It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Logic lesson 1

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: Semicollegiate



"All human beings are blue" would be false. Suggesting that a typical human being is blue would also be false.


Saying "Human beings are blue" is suggesting that the typical human being is (or maybe all are) blue. Either way it's false.

For the same reason, saying, "Muslims are terrorists" is also a false statement.


"Muslims are terrorists" is true compared to "Hamish are not terrorists".

"Marines are killers" is true compared to "Conscientious Objectors are not killers".

Muslims are terrorists is not a particularly useful statement. It is similar to "Human beings are terrorists".




posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost




Are you certain of that? At which point can we be absolutely certain that we have accumulated all the knowledge in a specific domain?

Does your interpretation of the word "penny" align with the interpretation of every other person's interpretation?

"Penny", besides referring to a coin, can also be used in idiomatic expressions.


What I meant was all knowledge about a certain proposition, for instance, what change someone has in their pocket. I'm not saying I know the atomic structure of the gases, what microorganisms are present, when that pocket was made, by whom, or even what thread color was used in the pocket—all knowledge regarding my pocket—for those are completely different propositions. Take a bowl of fruit. If all the fruit in the bowl are apples, then we can confirm whether "all the fruit in that bowl are apples" is true by confining our inquiry to that specific "domain of discourse"—that bowl and the fruit within it.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ThetanTo be able to properly utilize that "all" qualifier it is implicit that you have 'all' knowledge; that there are no instances that contradict what you are stating. Since it is most likely that you do not have 'all' knowledge, you cannot (in most cases) use the "all" qualifier.


The All quantifier is not used in all cases. Only in Some cases. This is what makes it useful; All primes greater than 2 are odd numbers. It is the very limitations of these quantifiers that make them useful; All Pythagorean triples correspond to right angled triangles but not vice versa.
edit on 1-12-2015 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   
originally posted by: MoshiachIusDei


MoshiachlusDei: Why not be ultra clear and use mathematics: percentage of population, population and surveyed population, standard deviation and statistical significance. Logic and language should not be allowed to mix.

As in Marry Each Other and produce something resembling a complete CONSISE thought pattern (or NOT) more a hybrid attempting to express itself/badly.
edit on 1-12-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Thetan

Sum the All of the None and then take some, all, or non of the remainder. What remains is not comprehensible to the ego but to not comprehend it is incomprehensible as well.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: cryptic0void
That doesn't make sense.


edit on 1-12-2015 by Thetan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Thetan

As Einstein said, it's all relative.
edit on 1-12-2015 by cryptic0void because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thetan
Lord, some of these comments reflect the exact reason i'm giving lessons in logic.

Although it shouldn't matter as long as the lesson is accurate, perhaps it would appease some people reading my lesson to know that i'm attending university right now as a philosophy major and am being formally trained in logic.


First philosophy course? I took Logic 101, too (oddly enough, it counted towards my math requirement). Considering what you said regarding assuming that something unqualified means "all," please explain the meaning of:

I had eggs for breakfast.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: scorpio84

originally posted by: Thetan
Lord, some of these comments reflect the exact reason i'm giving lessons in logic.

Although it shouldn't matter as long as the lesson is accurate, perhaps it would appease some people reading my lesson to know that i'm attending university right now as a philosophy major and am being formally trained in logic.


First philosophy course? I took Logic 101, too (oddly enough, it counted towards my math requirement). Considering what you said regarding assuming that something unqualified means "all," please explain the meaning of:
I had eggs for breakfast.

That question cannot be answered not at all "qualified" as anything having an attachment to a direct meaning; (grave as a breakfast of eggs can be without toast/butter/jelly). Unqualified does not mean ALL; just that not modified or limited/restricted without reservations. Absolute, complete; wait a second here...

edit on 3-12-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join