relativist must first claim an exception: P1. There are no objective truths (except this one). By dint of special pleading, it has a way of limiting the legitimacy of the claimant.


1

Nothing is better than eternal happiness. A ham sandwich is better than nothing. ∴ A ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness. This is an example of the Four Terms fallacy of syllogistic logic, in which a single word — 'nothing' in this case — is used in two different senses to produce an erroneous result. You've made this error above. 'Matter' in the ...


0

It wouldn't be philosophy if it uses math. It would be math (or applied math). What is Philosophy? Go to any philosophy website (like this one, or SEP), or read philosophy text books or notes -there is one thing which is strikingly common. The usage of natural language. There are things which aren't developed enough, or not clear enough to allow us to ...


1

The mathematical community has proofs Please note that some of the best practitioners of mathematics disparage proofs. Lefzchetz, for example, told his students not to just present pretty new proofs (they probably already knew that they ought not to present ugly ones!). He wanted new substantiatial new ideas. Poincare was similarly disparaging in his book ...


4

Cookies are not matter. Cookies are made up of matter. They are a structured form of matter. The logic you provided does not prohibit the existence of matter that existed before the epoch where these three statements hold true. The initial creation of all matter at the beginning of the universe is a complex thing. It is not clear whether "Matter cannot ...


4

What is stopping the philosophical community from holding themselves to the same standard? The impression that the philosophers' "standards" are not sufficiently high, I think, is due to (1) the apparent lack of progress in solving philosophical puzzles in conjunction with (2) the deceiving simplicity of these puzzles. In fact, nothing stops the ...


1

Traditionally, mathematics was far less formalized than now, and even when rigor was shockingly lacking (like in the beginning of calculus) and mathematicians didn’t yet possess crisp concepts it still produced insanely much more consensus and progress to virtually undeniable truths than philosophy. I guess it has something to do with the fact that ...


1

I'm reminded by an inaugural lecture by a Professor of Physics (A. B. Pippard) who posed the question "what is physics", and ended up defining it as "that subset of science which is completely understood", pointing out that when parts of chemistry or astronomy become sufficiently well understood, they get reclassified as physics. Arguably the subset of ...


0

As well as concurring with @Carduus's answer, let's just look at this one statement: The same general principles that apply to thinking about the abstract objective universe should also apply to the concrete objective universe. "concrete objective universe": The sheer existence of this is itself a question not just for philosophy, but physics as well ...


5

Often, when a useful higher standard for arguments is discovered, a brand new field of study is created based on that higher standard, or maybe a subfield/subtopic of an existing field of study. For example, the study of physical sciences replaced the study of natural philosophy, and the study of the infinite is a mathematical topic. Since the arguments ...


1

The mistake here, I think, is that the question assumes that philosophy is simply another field of research on par with mathematics, physics, or whatnot. But philosophy is actually the superset: the basic mode of reasoning and logic that other fields implement to create their more exacting and specific rule-sets. In this sense, mathematics is the philosophy ...


9

Because it would then cease to be philosophy. Philosophy sees itself as the progenitor of all the sciences, as its questions lead to the paradigm shifts upon which branches of science are founded. To limit itself to a predetermined set of rules would be to strip itself of the flexibility needed to come up with the next new thing. In other words, it is ...


4

Another thing I would add is that proofs are built on strong axioms, but also on precise definitions. It's hard to find a precise and universally accepted definition for any complex concept in philosophy. What is life? Soul? What is a cause, an action? What is truth? Those are a much harder to define than a point, a circle or a function (not that they're ...


13

Philosophical theories are more like scientific theories than mathematical theories, in that they have empirical content. As such, there aren't any (universally agreed upon) "first principles" that must be respected. Any potential first principles might get discarded if the reasons for doing so are compelling enough. And even if there are some such ...


9

A proof is only as strong as the axioms it is built upon. Mathematics works over a very limited number of strong axioms to work with, which gives it a limited number* of things that can be proven, but the proofs are very strong thanks to the axioms they work with (and prior proofs relying on the same axioms). Philosophy works with much broader field of ...


18

If I'm understanding your question correctly, then you're basically asking "why doesn't philosophy have the same level of rigor as mathematical proof?" I think there's two parts involved in answering this. First, one aspect of philosophy for many philosophers (arguably all) is that philosophy is actually a form of history, meaning we are studying ideas ...


43

Do you have a proof that we don't hold ourselves to higher standards? There's actually a rather interesting little corner of mathematics called "proof theory." It deals with the question of what a proof is and how can we use them. It starts to look like philosophy from time to time. I think the real difference is that mathematics typically starts with a ...


1

Here is the original argument: Today is either Tuesday or Wednesday. But it can't be Wednesday, since the doctor's office was open this morning, and that office is always closed on Wednesday. Therefore, today must be Tuesday. The proposed revision follows: Today is either Tuesday or Wednesday, but it can't be Wednesday. Since, the doctor's office was ...


0

Such an defense, asserting that the proponent has lied before, is a form of ad hominem argument: the truth or falsehood of an assertion is said to rest on who the advocate is or on things they have done in the past, and not on the content of the assertion itself. See Logically fallacious > Ad hominem (abusive). Here, the denial of climate change might prove ...


1

Here is the argument: President Trump says climate change is false. President Trump has lied before; therefore, climate change is true. Irving Copi divides informal fallacies into those of relevance and those of ambiguity. We may start by deciding which one of these two this argument falls under. A fallacy of ambiguity is one "whose formulations contain ...


Top 50 recent answers are included