| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Logic Forum » The king of france is ...
Page 5 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
|
| Author |
Message |
| Newberry |
 Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 22, 9:01 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
Quote: Newberry <newberr...@gmail.com> writes:
One of Russell's arguments is "By the law of the excluded middle,
either 'A is B' or 'A is not B' must be true. Hence either 'the
present King of France is bald' or 'the present King of France is not
bald' must be true. Yet if we enumerated the things that are bald and
the things that are not bald, we should not find the present King of
France on either list." [On Denoting]
The implied existence solved this puzzle making the proposition false.
But the same argument applies to plural. "By the law of the excluded
middle, either 'all As are B' or 'there is an A who not B' must be
true. Hence either 'all the Doges of France are bald' or 'there is a
Doge of France who is not bald' must be true. Yet if we enumerated the
things that are bald and the things that are not bald, we should not
find any Doge of France on either list."
You are begging the question. According to classical logic, it is not
necessary to find a Doge of France on the list of bald things in order
to conclude that all Doges are bald. This is different than Russell's
case: if *the* King is bald, then the King of France must appear on
the list of bald things.
How is it different?
Quote: Therefore existence must be implied in case of plural as well.
Nice try.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"A factor is simply something that multiplies against another factor
to produce a 'product'." -- James Harris offers a definition.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Chris Menzel |
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:53:13 -0700 (PDT), Newberry <newberryxy@gmail.com> said:
Quote: On Apr 21, 9:27 am, Chris Menzel <cmen...@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:44:58 -0700 (PDT), Newberry <newberr...@gmail.com> said:
On Apr 20, 6:25 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
...
Did Russell give a theory that claims every use of "the" has logical
implications? In fact, did he give a theory of "the" in general? If
not, I do not understand what would be problematic in the case you
mention.
He was not explicit. Apparently he thought he provided the theory of
"the."
He never made any such claim. Russell's theory of descriptions only
applies to sentences of the form "The F is G" involving *singular*
descriptions. He doesn't ever suggest that sentences involving plural
descriptions be analyzed along the same lines of those involving
singular descriptions. To the extent that he addressed plural
descriptions -- "the Fs" -- at all, he suggests that such terms indicate
"classes as many" and function something like plural quantifiers,
anticipating the work of Boolos and others.
One of Russell's arguments is "By the law of the excluded middle,
either 'A is B' or 'A is not B' must be true. Hence either 'the
present King of France is bald' or 'the present King of France is not
bald' must be true. Yet if we enumerated the things that are bald and
the things that are not bald, we should not find the present King of
France on either list." [On Denoting]
The implied existence solved this puzzle making the proposition false.
But the same argument applies to plural.
It may well do. I was simply pointing out that Russell himself did not
generalize the argument to plural descriptions and in fact suggests a
rather different analysis that treats them as something like plural
quantifiers. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jesse F. Hughes |
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Newberry <newberryxy@gmail.com> writes:
Quote: You are begging the question. According to classical logic, it is not
necessary to find a Doge of France on the list of bald things in order
to conclude that all Doges are bald. This is different than Russell's
case: if *the* King is bald, then the King of France must appear on
the list of bald things.
How is it different?
In the first case, you say something about all members of a class. In
the second case, you say something about a particular thing. The
first claim is false if there is a non-bald Doge. The second claim is
false if the particular thing identified (the King) is not bald.
Honestly, you *know* how it is different, so why do you constantly
pretend to be utterly unfamiliar with classical logic?
--
"You see, sometimes being delusional is the best way to get that good
idea. And if you're too afraid to test the limits of sanity, then you
can't be a highly creative person. That probably explains some of
you." -- James S. Harris explains himself, too |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Chris Menzel |
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:50:52 -0400, Jesse F. Hughes
<jesse@phiwumbda.org> said:
Quote: Chris Menzel <cmenzel@remove-this.tamu.edu> writes:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:53:13 -0700 (PDT), Newberry
newberryxy@gmail.com> said:
One of Russell's arguments is "By the law of the excluded middle,
either 'A is B' or 'A is not B' must be true. Hence either 'the
present King of France is bald' or 'the present King of France is
not bald' must be true. Yet if we enumerated the things that are
bald and the things that are not bald, we should not find the
present King of France on either list." [On Denoting]
The implied existence solved this puzzle making the proposition
false.
But the same argument applies to plural.
It may well do.
It may well do, but it don't.
Well, Newberry's version doesn't, but it seems to me he didn't
generalize the argument correctly.
"By the law of the excluded middle, either 'the doges of France are
bald' or 'the doges of France are not bald' must be true. Yet if we
enumerated the things that are bald and the things that are not bald, we
should not find the doges of France on either list."
Of course, this is just Newberry's version if "the doges of France are
bald" is taken to be equivalent to "all the doges of France are bald".
But it seems that one can plausibly argue similarly to Russell that
sentences of this form should be analyzed in terms of a plural
existential quantifier, e.g., "The As are B" means "There are some As
and every A is one of them and every A is a B". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jesse F. Hughes |
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Chris Menzel <cmenzel@remove-this.tamu.edu> writes:
Quote: On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:53:13 -0700 (PDT), Newberry <newberryxy@gmail.com> said:
One of Russell's arguments is "By the law of the excluded middle,
either 'A is B' or 'A is not B' must be true. Hence either 'the
present King of France is bald' or 'the present King of France is not
bald' must be true. Yet if we enumerated the things that are bald and
the things that are not bald, we should not find the present King of
France on either list." [On Denoting]
The implied existence solved this puzzle making the proposition false.
But the same argument applies to plural.
It may well do.
It may well do, but it don't.
--
"You gotta use two hands...to make one note. Does that make sense? Why
would you want to do that? Why would you want to use two hands to
make one note?" -- Jazz Accordionist Sam Franco explains the inferiority
of electric guitars on This American Life. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Newberry |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 4:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 23, 8:06 pm, Chris Menzel <cmen...@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:
Quote: On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:50:52 -0400, Jesse F. Hughes
je...@phiwumbda.org> said:
Chris Menzel <cmen...@remove-this.tamu.edu> writes:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:53:13 -0700 (PDT), Newberry
newberr...@gmail.com> said:
One of Russell's arguments is "By the law of the excluded middle,
either 'A is B' or 'A is not B' must be true. Hence either 'the
present King of France is bald' or 'the present King of France is
not bald' must be true. Yet if we enumerated the things that are
bald and the things that are not bald, we should not find the
present King of France on either list." [On Denoting]
The implied existence solved this puzzle making the proposition
false.
But the same argument applies to plural.
It may well do.
It may well do, but it don't.
Well, Newberry's version doesn't, but it seems to me he didn't
generalize the argument correctly.
"By the law of the excluded middle, either 'the doges of France are
bald' or 'the doges of France are not bald' must be true.
Where the heck did you get this quote from? I have just re-read my
post and this is not what I said. Anyway my point was that you cannot
apply the theory of descriptions only to the singular.
Quote: Yet if we
enumerated the things that are bald and the things that are not bald, we
should not find the doges of France on either list."
Of course, this is just Newberry's version if "the doges of France are
bald" is taken to be equivalent to "all the doges of France are bald".
But it seems that one can plausibly argue similarly to Russell that
sentences of this form should be analyzed in terms of a plural
existential quantifier, e.g., "The As are B" means "There are some As
and every A is one of them and every A is a B".- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Newberry |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 24, 7:42 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@xortec.fi>
wrote:
Quote: On 2008-04-24, in sci.logic, Newberry wrote:
Anyway my point was that you cannot apply the theory of descriptions
only to the singular.
Why not? Definite descriptions are singular, just like proper names.
One of Russell's arguments is "By the law of the excluded middle,
either 'A is B' or 'A is not B' must be true. Hence either 'the
present King of France is bald' or 'the present King of France is not
bald' must be true. Yet if we enumerated the things that are bald and
the things that are not bald, we should not find the present King of
France on either list." [On Denoting]
The implied existence solved this puzzle making the proposition
false.
But the same argument applies to plural. "By the law of the excluded
middle, either 'all As are B' or 'there is an A who not B' must be
true. Hence either 'all the Doges of France are bald' or 'there is a
Doge of France who is not bald' must be true. Yet if we enumerated
the
things that are bald and the things that are not bald, we should not
find any Doge of France on either list."
Therefore existence must be implied in case of plural as well. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Aatu Koskensilta |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2008-04-24, in sci.logic, Newberry wrote:
Quote: Anyway my point was that you cannot apply the theory of descriptions
only to the singular.
Why not? Definite descriptions are singular, just like proper names.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@xortec.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Chris Menzel |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:41:05 -0700 (PDT), Newberry
<newberryxy@gmail.com> said:
Quote: On Apr 23, 8:06 pm, Chris Menzel <cmen...@remove-this.tamu.edu
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:50:52 -0400, Jesse F. Hughes
je...@phiwumbda.org> said:
Chris Menzel <cmen...@remove-this.tamu.edu> writes:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:53:13 -0700 (PDT), Newberry
newberr...@gmail.com> said:
One of Russell's arguments is "By the law of the excluded middle,
either 'A is B' or 'A is not B' must be true. Hence either 'the
present King of France is bald' or 'the present King of France is
not bald' must be true. Yet if we enumerated the things that are
bald and the things that are not bald, we should not find the
present King of France on either list." [On Denoting]
The implied existence solved this puzzle making the proposition
false.
But the same argument applies to plural.
It may well do.
It may well do, but it don't.
Well, Newberry's version doesn't, but it seems to me he didn't
generalize the argument correctly.
"By the law of the excluded middle, either 'the doges of France are
bald' or 'the doges of France are not bald' must be true.
Where the heck did you get this quote from?
Well, sorry if the quotes threw you, but it follows my claim that you
didn't generalize Russell's argument correctly for plural descriptions
-- the quoted paragraph was my attempt to do so. I could have been
clearer about that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 5 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Sep 07, 2008 3:23 am
|
|