![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 6 to 30 of 69. Go back in thread:
Posted by jamestheyonger on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:50
In reply to if pdoc then q » willyee » Larry_Hoover, posted by pseudoname on December 1, 2005, at 16:04:09
"So that just shows you, when this is working, you have to stick with it indefinitely. You can't risk stopping. Talk about logical fallacies! I wanted to scream. Instead, I switched to a hospital-based clinic that had officially BANNED drug reps."
Except this one is true, and has been reported here on this board and generally.
Posted by Glydin on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:50
In reply to Re: ...Correction, posted by willyee on December 1, 2005, at 17:30:31
You might reread Larry's post. I believe it was just written as an example of the logic used if one were to look at the equation given in the paragraph above the paragraph you cited - to prove a point of what can happen with statements that may overgeneralize. I don't think it intended as a statement of fact - merely a point maker.
I could be wrong but that is how I interpeted the post.
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:50
In reply to if pdoc then q » willyee » Larry_Hoover, posted by pseudoname on December 1, 2005, at 16:04:09
> Larry said:
> > The poster did use an existential qualifier, "most", which weakens the counter-argument, making it, too, conditional.
>
> What would the (conditional) counter-argument be? "...and most other Babblers think they're DUMBER than their pdocs are"?My semantics were bad on that, and I couldn't get it to tighten up. I am not a philosophy major, or whoever they are that debate this stuff.....Frankly, I worded that quite poorly.
I like the cases where one single case can disprove the other's point. Not arguing shades of gray.
What was the original question?
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:50
In reply to Re: ...larry hoover, posted by willyee on December 1, 2005, at 17:26:46
> "I think I'm smarter than my pdoc, and I post to Babble. Other people post to Babble, therefore they think they're smarter than their pdoc."
>
>
> Whoa Whoa Whoa,that is a mighty strong statment there.Whoa Whoa Whow is right, dude.
That is the form of the original poster's argument, recast to follow the form I laid out.
I said: "I think it's also a fallacy of propositional logic, of the form 'if p and q, q therefore p'."
I reorganized (and slightly amended) the wording of the original post, to place it in the form of a logical proposition.
"I think I'm smarter than my pdoc, and I post to Babble. Other people post to Babble, therefore they think they're smarter than their pdoc."
*I* don't believe that. I was saying the argument is fallacious. There is no evidence that most posters to babble think they are smarter than their pdoc. I just didn't do a very good job of stating my case, I guess.
Alexandra! Help!
Lar
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:50
In reply to Re: ...or overgeneralizing? » badhaircut, posted by Larry Hoover on December 1, 2005, at 13:08:02
> Most people here think they smarter than pdoc
> I know thats true because Im one of them.Hmm...
There is an indeterminacy between translating between english (or any natural language) and logic, but lets have a go...
(p1) I am a person here and I think I am smarter than pdoc
________________________________________________
(c) Most people here think they are smarter than pdocIt isn't a valid argument.
(because it is possible for (p1) to be true, while (c) is false WITHOUT CONTRADICTION).But then...
I think it is uncharitable to interpret it as an attempt as a deductively valid argument
(where the intention is that (p1) guarantees the truth of (c) )I think it is more charitable to attempt to interpret it as an inductive argument
(inductive arguments aren't supposed to guarantee the truth of (c) - but if (p1) is true then they are supposed to make (c) more probably true than false)It is generalising from one case
To all babblers.One can only be so charitable without distorting reality (the intentions of the arguer) a little tooooo much...
With respect to the formal fallacy...
I think the fallacy people were thinking of was...IF p THEN q
q
____________
therefore pBut I don't think that interpretation is lisenced because... There aren't any 'IF___THEN' statements either explicit or implied...
If it had been the other way around, it would have been a better inductive argument:
(p1) Most people here think they are smarter than pdoc
________________________________________________
(c) I am a person here and I think I am smarter than pdocthat... would be a fairly good inductive argument...
(or, in terminology it would be reasonably forceful, one would have fairly good grounds for accepting the truth of the conclusion GIVEN the truth of the premiss...But...
Is the premiss true?
I think there may be better arguments out there...
;-)
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:50
In reply to Re: ...or overgeneralizing?, posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2005, at 0:24:00
p1) i have a body and i have a mind
p2) other people have bodies...
_____________________________________
c) other people have mindswould Beck think this is a case of over-generalising??
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:51
In reply to Re: if pdoc then q » pseudoname, posted by Larry Hoover on December 1, 2005, at 22:56:27
> I like the cases where one single case can disprove the other's point. Not arguing shades of gray.
You like deductive logic then.
There... You only need one counter-example.
When people are using inductive logic...
Then things get trickier...(though... you can cast inductive as deductive with some little tweaks... you need to learn deductive before inductive to really get it)
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:51
In reply to Re: if pdoc then q, posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2005, at 0:32:47
actually...
probably most helpful to translate
p1) one person thinks they are smarter than p-doc
_________________________________________________
c) most people thinks they are smarter than p-docyeah it is the 'one' to 'most' that doesn't work.
you can do it in reverse order though...
basically...
you want your premises to be stronger than your conclusion 'all' or 'most' to 'some' or 'at least one' etc.
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:51
In reply to Re: ...larry hoover » willyee, posted by Larry Hoover on December 1, 2005, at 23:06:34
> That is the form of the original poster's argument, recast to follow the form I laid out.
>
> I said: "I think it's also a fallacy of propositional logic, of the form 'if p and q, q therefore p'."
>
> I reorganized (and slightly amended) the wording of the original post, to place it in the form of a logical proposition.
>
> "I think I'm smarter than my pdoc, and I post to Babble. Other people post to Babble, therefore they think they're smarter than their pdoc."
>
> *I* don't believe that. I was saying the argument is fallacious. There is no evidence that most posters to babble think they are smarter than their pdoc. I just didn't do a very good job of stating my case, I guess.
>
> Alexandra! Help!
>
> LarI'm going to add this:
I think it's also a fallacy of propositional logic, of the form 'if p and q, q therefore p'
What I was trying to argue is this, in regular language. We happen to find one characteristic p, in company with another characteristic q (that's the 'if p and q' part). Then is it reasonable to assume that we will find p, if we have found q? (that's the 'q therefore p' part).
Really there's a question mark with the therefore. Is it reasonable to conclude that when we find q, we will inevitably find p?
No. There is no evidence to support that conclusion. At least none was given.
The original poster suggested it was true most of the time. Again, no evidence was provided to support that conclusion. The proposition, as a whole, is not proven. In practical terms, we might conclude that it is false, but I bet you the philosophers just say not proven, or not demonstrated (non demonstrare?).
And with that, off to bed.
Lar
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:51
In reply to Re: ...addendum, posted by Larry Hoover on December 2, 2005, at 0:35:11
> What I was trying to argue is this, in regular language. We happen to find one characteristic p, in company with another characteristic q (that's the 'if p and q' part). Then is it reasonable to assume that we will find p, if we have found q? (that's the 'q therefore p' part).
AAAAAAAAAAAAAh.
that looks like this:A1 has properties P1, P2,...
A2 has properties P1, P2,...
______________________________
It is probable that
A3 will have properties P1, P2,...The more properties (P1, P2...) they have in common...
AND
The more A1, A2, (objects / instances) we observe...
The more reason we have to believe that the conclusion is true...I don't think I've seen this interpreted / translated into IF___THEN form...
But it is possible that there might be an interpretation of it in IF__THEN form out there...
I just can't think of how it might go...> The proposition, as a whole, is not proven.
He hasn't given us good (plausible) reason to believe that the conclusion is more likely to be true than false. Even if the premiss is true... It's relation to the conclusion is too weak...
> In practical terms, we might conclude that it is false,
Arguments aren't true or false...
(they are valid / invalid / sound / unsound / inductively forceful / inductively weak)
But the conclusions can be true or false...
In this case... We would need to conduct a survey of what 'most' babblers believe.With respect to the argument...
It is not inductively forceful
It is inductively weakThat is what we would say...
nightie night ;-)
Posted by UgottaHaveHope on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:51
In reply to Re: ...addendum, posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2005, at 1:05:25
LOL ... and from the looks of it, law students, stating a case of "deductive reasoning"
Carry on! :)
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:51
In reply to Re: if pdoc then q, posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2005, at 0:32:47
> > I like the cases where one single case can disprove the other's point. Not arguing shades of gray.
>
> You like deductive logic then.
> There... You only need one counter-example.
> When people are using inductive logic...
> Then things get trickier...
>
> (though... you can cast inductive as deductive with some little tweaks... you need to learn deductive before inductive to really get it)thanks for bringing your mind and experience to this issue, but I've decided that I think I prefer logic before Lyrica.
Yes, B.L.
My brain clogs now, whereas before it was clear and clean and like following a well-worn path. Not like trying to bushwhack every single sentence.
Before Lyrica
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:51
In reply to Re: ...addendum, posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2005, at 1:05:25
> > In practical terms, we might conclude that it is false,
But really,
> It is inductively weakYa, that's what I meant. Though I think my 'non demonstrare' looks cooler. ;-)
Lar
Posted by linkadge on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:51
In reply to Re: ...or overgeneralizing?, posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2005, at 0:24:00
Of course, as an argument of induction, one is missing the crutial "induction step".
If we ordered the members of this site 1..n, proving the statement is true for 1, is not sufficiant to show that it is true for all other n.
There would need to be an induction step. Ie person n thinks he is smarter than his doctor -> person n 1 thinks he is smarter than his doctor. Then proof would follow based the presence of an iscolated case, and induction step.
P.S. This whole thread is nonsence.
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:52
In reply to Re: ...addendum, posted by Larry Hoover on December 2, 2005, at 0:35:11
There is an implication statement being made.
p = I think I am smarter than my doctor
q = All here thinks himself smarter than
his doctor.Statement p -> q.
To proove false, simply disprove contrapositive arguement.
Ie show. Not q -/-> Not p
Where not q, is shown by the existence of a memeber that doesn't think himself smarter than his doctor. Yet dispite this, p still holds.
Hence we have shown.
Not q -/-> Not p
Which implies
p -/-> q
Linkadge
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:52
In reply to Re: ...addendum, posted by linkadge on December 2, 2005, at 11:17:23
> There is an implication statement being made.
>
> p = I think I am smarter than my doctor
> q = All here thinks himself smarter than
> his doctor.
>
> Statement p -> q.
>
> To proove false, simply disprove contrapositive arguement.
>
> Ie show. Not q -/-> Not p
>
> Where not q, is shown by the existence of a memeber that doesn't think himself smarter than his doctor. Yet dispite this, p still holds.
>
> Hence we have shown.
>
> Not q -/-> Not p
>
> Which implies
>
> p -/-> q
>
>
>
> LinkadgeYa, but he didn't say 'all'. That's what I was getting at when I said his use of 'most' meant a single dispositive case did not falsify the argument. Most is an existential quantifier.
Lar
Posted by linkadge on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:52
In reply to Re: ...addendum » linkadge, posted by Larry Hoover on December 2, 2005, at 13:49:43
The assumption is that more than half of people on this board think the same way as the poster, regarding their doctors.
That is a statment, requiring justification.
Unless, an association between Ace's decisions and other posters' decisions can be demonstrated, the only way to proof or disprove the statement is with a counterexample.
Linkadge
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:52
In reply to Re: ...addendum, posted by linkadge on December 2, 2005, at 14:13:33
> the only way to proof or disprove the statement is with a counterexample.
statements aren't 'proved' or 'disproved' they are 'true' or 'false' (or 'neither true nor false' - but not in a two valued logic. in a two valued logic they are either true or false and not both at the same time).
lets imagine a possible world in which...
it is TRUE that the poster thinks he is smarter than his p-doc... (so the premiss is true)
AND
it is FALSE that most babblers think they are smarter than their p-docs... (51% do not think they are smarter than and thus the conclusion is false)then you would have a 'counter-example'
a situation where the premiss is true (the poster thinks he is smarter than his p-doc) AND the conclusion false (because most babblers do not think they are smarter than their p-doc).
However, that counter-example only works to show that the argument is DEDUCTIVELY INVALID. Which just means... that it IS possible (without contradiction) for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false.But we decided already that it wasn't so charitable to interpret it as an attempt at a deductively valid argument...
With respect to an inductive argument...
If one individual has property p
Is it more likely to be true or false that most individuals have property p?
It doesn't really seem more likely to be true that MOST individuals have that property (if the ONLY reason / premiss is that one individual has that property)
and hence...
the premiss doesn't give us good reason to believe the conclusion is more likely true than false
hence...
it isn't inductively forceful...It is about the weakest form of inductive argument possible because it goes from one to most. worse still would be from one to all. slightly better would be most to one. best (and deductively valid or 100% inductively forceful would be all to one)
:-)
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:52
In reply to Re: ...addendum, posted by linkadge on December 2, 2005, at 11:17:23
> There is an implication statement being made.
> p = I think I am smarter than my doctor
> q = All here thinks himself smarter than
> his doctor.> Statement p -> q.
Yes, you are right.
That seems to be a legitimate interpretation :-)> To proove false, simply disprove contrapositive arguement.
sh*t.
you are right
:-)
well done.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:52
In reply to Re: ...addendum » linkadge, posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2005, at 14:58:29
though...
you showed it to be deductively invalid...
and we already decided
(well, i did)
that it was more charitably interpreted as a inductive argument (where the majority of inductive arguments - and some inductively forceful arguments - are deductively invalid)
;-)
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:52
In reply to We have some ppl with a lot of time here, posted by UgottaHaveHope on December 2, 2005, at 2:02:40
> and from the looks of it, law students, stating a case of "deductive reasoning"
:-O
philosophy.
:-(
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:52
In reply to Re: ...addendum » linkadge, posted by Larry Hoover on December 2, 2005, at 13:49:43
> Most is an existential quantifier.
:-)
yes.
it is.i got what you meant when you explained it in english.
it is just the technical terminology that has to be learned by...
rote really...but why bother when you get it in english?
mostly for purposes of explaining to others is all...
Posted by linkadge on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:52
In reply to Re: ...addendum » linkadge, posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2005, at 14:51:36
You are right, that statements are either true or false.
But if you have a statement that has not been proven true or false, then it cannot be deemed true or false.
There could be a third yet undescoverfed relation factor.
Say, if we knew that, due to Ace's popularity, there was a statistic likelyhood that others would believe the same.
If this were true, then the statement would be true.
So simple if, then statements cannot be discounted based on the fact that a connection cannot be seen.
Linkadge
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:52
In reply to Re: ...addendum, posted by linkadge on December 2, 2005, at 16:34:14
> You are right, that statements are either true or false.
in a two-valued logic your statement is true
this is the principle of bivalenceEITHER T OR F AND NOT BOTH
> But if you have a statement that has not been proven true or false, then it cannot be deemed true or false.we do not know whether tomorrow will be the end of the world or not. the statement 'the world will end at time t' is either true or false independently of what (if anything) we can know about it...
we might not know whether a certain mathematical theorum is true or false, but it is either true or false independently of whether we ever manage to figure that out or not...> There could be a third yet undescoverfed relation factor.
many valued logics reject the principle of bivalence: that every proposition is either true or false and not both. there are two forms of rejection: the first is the idea that there are more values than these. the second is that propositions may be neither true nor false (lacking a truth value).
This manouver is to deal with some special kinds of statements such as
'the present king of france is bald'.
It is not T, so it must be F.
but to say it is F is to imply / logically entail that
'there is a present king of france and that present king of france is bald' is T.
but of course 'there is a present king of france' is F. and thus 'there is a present king of france and that king of france is bald' is F.there are contradictions in two-valued logic (which is a disgrace)
> Say, if we knew that, due to Ace's popularity, there was a statistic likelyhood that others would believe the same.
(P1) Ace is a popular person
(P2) Most babblers believe what a popular person believes
(P3) Ace is a babbler and Ace believes 'I am smarter than my p-doc'
______________________________________________
(C) Most (the same referent as P3) babblers believe 'I am smarter than my p-docThat argument is deductively valid.
(It is impossible to describe a situation where the premises are true and the conclusion false without contradiction)The relationship between the premises and conclusion is very tight
The trouble is that if people believe premiss 1 or 2 (or both) to be false then they have no reason to believe the conclusion on the basis of the argument.
(Regardless of whether the conclusion is true or not people have no reason to believe the conclusion on the basis of the argument and thus the argument is not rationally persuasive)
In order for a valid argument to be rationally persuasive
Other people would have to be likely to accept the truth of the premises
If you have a valid argument and people believe the premisses are all true then they would be endorsing contradiction to deny the conclusion
> If this were true, then the statement would be true.The argument would be deductively valid / its degree of inductive force would be 100%
But...
If we think either premiss 1 or 2 (or both) are false then we have no reason to come to believe the conclusion.
> So simple if, then statements cannot be discounted based on the fact that a connection cannot be seen.P1) grass is green
______________
C) the sun is hotThere is no contradiction in imagining a possible world with green grass and no sun or a cold sun or whatever. The argument is not deductively valid. The argument is not rationally persuasive (because it is an attempt at a deductive argument and it is invalid).
Yet...
The sun is hot.
We just don't have reason to believe the truth of the conclusion
ON THE BASIS OF
The reason (premiss) provided.
Posted by CamW on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:53
In reply to Re: ...addendum » linkadge, posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2005, at 22:10:28
It has been my experience, that, on this board, 50% of posters are of below average intelligence.
;-P
- Cam (I believe that I need to thank Arthur C. Clark for this one)
P.S. Think about it before getting nasty. - C.
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.