Module: Basic logic The term "logic" is often used in many different ways. It is sometimes understood broadly as the systematic study of the principles of good reasoning. As such logic is not very different from critical thinking. But sometimes "logic" is understood more narrowly as what we might call "deductive logic". Roughly speaking, deductive logic is mainly about the consistency of statements and beliefs, as well as the validity of arguments. These are the topics we shall investigate in the following modules. Tutorials in this module Modules on formal logic Formal logic is the study of logic using special symbols and clearly-defined rules of reasoning. Other logic modules Further reading See this page from Joe Lau for a list of textbooks on formal logic.Entries on logic in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - These are articles that discuss some of the main issues in the philosophy of logic.
Ethics The three major areas of study within ethics are:[1] Meta-ethics, concerning the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions, and how their truth values (if any) can be determinedNormative ethics, concerning the practical means of determining a moral course of actionApplied ethics, concerning what a person is obligated (or permitted) to do in a specific situation or a particular domain of action[1] Defining ethics[edit] The word "ethics" in English refers to several things.[6] It can refer to philosophical ethics—a project that attempts to use reason in order to answer various kinds of ethical questions. [edit] Main article: Meta-ethics Meta-ethics asks how we understand, know about, and what we mean when we talk about what is right and what is wrong.[8] An ethical question fixed on some particular practical question—such as, "Should I eat this particular piece of chocolate cake?" Meta-ethics has always accompanied philosophical ethics. Normative ethics[edit] Virtue ethics[edit]
Mathematics Field of study Mathematics (from Greek: μάθημα, máthēma, 'knowledge, study, learning') includes the study of such topics as quantity (number theory),[1] structure (algebra),[2] space (geometry),[1] and change (analysis).[3][4][5] It has no generally accepted definition.[6][7] Rigorous arguments first appeared in Greek mathematics, most notably in Euclid's Elements.[10] Since the pioneering work of Giuseppe Peano (1858–1932), David Hilbert (1862–1943), and others on axiomatic systems in the late 19th century, it has become customary to view mathematical research as establishing truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions. Mathematics developed at a relatively slow pace until the Renaissance, when mathematical innovations interacting with new scientific discoveries led to a rapid increase in the rate of mathematical discovery that has continued to the present day. History The Babylonian mathematical tablet Plimpton 322, dated to 1800 BC. Etymology ). from . .
Not even wrong Not even wrong refers to any statement, argument or explanation that can be neither correct nor incorrect, because it fails to meet the criteria by which correctness and incorrectness are determined. As a more formal fallacy, it refers to the fine art of generating an ostensibly "correct" conclusion, but from premises known to be wrong or inapplicable. The phrase implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don't even understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate. [edit] Origin The phrase apparently originates with physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who used the phrase (in the form "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!" — "That is not only not right, it is not even wrong!") [edit] Form If you look up "not even wrong" in the dictionary, or at least RationalWiki, you will find Deepak Chopra's face. A correct argument or explanation is easy to spot; it may look like this:
Metaphysics Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it,[1] although the term is not easily defined.[2] Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:[3] Ultimately, what is there?What is it like? Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. Originally, the term "science" (Latin scientia) simply meant "knowledge". Etymology[edit] However, once the name was given, the commentators sought to find intrinsic reasons for its appropriateness. There is a widespread use of the term in current popular literature which replicates this understanding, i.e. that the metaphysical equates to the non-physical: thus, "metaphysical healing" means healing by means of remedies that are not physical.[8] Central questions[edit] Cosmology and cosmogony[edit] Determinism and free will[edit] [edit]
Philosophy of logic Study of the scope and nature of logic Different types of logic are often distinguished. Logic is usually understood as formal logic and is treated as such for most of this article. Formal logic is only interested in the form of arguments, expressed in a formal language, and focuses on deductive inferences. Informal logic, on the other hand, addresses a much wider range of arguments found also in natural language, which include non-deductive arguments. The philosophy of logic also investigates the nature and philosophical implications of the fundamental concepts of logic. The metaphysics of logic is concerned with the metaphysical status of the laws and objects of logic. Definition and related disciplines[edit] Nature of logic[edit] The term "logic" is based on the Greek word "logos", which is associated with various different senses, such as reason, discourse, or language. General characteristics[edit] There is wide agreement that logic is a normative discipline. Types of logics[edit]
Critical Thinking: What is the Fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance? Part of critical thinking is learning to recognize-and avoid falling prey to-common logical fallacies. One of these fallacies is called appeal to ignorance . And no, appeal to ignorance isn't an accusation that a person putting forth a certain argument is "ignorant." It's not just a bit of name calling. An appeal to ignorance is an argument form whereby the only grounds offered for accepting a certain claim are that there are insufficient reasons to disbelieve it. Let's look at some examples to make this clearer: * Premise: Delaney doesn't have an alibi that proves he wasn't at the scene of the crime. * Conclusion: Delaney was at the scene of the crime. * Premise: There have been no sightings or other evidence to indicate there is a planet between Earth and Mars. * Conclusion: There is no planet between Earth and Mars. * Premise: No one has ever proven that reincarnation is false. * Conclusion: Reincarnation is true. Not all appeals to ignorance are fallacious, or equally fallacious.
Existence Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general, as well as of the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist (for instance: "Does UDFj-39546284 exist?"), and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences. A lively debate continues about the existence of God. Epistemology studies criteria of truth, defining "primary truths" inherently accepted in the investigation of knowledge. Materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter, that all things are composed of material, and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. Etymology[edit] Historical conceptions[edit] Early modern philosophy[edit] Predicative nature[edit] Semantics[edit] Modern approaches[edit]
Philosophy Study of general and fundamental questions Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom')[1][2] is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language.[3][4][5] Such questions are often posed as problems[6][7] to be studied or resolved. Some sources claim the term was coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 – c. 495 BCE),[8][9] although this theory is disputed by some.[10][11][12] Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.[13][14][i] Historically, philosophy encompassed all bodies of knowledge and a practitioner was known as a philosopher.[15] From the time of Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle to the 19th century, "natural philosophy" encompassed astronomy, medicine, and physics. For example, Newton's 1687 Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy later became classified as a book of physics. Definitions Western philosophy
Argument from ignorance Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, truefalseunknown between true or falsebeing unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Overview[edit] Basic argument[edit] Such arguments attempt to exploit the facts that (a) true things can never be disproven and (b) false things can never be proven. Null result[edit]
Becoming (philosophy) In philosophy, the concept of becoming was born in eastern ancient Greece by the philosopher Heraclitus of Hephesus, who in the Sixth century BC, said that nothing in this world is constant except change and becoming. His theory stands in direct contrast to Parmenides, another Greek philosopher, but from the italic Magna Grecia, who believed that the ontic changes or "becoming" we perceive with our senses is deceptive, and that there is a pure perfect and eternal being behind nature, which is the ultimate truth. In philosophy, the word "becoming" concerns a specific ontological concept, which should not be confused with the process philosophy, the latter indicating a metaphysical doctrine of theology. Heraclitus (c. 535 - c. 475 BC) spoke extensively about becoming. Clemens Alexandrinus (Stromata, v, 105). Online The materialistic becoming The becoming of stars Becoming in modern physics's +Assessment&hl=it&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholart Physical becoming Post-classical Physical Ontology A.