Andiferous
New Member
This is really just a rough of a logic guide that I have recently composed. I really do rely on the smart folks here to help me make it good, because, really, I'm a bit substandard at doing this. I hope to make this as accurate and understandable as possible. Please do flame away, because I know lots of you are better than myself at this stuff. Politely, preferably, but not necessarily...
Thank you muchly
***
So what exactly is philosophy?
I'm not being glib. There are many topics associated with the discipline, but philosophy itself is really just a method of testing and evaluating ideas. But it's often associated with ideas that it TESTS, misrepresenting the discipline into some sort of thick, pretentious pointless masticating on its own complicated abstract greatness. Well, boo that. Really, philosophy is just a kind of truth filter that doesn't discriminate between ridiculous or profound concepts.
Philosophy goes by the principle that if ideas are broken down to variables that are TRUE, then when calculated together in the mathematical lingo of FORMAL LOGIC, as an abstraction the argument can be proven TRUE or FALSE. FORMAL LOGIC is a transposition of ideas into variables, and variables computed by formulas. There are only two solutions to these formulas: TRUE or FALSE. It is why it's the foundation for computer programming.
For instance, a familiar kind of philosophical argument might look like this:
All girls have red hair.
my mother is a girl
therefore...
My mother must have red hair.
For more complex arguments, ideas are simplified into variables and analysed by formal logic.
Transposing the former argument to variables makes:
mother = M
red hair = R
girls = G
ALL G are R, and M is G, then M must also be R. This is a TRUE statement as proven by formal logic.
But if I were to twist these:
SOME G have R, M is G, then M must also be R.
Or alternately, SOME girls have red hair, mother is a girl, therefore, mother must have red hair: the variables don't compute using LOGIC. I've made a FALSE statement. I haven't proven that ALL girls have red hair, so I have ignored the possibility that my mother might be a blonde. The argument is broken.
Fallacies are pretentious names for common false equations. To PROVE a fallacy, you have to show how the equation is false; usually transposed into sentences. If you were really geeky you could do sentence fragments represented by a formula.
I really don't like fallacies because firstly, my memory sucks and I can't retain their equations; and secondly, I can't really just name the problem, I have to explain why I'm naming it a fallacy or I could be BSing everyone; and thirdly, I am stubborn and find them irritating. They are like a verbal short cut to complex verbal formulas. However, you have to assure they fit the "failed formula" to identify the fallacy, and that's kind of tedious anyway. I think most people aren't super geeky enough have an inherent understanding of a fallacy, so it means nothing as criticism anyway. It can break down communication into a game of verbal ping-pong with no one really holding the ball.
Philosophy is the universal test for truth in ideas and abstractions. Not much passes through the philosophical filter. Abstractions like theology and time and determinism are rather difficult to simplify into neat equations, and so those ideas just bounce around in philosophical study as yet unsolved problems. For people to eternally analyse.
Eureka! If glory be, the equation is proved true in solid logic, this equation graduates from philosophy into science where it will have real and practical testing. Really, you could say that the hypothesis is almost always born of philosophy, so the two disciplines will always be closely connected. You could say that science is the testing of the truth of those variables that make up the equations; and when it is impossible to test those and prove those variables are TRUE (or statistically true) in practical testing and observation, you're stuck with a theory.Theories are in hypothetical truth limbo untill their variables can be confirmed. It would be entertaining to otherwise bend space and time to prove Einstein's calculations on relativity.
Evaluating the ideas precedes evaluating their application. You need philosophy to have science. Debates are a practice of philosophy. Fallacies are a philosophical concept. Folks here just analyse with words and ideas. It's all philosophy.
Thank you muchly
***
So what exactly is philosophy?
I'm not being glib. There are many topics associated with the discipline, but philosophy itself is really just a method of testing and evaluating ideas. But it's often associated with ideas that it TESTS, misrepresenting the discipline into some sort of thick, pretentious pointless masticating on its own complicated abstract greatness. Well, boo that. Really, philosophy is just a kind of truth filter that doesn't discriminate between ridiculous or profound concepts.
Philosophy goes by the principle that if ideas are broken down to variables that are TRUE, then when calculated together in the mathematical lingo of FORMAL LOGIC, as an abstraction the argument can be proven TRUE or FALSE. FORMAL LOGIC is a transposition of ideas into variables, and variables computed by formulas. There are only two solutions to these formulas: TRUE or FALSE. It is why it's the foundation for computer programming.
For instance, a familiar kind of philosophical argument might look like this:
All girls have red hair.
my mother is a girl
therefore...
My mother must have red hair.
For more complex arguments, ideas are simplified into variables and analysed by formal logic.
Transposing the former argument to variables makes:
mother = M
red hair = R
girls = G
ALL G are R, and M is G, then M must also be R. This is a TRUE statement as proven by formal logic.
But if I were to twist these:
SOME G have R, M is G, then M must also be R.
Or alternately, SOME girls have red hair, mother is a girl, therefore, mother must have red hair: the variables don't compute using LOGIC. I've made a FALSE statement. I haven't proven that ALL girls have red hair, so I have ignored the possibility that my mother might be a blonde. The argument is broken.
Fallacies are pretentious names for common false equations. To PROVE a fallacy, you have to show how the equation is false; usually transposed into sentences. If you were really geeky you could do sentence fragments represented by a formula.
I really don't like fallacies because firstly, my memory sucks and I can't retain their equations; and secondly, I can't really just name the problem, I have to explain why I'm naming it a fallacy or I could be BSing everyone; and thirdly, I am stubborn and find them irritating. They are like a verbal short cut to complex verbal formulas. However, you have to assure they fit the "failed formula" to identify the fallacy, and that's kind of tedious anyway. I think most people aren't super geeky enough have an inherent understanding of a fallacy, so it means nothing as criticism anyway. It can break down communication into a game of verbal ping-pong with no one really holding the ball.
Philosophy is the universal test for truth in ideas and abstractions. Not much passes through the philosophical filter. Abstractions like theology and time and determinism are rather difficult to simplify into neat equations, and so those ideas just bounce around in philosophical study as yet unsolved problems. For people to eternally analyse.
Eureka! If glory be, the equation is proved true in solid logic, this equation graduates from philosophy into science where it will have real and practical testing. Really, you could say that the hypothesis is almost always born of philosophy, so the two disciplines will always be closely connected. You could say that science is the testing of the truth of those variables that make up the equations; and when it is impossible to test those and prove those variables are TRUE (or statistically true) in practical testing and observation, you're stuck with a theory.Theories are in hypothetical truth limbo untill their variables can be confirmed. It would be entertaining to otherwise bend space and time to prove Einstein's calculations on relativity.
Evaluating the ideas precedes evaluating their application. You need philosophy to have science. Debates are a practice of philosophy. Fallacies are a philosophical concept. Folks here just analyse with words and ideas. It's all philosophy.