Positron wrote:

Mick wrote:Who does this?

Some here might remember a debate on the old Richard Dawkins forum between Christopher G Weaver (maybe under another name) and - I seem to recall - hackenslash.

Weaver's posts are a prime example of this. I will have a look and see if I can find it.

It's here. But his blog contains the best collection of cargo-cult logic.

Even if individuals have the powers they do essentially, and circumstances lead to the actualization of some typifying manifestation peculiar to some dispositions possessed by an individual (where the manifestation involves one individual causally producing some event or state of affairs), it is perfectly possible for the manifestation itself to be swamped by a slight change in circumstances, or by the manifestation of other reciprocal disposition partners brought to bear by other physically present objects in the relevant circumstance. Given such a possibility, it is not the case that causes give rise to their effects irrespective of physical changes, and so premise (N2) is false, and we infer (N3) by modus tollens

You don't need to know logic to realise that this guy's MO is obfuscation. This is such a poorly crafted paragraph it should be held up for future generations as how not to write. Lesson one: favour against abstract nouns. In other words, if you find yourself starting a sentence with "the manifestation of other reciprocal disposition partners", then you've fucked up.

I cottoned on to the fact that Weaver was incompetent when he first posted on CARM. He gave a simple semi-formalised propositional argument, and then ended the post saying "the above conclusion follows from the standard rules of the propositional calculus which Godel showed complete." Whenever he's in the CARM chatroom, I make sure to save his best quotes. He has yet to beat this one, which he gave in a debate about homosexuality:

Some human person X performs a conglomeration of actions Y1 through Yn, which can be correctly described as "gay sex" when X is paired with at least one human person Z of the same gender and at least X intentionally and consenually, Z also consenting, either A) uses his penis to penetrate the rectum of Z, in this case another male, sometimes repeatedly, until X experiences sexual climax and ejaculation;....

By the way, this guy teaches formal logic. Like I say, philosophy students are being trained in ineptitude.

I mention them because you also seemed to attack the project of philosophical logic or perhaps the formalism of philosophy itself. You asked why philosophers do this, I answered and noted that the problems therein are dealt with in the philosophy of logic. You went in to characterize these problems as not those to deal with in the philo rooms. My point was that the forerunners of this sort of stuff were mathematicians and logicans themselves.

That weaver fellow is unlike anyone ive ever seen. I wouldnt speak so generally about philo students, vaz. In the beginning formal logic is emphasized (hello, analytic philosophy) but later as the student matures in his learning, he sees its limitations. I tell my students that it is a useful tool but it is just a tool with limitations and problems. Its sort of like being first introduced to fallacies. Oftrn times people run around yelling 'fallacy !' and latin they cant pronounce, but it fades with growth.

http://www.rowan.edu/colleges/las/depar ... /index.cfm

That weaver fellow really does teach. Hm, well at least his writing improved.

Mick wrote:I mention them because you also seemed to attack the project of philosophical logic or perhaps the formalism of philosophy itself.

I do attack (well, take the piss out of) philosophical logic.

You asked why philosophers do this, I answered and noted that the problems therein are dealt with in the philosophy of logic. You went in to characterize these problems as not those to deal with in the philo rooms. My point was that the forerunners of this sort of stuff were mathematicians and logicans themselves.

And modern logicians are still basically mathematicians. But now I'm talking about the folk who publish in "The Journal of Symbolic Logic" and not "The Journal of Philosophical Logic"

That weaver fellow is unlike anyone ive ever seen. I wouldnt speak so generally about philo students, vaz.

He's a PhD student at Rutgers, has a publication in Synthese, and the blog link I supplied has comments by Pruss (who incidentally, has the same problem).

In the beginning formal logic is emphasized (hello, analytic philosophy) but later as the student matures in his learning, he sees its limitations. I tell my students that it is a useful tool but it is just a tool with limitations and problems. Its sort of like being first introduced to fallacies. Oftrn times people run around yelling 'fallacy !' and latin they cant pronounce, but it fades with growth.

I'd hope so.

Okay, I admit I haven't done an exhaustive survey, and I've no idea how the results would turn out if I did. I've read plenty of philosophers in the Philosophy of Mind, and none of them do the sorts of thing I'm complaining about. I'd probably restrict the survey to metaphysicians, but even that might be too broad to get the correlations. Perhaps I'd have to narrow down to the intersection between metaphysics and the philosophy of religion.

My post above was clearly intended to be humorous (not silly). My only real exhibits here are Maydole and Weaver and a bunch of anonymous posters on an internet forum. But I'll throw in Pruss, Plantinga and William Lane Craig . If we want to get pedantic, these are the people I'm complaining about, and I doubt their problems are clarified by anything in philosophical logic, since they often publish in those journals.

Your complaints about Pruss raise an eyebrow since he is a mathematican. He has a phd in some sort of math, I believe. though I want to keep pushing the point that your objection to formalism and philosophical logic would apply to the mathematicians who began the project themselves. Unless you want to say that these guys dont know what theyre talking about, a claim id bawk at, I think you should lighten up on the criticism.

Let me ask:do you think formalism is sometimes useful in philosophy?

Mick wrote:Your complaints about Pruss raise an eyebrow since he is a mathematican. He has a phd in some sort of math, I believe. though I want to keep pushing the point that your objection to formalism and philosophical logic would apply to the mathematicians who began the project themselves. Unless you want to say that these guys dont know what theyre talking about, a claim id bawk at, I think you should lighten up on the criticism.

Let me ask:do you think formalism is sometimes useful in philosophy?

It's very useful for finding the form of an argument. But not for any kind of certain proof. This has to do with wrangling concepts into the variables. Most simple logic books start out with an example of some verbal nonsense to show validity of a logical argument that has nothing to do with the validity of the argument in reality.

Mick wrote:Your complaints about Pruss raise an eyebrow since he is a mathematican.

I'm aware of that. Most of his publications are from twenty years ago. I dunno.

He has a phd in some sort of math, I believe. though I want to keep pushing the point that your objection to formalism and philosophical logic would apply to the mathematicians who began the project themselves.

Why on Earth should it? You realise I'm not complaining about any and all logic? I'm complaining about the way logic is being used by people like Maydole. What Frege and Russell were up to has nothing to do with that. In fact, I consider my own field to be the natural successor to the projects started by Frege and Russell.

Unless you want to say that these guys dont know what theyre talking about, a claim id bawk at, I think you should lighten up on the criticism.

Let me ask:do you think formalism is sometimes useful in philosophy?

I've yet to see an example.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Mick wrote:Your complaints about Pruss raise an eyebrow since he is a mathematican. He has a phd in some sort of math, I believe. though I want to keep pushing the point that your objection to formalism and philosophical logic would apply to the mathematicians who began the project themselves. Unless you want to say that these guys dont know what theyre talking about, a claim id bawk at, I think you should lighten up on the criticism.

Let me ask:do you think formalism is sometimes useful in philosophy?

It's very useful for finding the form of an argument. But not for any kind of certain proof. This has to do with wrangling concepts into the variables. Most simple logic books start out with an example of some verbal nonsense to show validity of a logical argument that has nothing to do with the validity of the argument in reality.

I dunno what validity in reality means.

VazScep wrote:

Mick wrote:Your complaints about Pruss raise an eyebrow since he is a mathematican.

I'm aware of that. Most of his publications are from twenty years ago. I dunno.

He has a phd in some sort of math, I believe. though I want to keep pushing the point that your objection to formalism and philosophical logic would apply to the mathematicians who began the project themselves.

Why on Earth should it? You realise I'm not complaining about any and all logic? I'm complaining about the way logic is being used by people like Maydole. What Frege and Russell were up to has nothing to do with that. In fact, I consider my own field to be the natural successor to the projects started by Frege and Russell.

Unless you want to say that these guys dont know what theyre talking about, a claim id bawk at, I think you should lighten up on the criticism.

Let me ask:do you think formalism is sometimes useful in philosophy?

I've yet to see an example.

If you havent seen an example, and you have read frege and the sort, then I cant see how your general criticism wouldnt also apply to them. The formalization of philosophical argument is their baby, after all.


Im curious about your criticism of maydoles argument. Why is it trivial?? Would ur criticism also apply to all deductive argument?

Mick wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Mick wrote:Your complaints about Pruss raise an eyebrow since he is a mathematican. He has a phd in some sort of math, I believe. though I want to keep pushing the point that your objection to formalism and philosophical logic would apply to the mathematicians who began the project themselves. Unless you want to say that these guys dont know what theyre talking about, a claim id bawk at, I think you should lighten up on the criticism.

Let me ask:do you think formalism is sometimes useful in philosophy?

It's very useful for finding the form of an argument. But not for any kind of certain proof. This has to do with wrangling concepts into the variables. Most simple logic books start out with an example of some verbal nonsense to show validity of a logical argument that has nothing to do with the validity of the argument in reality.

I dunno what validity in reality means.

My door is 7 feet high. I am 5'9". I fit through my door without ducking.

Not so complicated.

Pruss seemed to be pretty critical, imo.

Mick wrote:If you havent seen an example, and you have read frege and the sort, then I cant see how your general criticism wouldnt also apply to them. The formalization of philosophical argument is their baby, after all.

No. The formalisation of mathematical argument is their baby. But the projects were so labour intensive (Russell said he never really recovered from the effort) that we gave up until computers came on the scene. I consider my field to be the successor to Frege and Russell's research programmes. I don't do anything like what Maydole does.

VazScep wrote:

Mick wrote:If you havent seen an example, and you have read frege and the sort, then I cant see how your general criticism wouldnt also apply to them. The formalization of philosophical argument is their baby, after all.

No. The formalisation of mathematical argument is their baby. But the projects were so labour intensive (Russell said he never really recovered from the effort) that we gave up until computers came on the scene. I consider my field to be the successor to Frege and Russell's research programmes. I don't do anything like what Maydole does.

Huh? The preface of Begriffsschrift states that its indeed for philosophers to help break the hold of words over their mind. Frege gave us many of the tools to do this, intentionally.

Mick wrote:Huh? The preface of Begriffsschrift states that its indeed for philosophers to help break the hold of words over their mind.

And my master's thesis begins with a load of philosophical waffle about Euclid.

Frege gave us many of the tools to do this, intentionally.

What tools? My whole complaint here is that people like Maydole think they have tools, when at best they have what Cito calls finger-paint. I don't think Frege gave the world finger-paints. But then I'm trying to argue that in my circle, Frege's contribution was to mathematical logic.

VazScep wrote:He's a PhD student at Rutgers, has a publication in Synthese,

and a professor of some sort at Rutgers.

Positron wrote:

VazScep wrote:He's a PhD student at Rutgers, has a publication in Synthese,

and a professor of some sort at Rutgers.

Does that just mean he teaches? I understand that, in the States, "Professor" is a pretty generic title.