Some Moral Dilemmas The Trolley Problem, not in Grassian. Suggested by Philippa Foot (1920-2010), daughter of Esther, the daughter of President Grover Cleveland, but of British birth because of her father, William Sidney Bence Bosanquet. A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. This is a classic "right vs. good" dilemma. The Costly Underwater Tunnel Compare: 112 men were killed during the construction of Hoover Dam on the Nevada-Arizona border (the "official" number was 98, but others had died from causes more difficult to identify -- or easier to ignore -- like by carbon monoxide poisoning): The first to die was a surveyor, J.G.
Logical Fallacies More logic: talks and handouts This page lists various notes, handouts, papers, and so on from the last few years. Many of these pieces are also linked to from other pages here or from old blog postings. They are of very varying levels of sophistication, difficulty and interest: but I haven’t tried to impose any more order on the list other than a rough (reverse) chronological order. Tennenbaum’s Theorem (a rewritten version of a reasonably accessible proof, with the old short discussion of its sometimes supposed conceptual significance which fed into the joint paper with Tim Button). 2013, revised 2014Critical Notice of Volker Halbach Axiomatic Theories of Truth and Leon Horsten The Tarskian Turn in Analysis 2013Review of Baaz et al. Kurt Gödel and the Foundations of Mathematics: Horizons of Truth in Philosophia Mathematica 2012.Review of Penelope Maddy Defending the Axioms (with Luca Incurvati) in Mind 2012Is ‘no’ a force-indicator?
Morality as Secular Mark S. Halfon, (2004, Nassau Community College) That there is a difference between religion and morality is uncontroversial. How, then, can atheism be interpreted as a moral alternative? Although religion and morality reflect different values, they are deeply intertwined for most individuals. The principal problem with a divinely-based moral system is most obvious with respect to religious fundamentalism. When religious certitude is at the core of one’s world view, it is difficult to consider the possibility that one’s judgments are fallible. Religious fundamentalism builds walls between people given the perception that God will reward only a select group. Atheists, instead, could base their moral ideals in humanism, that is, a philosophy that stresses the inherent value of all human beings. Additionally, atheists are more likely to act from pure motives. Nonetheless, religion can and does play a meaningful role in many lives.
Fallacy A fallacy is the use of poor, or invalid, reasoning for the construction of an argument.[1][2] A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is. Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance. Fallacies are commonly divided into "formal" and "informal". A formal fallacy can be expressed neatly in a standard system of logic, such as propositional logic,[1] while an informal fallacy originates in an error in reasoning other than an improper logical form.[3] Arguments containing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious.[4] Formal fallacy[edit] Main article: Formal fallacy A formal fallacy is a common error of thinking that can neatly be expressed in standard system of logic.[1] An argument that is formally fallacious is rendered invalid due to a flaw in its logical structure. Common examples[edit] Aristotle's Fallacies[edit]
38 Ways To Win An Argument—Arthur Schopenhauer - The India Uncut Blog - India Uncut For all of you who have ever been involved in an online debate in any way, Arthur Schopenhauer’s “38 Ways To Win An Argument” is indispensable. Most of these techniques will seem familiar to you, right from questioning the motive of a person making the argument instead of the argument itself (No. 35), exaggerating the propositions stated by the other person (No. 1) , misrepresenting the other person’s words (No. 2) and attacking a straw man instead (No. 3). It’s a full handbook of intellectual dishonesty there. Indeed, I generally avoid online debates because they inevitably degenerate to No. 38. The full text is below the fold. 38 Ways To Win An Argumentby Arthur Schopenhauer 1 Carry your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it. Phew.
Contradictions in the Bible poster | Contradictions in the Bible Contradictions in the Bible poster By . 2009. Photos. Visualization of the contradictions in the Bible taken from The Scripture Project by Steve Wells (see the Projects section of The bars that run along the bottom of the visualization represent the 1189 chapters in The Bible, with the length of each bar corresponding to the number of verses in each chapter. White bars represent the Old Testament and grey bars represent The New Testament. Graphic design: Andy Marlow Inspiration: Chris Harrison Print your own poster:22” x 33” or 33” x 44” RGB, 3mm bleed printing: recommended to print digitally on matte photographic paper Intellectio Top 20 Logical Fallacies - The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe Introduction to Argument Structure of a Logical Argument Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example: Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. Also it is important to note that an argument may use wrong information, or faulty logic to reach a conclusion that happens to be true. Breaking down an argument into its components is a very useful exercise, for it enables us to examine both our own arguments and those of others and critically analyze them for validity. Examine your Premises Ad hominem Straw Man
RationalWiki Classification The Sorites Paradox Isn’t Clearly, a guy with no hair on his head is bald. But so is a guy with just one— if and only if we define bald as “a man with little or no hair.” If the guy has one hair and we define bald to mean “a man with no hair” then the man with one hair is not bald. So let us use “a man with little or no hair” as our definition and see where that gets us. We assume that if a man with one hair is bald (by our definition), then so is a man with just two hairs. This is the Sorites, an ancient puzzle , also given with respect to grains and heaps of sand (the words is derived from the Greek heaped up ). “We seem to have reached the point where we say that a man with, say, 5,000 hairs is ‘bald’, but one with just one more tiny, wee hair is not. The man who says this, or anything like it, makes (at least) two mistakes. Indeed, rewrite the Sorites to remove the pseudo-word bald and replace it with X . My premises are almost certainly different than yours.
The Quackometer - Definition