![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 7 to 31 of 41. Go back in thread:
Posted by Damos on May 16, 2005, at 18:08:48
In reply to Re: I'm afraid » Damos, posted by alexandra_k on May 16, 2005, at 1:59:36
> Heh heh. No. The rest of you do too... :-)
> But THIS IS ALL ABOUT ME MWAH!
> :-)Cheeky bugger :-)
> Yeah. It does. But it doesn't say one has to LIVE there all the time. But to be fair... I suppose most of us do. Generally it doesn't worry me too much. But I do think it alienates me from people a lot of the time...I think most of us develop a style based on a lot of things and tend to revert to type more often than not. I'm affectionately know as Mr Tact and Diplomacy around here, hmmm I wonder why?????
> I guess ever since I was little I demanded to know
> WHY???The first rule of organisational survival - never ask the boss why :-)
> Why did my life suck so much?
> Why was I so unhappy all the time?
> What the hell was wrong with my mother?
> What the hell was wrong with me?
> What did I even have to exist for in the first place?Hmmm, those questions have a ring of familiarity about them. But I was asking what was wrong with my whole extended family.
> I think philosophy is what tends to happen when you ask 'why?' a few too many times...
That's make sense.
> But then I guess I am a bit strange with it...
> I remember in High School when they were trying to teach us Biology in the 5th form. I figured out that biological systems were just complex arrangements of chemicals. We couldn't do chemistry till the 6th form. I figured I didn't need to worry about what they were teaching us in Biology - because when we learned about chemistry the biological truths would just 'fall out' of that. And then when I went to do chemistry I figured that the same thing was true with physics. Then I found out physics was math and thought 'well sh*t, I've stuffed it up now - I wish someone had told me that in the third form!!!' Then when I got to uni I learned all about how 'reductionism' (the idea that the truths of one science completely hang on the truths of another) was probably false and I was really really hacked off. Whopsie. I wish someone had told me that a little earlier...Aw I can imagine, don't ya hate that. I only passed 1 physics exam in all of high school, my HSC the final big exam used for uni entrance etc.
Ah, just because something doesn't make much sense in and of itself, doesn't mean you don't do a good job of explaining it.
> I worry that we create our own problems by making the distinctions we make in the first place.
> Of course we only create them to solve some problem or other.
> But then they tend to create a whole lot more problems...
> So it is hard to see whether we are digging ourselves in or out...I can't argue with you on this because you're absolutely right. Personally, I know I tend to analyse everything I say and do 'till the cows come home'. Even analysing the analysis. Getting better though, don't do it nearly so much now. Just mostly when I'm not doing so good.
Our mind needs to create opposites and distinctions to sustain itself. If all was one, things would just be, and then what would the mind do - fall silent?
Thanks for the recommendations. Like they say 'better late than never.' I tend to be analytical too. Did read some Descartes way back in my teens and Kant too, even some Seneca but it's all a long time ago.
> Hey now, don't blame me for your internet habits!!
> <joke>I asked for that didn't I? What's the emoticon for a big rassberry?
> Aw. Now I'm blushing...WOW!!!! I don't think I've ever made a woman blush before =0)
I guess I am the way I am because I am somewhat driven... One track mind... There is something that drives me and that sort of is narrow and may well alienate me but it is my life and I CHOSE for it to me by life and I WANT it to be my life so FTW I am alright. I don't care.
> :-)Boy it's taken me ages to work out FTW, gettin' slow in my old age :-). You know what, there is nothing wrong with anything you've said, except the bit about not caring. Because you do care and that's what gives you the drive and the focus. Apathetic *sses like me don't care. It's not that you don't care what people think and whether you alienate them. It's that you choose not to let it worry you and distract you from your goal. Way different things. If you didn't consider the possibility of this and the impacts - that'd be not caring.
> Well...
> Funnily enough I'd actually like to be working on my thesis at the moment...
> Really.
> :-)Well...GET BACK TO WORK!!!!!!!!!
You're more than welcome, anytime.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 16, 2005, at 18:35:57
In reply to Re: I'm afraid » alexandra_k, posted by Damos on May 16, 2005, at 18:08:48
This might just put you off...
If it doesn't make TOOOO much sense - don't worry.
Just have a go at the questions
(If you like)An argument is an attempt to get you to do or believe something by providing reasons.
The following are propositions (claims), but they are not arguments because they do not provide reasons:
It is raining
It is wetPropositions can be used as parts of arguments:
(a)
If it is raining then it is wet. It is raining. Therefore, it is wet.(b)
If it is raining then it is wet. It is wet. Therefore, it is raining.(At this stage it looks a little silly – but it pays not to complicate things unnecessarily.)
The conclusion of the argument is what the argument is attempting to persuade you of. The reasons given in support of the conclusion are the premises.
In order to make the structure of the argument clearer we can set the argument out in standard form as follows:
(a)
(P1) If it is raining then it is wet.
(P2) It is raining.
______________________
(C) It is wet.(b)
(P1) If it is raining then it is wet.
(P2) It is wet.
___________________________
(C) It is raining.
(P1), (P2)… Stand for Premise 1, Premise 2... An argument can have one or more premise / premises. The line is called an ‘inference bar’. That shows you that everything above the line is intended to be reason to believe what is below the line. (C) stands for Conclusion.The first step in evaluating these arguments (to see whether we have rational grounds to accept the conclusion or not – to see whether they are good arguments) is to see whether they are VALID or INVALID.
To say that an argument is valid is to say that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. In other words, if the premises were true then the conclusion would have to be true – it could not be false.
NOTE: It is not to say that the premises ARE true – it is just to say that if we ASSUME that they are true then the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed.
(That is a tricky notion to try and explain / make sense of. It is much easier to judge whether an argument is valid or invalid – in fact you are born with an innate understanding of that. It is just much harder to come to understand what makes an argument valid or invalid.)
Lets look at (a).
(P1) tells us that if it were true that it was raining then it would just have to be the case that it is wet as well.
(P2) tells us that it is indeed true that it is raining.
(C) tells us that it follows from the ASSUMED truth of both (P1) and (P2) that it JUST HAS TO BE wet.Suppose that the conclusion was false (suppose it is not wet). Then it just could not be the case that the premises are both true – without contradiction. If the premises are both true and the conclusion false then the conclusion would contradict the premises – which is not allowed in logic. This argument is therefore, VALID.
Lets look at (b).
(P1) tells us that if it were true that it was raining then it would just have to be the case that it is wet as well.
(P2) tells us that it is indeed true that it is wet.
(C) tells us that it follows from the ASSUMED truth of both (P1) and (P2) that it JUST HAS TO BE raining.Suppose that the conclusion was false (suppose it is not raining). This can be the case even while we are assuming that the premises are both true. That does not result in a contradiction. I could have turned on the hose and it could be wet in virtue of that. It does not have to be raining just because it is wet. The assumed truth of the premises does not rule that scenario out and so we can describe a case where the premises are true and the conclusion false without contradiction. The argument is therefore, INVALID.
So validity does not tell us whether the premises or the conclusion actually are true or not. It just tells us that the arguments structure is such that if the premises did happen to be true then the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed. Validity is a crucial (dare I say THE crucial) notion in logic. Logic thus shows us WHAT follows from WHAT. If we assume the world to be a certain way (the way that the premises describe) then logic shows us what follows from that (ie the conclusion). But logic does not tell us what IS or IS NOT the case in the world to start with (whether the premises are in fact true or false). The truth of the premises must be assumed. (That is the price of certainty peoples).
If an argument is invalid then we don’t even need to bother to assess whether the premises describe the world accurately or not. Even if the premises are true they do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
(Just because an argument is invalid doesn’t necessarily make it a bad argument. Inductive arguments don’t guarantee the truth of the conclusion, but they should (when all goes well) make the conclusion probable. Still… Best to leave them aside for the moment).
Are the following arguments valid or invalid?
(c)
(P1) If it is snowing then I am cold
(P2) I am cold
____________________
(C) It is snowing(d)
(P1) If it is snowing then I am cold
(P2) It is snowing
___________________________
(C) I am coldOr are peoples very lost???
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 16, 2005, at 18:55:17
In reply to Re: logic anyone???, posted by alexandra_k on May 16, 2005, at 18:35:57
Posted by alexandra_k on May 16, 2005, at 22:48:40
In reply to c) invalid; d) valid (nm) » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on May 16, 2005, at 18:55:17
(e)
(P1) It is raining and it is wet
_________________________________
(C) It is raining(f)
(P1) Either it is raining or it is wet
(P2) It is not raining
_______________________________
(C) It is not wet(g)
(P1) Either it is raining or it is wet
(P2) It is not wet
____________________________
(C) It is raining(These are a little harder)
(h)
(P1) If it is snowing then I am cold
(P2) I am not cold
____________________
(C) It is not snowing(i)
(P1) If it is snowing then I am cold
(P2) It is not snowing
___________________________
(C) I am not cold
Posted by alesta on May 16, 2005, at 23:13:02
In reply to Re: couple more: » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on May 16, 2005, at 22:48:40
alex, i think larry has already put enough time into your post. ppl come here to relax, be social, have fun, and get support, not be grilled like that.
amy
Posted by alexandra_k on May 16, 2005, at 23:17:13
In reply to Re: couple more: » alexandra_k, posted by alesta on May 16, 2005, at 23:13:02
> alex, i think larry has already put enough time into your post. ppl come here to relax, be social, have fun, and get support, not be grilled like that.
If Larry feels 'grilled' then I'm sure he will feel free to ignore me.
I thought that went without saying...
Some people actually find logic puzzles to be fun.
Enjoyable even.To each their own.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 16, 2005, at 23:20:18
In reply to Re: couple more: » alexandra_k, posted by alesta on May 16, 2005, at 23:13:02
> alex, i think larry has already put enough time into your post. ppl come here to relax, be social, have fun, and get support, not be grilled like that.
Actually...
In light of the first post in this thread
Ouch.
I don't see how your post can we seen as supportive...How about each of us just worry about ourself, eh?
Posted by alesta on May 16, 2005, at 23:27:57
In reply to Re: couple more: » alesta, posted by alexandra_k on May 16, 2005, at 23:17:13
this is a mental health board. i don't think everyone who feels 'grilled' will withstand the pressure to not feel they have to reply under those circumstances.
the whole tone of your thread was abrasive, alex. don't think no one is going to notice. this is a very intelligent (and modest) group that has better things to do than your semester long schoolwork. your post was taunting, pointblank.
uh, dude..and i don't think 'the peoples' are lost..try 'uninterested'.
amy
Posted by alesta on May 16, 2005, at 23:29:27
In reply to Re: couple more: » alexandra_k, posted by alesta on May 16, 2005, at 23:27:57
your post was taunting, pointblank.
when i said the above i was referring to your "logic, anyone?" post
amy
Posted by alesta on May 16, 2005, at 23:38:28
In reply to Re: couple more: » alesta, posted by alexandra_k on May 16, 2005, at 23:20:18
no, i choose to worry about others as well as myself.
amy
Posted by alexandra_k on May 17, 2005, at 0:12:48
In reply to Re: couple more: » alexandra_k, posted by alesta on May 16, 2005, at 23:38:28
Posted by alexandra_k on May 17, 2005, at 0:37:16
In reply to Re: please do not post to me (nm) » alesta, posted by alexandra_k on May 17, 2005, at 0:12:48
... its not my 'semester long schoolwork'.
I wrote it.
It took me a while.
Because I wanted to try and see whether I could explain the concept of validity and invalidity to people with no formal training in logic.
Trying to explain things simply is an art...
It isn't one that I am very good at.
But I want to get better.I know a lot of people don't care.
That is fine.
I know a lot of people find it hard.
That is fine too.
Some people get it fairly easily first off...
Others have to work at a slower pace...
Still more have to work fairly hard to start with...
But everyone is capable of getting it in the end.Myself.
I had to work really really hard.
I thought that might be able to help me explain that to other people.
Just in case they are interested.If people aren't.
Then just ignore me.
If you don't feel able to do that...
Then take it over to admin
Like people do with Lou.
I am who I am.
Posted by All Done on May 17, 2005, at 0:54:31
In reply to Re: couple more: » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on May 16, 2005, at 22:48:40
Can I give it a try :)?
> (e) - VALID
> (P1) It is raining and it is wet
> _________________________________
> (C) It is raining
>
> (f) - INVALID
> (P1) Either it is raining or it is wet
> (P2) It is not raining
> _______________________________
> (C) It is not wet
>
> (g) - VALID
> (P1) Either it is raining or it is wet
> (P2) It is not wet
> ____________________________
> (C) It is raining
>
> (These are a little harder)
>
> (h) - VALID
> (P1) If it is snowing then I am cold
> (P2) I am not cold
> ____________________
> (C) It is not snowing
>
> (i) - INVALID
> (P1) If it is snowing then I am cold
> (P2) It is not snowing
> ___________________________
> (C) I am not cold
Posted by All Done on May 17, 2005, at 1:11:09
In reply to Re: in case anyone was wondering..., posted by alexandra_k on May 17, 2005, at 0:37:16
I've read logic puzzle books just for fun. I wonder if Larry has, too.
Even if I can't figure them out all the time (or maybe even most), I love the process of thinking it through and trying to figure out the right answer. I can get lost in my thoughts that way. It's a nice escape.
And when I know there's a right answer and I've figured it out...woohoo! Yeah, I'm a geek.
:)
Posted by Damos on May 17, 2005, at 1:37:42
In reply to Re: in case anyone was wondering..., posted by alexandra_k on May 17, 2005, at 0:37:16
Hey Alex,
I guess these were probably largely for my benefit and I really appreciate you taking the time and effort to post them. I'm just kinda sorry I haven't really had a chance to look at them before this. Even sorrier the thread kinda went south at the end.
Don't get enough brain exercise and look forward to working through your posts.
Thanks again, lots of love
Posted by alexandra_k on May 17, 2005, at 2:26:10
In reply to Re: couple more: » alexandra_k, posted by All Done on May 17, 2005, at 0:54:31
> Can I give it a try :)?
Of course...
And it turns out...
that you are a natural
:-)
Bingo.
Well done.I was kind of hoping...
Kind of hoping...
That if people got into this then I could show people how to construct formal proofs of validity.Then you should indeed be able to work out those logic puzzles :-)
The funny thing about logic is that it is
so hard to explain.
If people don't get it you have the urge to point.
And then to point HARDER.
But that doesn't really help someone see it.But most people can do it without understanding the *why*'s.
The *why*'s just tend to be more helpful than pointing harder.
:-)
:-)
:-)
Thank you so much.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 17, 2005, at 2:40:19
In reply to Thanks Alex , guess these were for my benefit » alexandra_k, posted by Damos on May 17, 2005, at 1:37:42
(((Damos)))
Take all the time you need.
And I promise most sincerely not to be offended if you think:
Logic!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH.
And hate it.
Like most people.
:-)
Posted by alesta on May 17, 2005, at 13:57:55
In reply to Re: couple more: » alexandra_k, posted by alesta on May 16, 2005, at 23:13:02
Posted by Damos on May 17, 2005, at 16:57:05
In reply to Re: :-) You are wonderful Damos, posted by alexandra_k on May 17, 2005, at 2:40:19
I'm gonna be so good and just say 'thank-you'.
Okay, can I now say my brain aches.
c) invalid
d) valid
e) valid
f) invalid
g) Buggered if I know, valid I think
h) Hmmmm, valid?
i) InvalidI agonised over g) & h) and am still not convinced either way, but have resisted the temptation to look at Lar & All Done's posts just in case. It's so odd seeing arguements presented like this. Even odder to use logic in this way.
Have to admit to being more than a little confused for a while (still debating the answers with myself as I post this), but enjoyed the exercises.
Thanks,
(((Alex)))
Posted by 10derHeart on May 17, 2005, at 21:56:17
In reply to that went well.:) (nm), posted by alesta on May 17, 2005, at 13:57:55
Alesta,
I'm so confused.
I've reread several times, trying to see how Alex was taunting anyone. I can't for the life of me see it. Her post seemed innocent and neutral to me.
Is it when she asked if people were lost? I took that on its face, purely as a straight question, not putting anyone down or anything. As she stated, this stuff isn't commonly done and IS confusing. I assumed she genuinely wanted to know, so she could rephrase, help them, etc.
Is this just a huge misunderstanding? Or I am incredibly dense and have missed something?
I am more than willing to try and see it from another POV, if you feel like maybe explaining another way why you felt taunted...?
To me, your words and tone seemed a bit harsh, even hostile, and not supportive. I was so surprised. That seems completely unlike you, from all your wonderfully supportive threads I've seen here lately. :-( ??
This thread really bothered you, clearly. But I don't know why. I hate it when I don't *get* why a poster becomes upset about a thread. I learn so much more about how to coexist here with everyone when I do understand.
And the way this thread "went south," as Damos put it so well, well, it makes me very sad.
Because lately a few subjects I find fascinating or fun have run through my head. And I've been thinking to myself, "Wonder if this question, or subject, would be cool/fun/neat (sorry, my vocab is probably dating me) to post on social?" But I've hesitated, worried I'll seem foolish, or boring, or weird, or irritating. Much like the anxiety and doubts that grip me IRL from time to time.
Now I'm a bit more worried that I was right.
Feel free to ignore if rehashing this will lead to any violations of the board civility guidelines. I understand sometimes it's just better not to talk about stuff.
I just got so lost reading the dialog between you two. And sad, don't forget sad.
Posted by alesta on May 17, 2005, at 22:07:29
In reply to Alesta » alesta, posted by 10derHeart on May 17, 2005, at 21:56:17
10erheart,
in all honesty, i only read the first line of your post and stopped there. i want to just forget about this thread right now. i'm sorry i can't respond. but i just can't handle it right now. i have my reasons for my interpretations. that's all i have the energy to put forth. one more disagreement may just push me over the edge. (note my thread about severe depression/suicidal thoughts.) i hope you understand.amy
Posted by 10derHeart on May 17, 2005, at 22:18:10
In reply to Re: Alesta » 10derHeart, posted by alesta on May 17, 2005, at 22:07:29
Posted by gardenergirl on May 17, 2005, at 22:19:56
In reply to Re: (((alexandra))), posted by All Done on May 17, 2005, at 1:11:09
alexandra and laurie,
> I've read logic puzzle books just for fun. I wonder if Larry has, too.Oh lordy, me too! And the logic part of the GRE was my best score. And my favorite. They were much more like games than test items. MUCH better than the vocab stuff!
>
> Even if I can't figure them out all the time (or maybe even most), I love the process of thinking it through and trying to figure out the right answer. I can get lost in my thoughts that way. It's a nice escape.
>
> And when I know there's a right answer and I've figured it out...woohoo! Yeah, I'm a geek.
>
> :)Geeks rock! :)
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on May 17, 2005, at 23:22:08
In reply to Re: couple more: » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on May 16, 2005, at 22:48:40
Your answers are correct :-)
Some of them were hard.
I get what you mean about your brain aching...
Mine ached an awful lot to start with.
There are 'handy tricks'(formal or mechanical proofs) to tell whether an argument is invalid or valid. But most people can tell without having to resort to proofs when the arguments are relatively simple (as you did):-)
> (g)
> (P1) Either it is raining or it is wet
> (P2) It is not wet
> ____________________________
> (C) It is rainingIs valid, like you said.
(P1) Tells us that it is either true that it is raining or it is true that it is wet.
(P2) Tells us that it isn't wet.
So... In order for (P1) to be true (which we are asked to assume) It just has to be raining.> (h)
> (P1) If it is snowing then I am cold
> (P2) I am not cold
> ____________________
> (C) It is not snowingThis was a harder one, but it is valid, like you said.
(P1) tells us that if it is true that it is snowing then it just has to be true that it is cold.
(P2) tells us that it isn't cold.
It cannot be true that it is snowing and not cold or this would contradict (P1) So it cannot be snowing.I'll do some more.
Maybe later today or tomorrow...
But once again... No obligation.
:-)
Posted by alexandra_k on May 17, 2005, at 23:24:51
In reply to Re: (((alexandra))) » All Done, posted by gardenergirl on May 17, 2005, at 22:19:56
> And the logic part of the GRE was my best score. And my favorite. They were much more like games than test items. MUCH better than the vocab stuff!
And about a million times better than the math!
I liked doing GRE logic puzzles too.
They have changed it now. No more logic puzzles. Now they give you an argument and ask you to write a commentary on whether it is a good or bad argument.:-(
Not nearly as much fun (IMO):-)
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.