Guidelines for our in-class first-draft peer-revision session (you become teachers now)

Let's peer-review our drafts! 

25 MINUTES EACH PARTICIPANT. STOP BEING NICE. BE TOUGH AND WRITE DOWN ANYTHING YOU FIND IN NEED OF CORRECTION. THIS IS ACTUALLY GOOD ADVICE. 

1- Proper heading, top, left-hand side, 

Bertha Gonzalez
First Draft Philosophy Paper, 
Phi 2010 Honors MWF

2-DONT FORGET! Times New Roman pt. 12 font, double spaced, indented paragraphs, separate page for bibliography. The bibliography page is titled Bibliography. 

Title: middle, bold. You must present a title that represents a distillation of the content of your paper.

NO FRONT-AND-BACK DRAFTS!

MATTERS OF CLARITY 

3- FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS: Two-point thesis composed of first: declaration-sentence followed by an explanation sentence. Same with the counter! Be clear and succinct. Less is more. These thesis and counter-paragraphs don't need to be long.  

4- Proper prefacing of each paragraph. The reader must understand "who owns the paragraph," (begin with either "advocate" or "critic"). Whether "same-sex marriage advocates" vs "same-sex marriage critics" "fast-food advocates" vs "fast-food critics," or "government surveillance advocates" vs "government surveillance critics," etc. It doesn't matter if it sounds cacophonous.

4.5- Internal coherence: Check paragraphs 3, and 5 for arguments 1 and 2 of your thesis and paragraphs 4, and 6 for arguments 1 and 2 of the counter. 

There must be a correspondence between these paragraphs. Example: if you find anything in paragraph 5 that doesn't correspond to your second argument in your thesis, the draft suffers from internal coherence. Pay attention to this point.

5- Argument vs. quote ratio (70% for argument, 30% for quotes). I will reject paragraphs that are just copied and pasted. I need your voice. We've talked about how to make a copy/paste paragraph look admissible.

6- How to present a quote in a paragraph: Each quote must be properly prefaced, what I call "dropping quotes" issues! 

a) You must prepare the reader for each quote by providing context for each quotation. b) Attribute each quotation to its source: tell the reader who is writing the quote and job description, c) Avoid "he/she said" USE THESE SYNONYMS INSTEAD: she/he adds, remarks, replies, states, comments, points out, argues, suggests, proposes, declares, opines, etc. d) lead the quote with a colon, example:

Penn State University Professor Oakenshot denies Marx's claim that capitalism causes poverty when he declares: "Poverty predates capitalism by two thousand and odd years of civilization." or,  John Beherman, professor of Biology at Berkeley University argues that____________" instead of just dropping the quote without introduction. (Oakenshot, 46).

MATTERS OF CONVENTION

7- Proper bibliography MLA source presentation 

a) Include in the text the first item that appears in the Work Cited entry that corresponds to the citation (e.g. author name, article name, website name, film name).

b) No URLs in-text. Only provide partial URLs titles, i.e., domain name, like CNN.com or Forbes.com as opposed to http://www.cnn.com or http://www.forbes.com.

MATTERS OF STYLE

8- Check for "too-wordy" sentences. This is a no-no. Sentences should be short and clear. If the sentences are long, cut them in two.

9- Checkmark for improper interjection of thesis into counter. Each side has a paragraph to expose its point. You are not to express your view inside the counter's paragraph.

10- Check mark for colloquialism. These are prohibited:

"you" (one), "kinda" (kind of), "it is like," (similar to, such as), "okay" or "OK," "real" & "really" (very), "sorta" or "sort of" (rather, somewhat), "pretty" (very), "anyways"(anyway), "a lot," (several, many), "kids"(children),  "cops" (policeman), "guys" (men)... etc.

11- Check mark for "fillers":  "basically," "absolutely", "definitely" "certainly," "for all intents and purposes," "due to the fact that" (use "because"),   etc.

12- Check mark for redundant adjectives: "totally unique," "completely finished," "thoroughly complete," "productively useful," etc,

Repaso para el Examen Final

Moral knowledge & consensus.

Notes on Egoism and Hedonism.

Utilitarianism. 

Kantian Ethics.

Moral Traditionalism.

Aristotle's virtue morality.

Aristotle's Virtue morality

here's a video. 

click here for more information.

quotes by Aristotle.

My notes on Moral Traditionalism

here's a video.

 click here for more.

Kantian ethics

let's look at this video,

here are my notes on Kant's categorical imperative,
my notes on Kant's second formulation,

what is self-respect?

First drafts guidelines. Observe them!

1- Times New Roman p. 12
2- Heading, left-hand side:

Doe, John 
Final Paper First Draft 
Phi 2010 Honors 

3- Title, centered, bold,
4- Draft body: double-spaced,
5- Indent each new paragraph,
6- "Works cited" or "Bibliography" on a separate page, following MLA protocols (with last day of revision for digital sources),
7- All drafts must be STAPLED,

My notes on Utilitarianism

click here for more information,

Ethics, Homework #14

 Pincha aquí.

Hedonism and Ethical Egoism

Here are my notes on Hedonism.

Here are my notes on Ethical Egoism.

What do you gain with this class? Philosophy is... #1 in analytic, verbal and composite in GRE LSAT and LGMAT, & salary is not bad at all!

click here for more information,

If you can make it...

 

How to conquer mathphobia

 Click this link. 

How do you know an argument is good?

 

El secreto está en encontrar un principio fuerte. Por ejemplo, la regla de oro.

Haz con otros lo que quisieras que te hicieran a ti. 

¿Cómo sabemos que el principio es fuerte? 

1. Es claro (es decir, no es contradictorio)  

2. Es proporcional. 

3. Es justo (aplica a uno y a todos).

Apliquemos ahora el principio en el caso de ejemplos particulares de los pecados llamados veniales: adulterio, falso testimonio, hurto, robo, malversación, perjurio, chisme, schadenfreude, la gula, la pereza. 

Por ejemplo, la gula y la pereza son pecados que me tocamn a mí y nadie más. ¿Cómo aplicar la ley de oro? Es muy sencillo. Yo = Yo. 

Volvamos a la regla. Lo que me aplica a mí me aplica porque es universal y reversible. Siendo universal me aplica por igual. Si aplico la regla de oro a mi mismo, no debo tratarme meramente como medio para un fin. 

Ahí tienen la respuesta a asuntos más polémicos, como la guerra, la pena de muerte, el aborto, etc.

defensible moral judgments, moral values, etiquette, law, cultural relativism

click here for more information,

From consensus to best consensus

Our diverging ideas of diet.

Hormone therapy.

Critical care.

Historiography.

Physics.

Chemistry.

Here is a list of accepted consensuses proven wrong later. 

chapter 3, ETHICS, fall 2023

let's start with this video,

click here for my intro to moral norms,

click here for my lectures on ethics,

Mi salsa de tomate (muy importante)

 Pincha aquí.

Final paper (How to argue a point)

click here for assignment sample: how to argue a point.

Chapter 5 (From Hard determinism to Libertarianism)

 Pincha aquí. 

Homework, Chapter 5

 Pincha aquí.

This is the list of my confirmed student assistants (¡muchas gracias!)

Manuel Martinez, 

Andrea Terrero, 

Gabriel Gamez, 

Aliane Castillo-Diaz, 

Paola Cuba Alvarez. 

Jesús Galarza.

Final paper's process

El final paper es acaso la parte más importante de mi clase. Me enorgullece la técnica que he desarrollado con años de enseñanza y feedback de mis estudiantes. 

Este es el proceso:  

1. first draft of the paper (noviembre 13)

2. second draft of the paper (IN CLASS ASSIGNMENT (diciembre 4)

between 1. and 2. there are these recommendations.

you need good counters to have a good philosophy paper

click here for more information,

Aquí tienen mi receta de hummus (bueno, de mi abuela)

click here for more info,

Repaso para el examen del viernes 13 de octubre

Capítulo 1, Introducción y Lógica

La filosofía y sus ramas.

Presocráticos.

What is truth (three criteria)

Argumentos deductivos e inductivos.

Necessary and sufficient conditions.

Logical and causal possibility.

Causa y efecto.

Thought experiment.

Fallacies.

Thought experiment.

Capítulo 8, Epistemología

Different kinds of knowledge.

Breve historia de la epistemología (skepticism, rationalism, empiricism, and kantian theory)

Philosophy of mind videos

An introduction to the philosophy of the mind.

Cartesian dualism. 

This is about functionalism.

Lecture on Thomas Nagel's "What is like to be a bat."

Searle's Chinese room thought experiment.

chapter 4 philosophy of mind

Epiphenomenalism: the mind is an ineffective byproduct of physical processes. (The brain affects the mind, but the mind doesn't affect the brain)

Problem of other minds: It is the philosophical problem of explaining how it is possible to know that there are other minds in the world.

CARTESIAN DUALISM (Rene Descartes) The mind is an immaterial thinking/substance that interacts with the body. Decartes brings an interesting proof: 1. "I can conceive I exist without a body", 2. "the body is divisible, the mind is not," therefore: "mind and body are different."

LOGICAL BEHAVIORISM: MS ↔ BS (Mental states are Behavioral states) and Behavioral States are Behavioral Dispositions (the ability to respond to certain stimulus) . So mental states are reducible to behavioral dispositions.

HOWEVER... A behavioral state is not sufficient OR necessary for being in a mental state. How do we know that?

Conuterexamples to Logical behaviorism: 

1. The Perfect Pretender Thought Experiment ● A person who fakes pain and doesn't feel it. ● He acts/behaves as if he was in pain. According to this counterexample: 

Having the right behavioral dispositions is not sufficient for someone to be in that mental state. 

2. Putnam's Spartan Thought Experiment  ● the spartan has the ability to suppress all involuntary pain behavior though  they feel pain. This thought experiment undermines logical behaviorism because the theory would have us believe if the Spartan doesn't ACT as if they are in pain, then they are not in pain, which is obviously not true. 

So, mental states are not reducible to behavioral states. 

IDENTITY THEORY: MS ↔ BrS (mental states are brain states) It is simpler, better than Cartesian dualism because it doesn’t assume the existence of an immaterial substance. There is no need to go beyond the physical to explain the mental. Our behavior is caused by the brain, NOT the mind. Identity Theory is better than Logical Behaviorism because (being the study of the brain) it's closer to the source of the mind. 

Many Identity theorists are epiphenomenalists, e.g., the mind is to the brain as smoke is to fire.

HOWEVER… Knowing a person’s brain does NOT imply knowing what the person is thinking/feeling.

Counterexamples to Identity Theory: 

1.  [Thomas Nagel’s Bat Experiment ] ● We know how bats use sonar as a form of perception. Nagel shows that there’s no way that we can experience or imagine this form of perception. ● WHY NOT? Because facts about what it is like for the experiencing organism are only accessible from one's point of view, which is the organism itself (1st person). ● All of the physical properties of bats can be known by non-bats, BUT, no non-bat will ever know what it's like to be a bat. If mental states were identical to brain states, then it would be possible to know everything about the mind by knowing everything there is to know about the brain. BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE. 

So, mental states exhibit Nagel's properties: 1- private (1st-person reports), 2. subjective, 3. privileged. They are felt from the inside. Physical properties are 1- public (third person point of view), and 2- objective.

2.  Lewis pained martian (llamémoslo "el marciano adolorido"). 

Lewis ilustra que un marciano puede sentir dolor sin un cerebro. Encontramos un marciano que llega a la tierra en una nave espacial. Su cerebro es hidráulico (contiene agua) no neuronas como nosotros. La plomería del agua pasa por todo su cuerpo. Es decir, es fisiológicamente distinto a nosotros. Cuando pinchas sus C-fibers (no tiene ninguna), lo que sucede es que una parte de su cavidad craneana se inflama. Eso quiere decir que tiene dolor.  Y lo sabemos porque se retuerce, su cara se desfigura en una mueca, tal y como ocurre a los humanos. Es decir, siente dolor, pero carece de los estados neurofisiológicos correspondientes. Es decir, tener un cerebro no es una condición necesaria para tener dolor. 

FUNCTIONALISM: MS ↔ FS 

When two things perform the same function, they are said to have the same “causal role.” Functionalism claims that THE MIND IS WHAT THE BRAIN DOES.

If a robot and a human can perform the same task (same causal role), they are said to be in the same state of mind. Something else about functionalism is that mental states can cause other mental states, i.e., if you see your boyfriend cheating with another woman (input), the following mental states occur (outputs): 1- shock, 2- jealousy, 3- bitterness, (even vengeance).

Counterexamples to Functionalism:  

1. [Putnam's Inverted Spectrum Thought Experiment] ● Imagine an individual is born with an inverted color spectrum. What is red she sees green and vice-versa. ● Then she learns how to tell the difference. She grows up and gets her driver's license. If you asked her: “What color is the top light of the traffic light? She would say RED (she sees it GREEN). ● Her visual experience (the qualitative content - the feel IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE REST OF US). This proves that not every time we are in a functional state (STOPPING AT A RED LIGHT) we are in the same MENTAL STATE.  

2. Lewis' Mad Man Thought Experiment: A person feels a headache (input) but instead of going "ouch" (output, function of pain) he studies calculus. Here he's in the same mental state normal people are, but in a different functional state. This proves one can be in a mental state and not in the same functional state.

TURING TEST FOR INTELLIGENCE: Imitation game. There is a man (A) and a woman (B) and an interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. → The object of the game is for the interrogator to determine which of the two is the man and which is the woman. → It is A’s object in the game to try to cause C to make the wrong identification. The object for the game of B is to help the interrogator.
For Turing there’s nothing more to being intelligent than being able to use language as we do. WHICH MEANS… If a computer is able to do this, then it is smart.

MENTAL STATES ARE IRREDUCIBLE TO BEHAVIORAL STATES, TO BRAIN STATES, TO FUNCTIONAL STATES. MENTAL STATES ARE IRREDUCIBLE. WE CALL PROPERTY OF MENTAL STATES A PRIMITIVE PROPERTY.  This means that Mental States are autonomous processes caused by physical phenomena at an EMERGENT LEVEL.

THE ROLE OF INTENTIONALITY

intentionality is the power of minds and mental states to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs. 

intentionality means we have mental representations with contents. we talk to others about these contents we draw symbols or pictures for the purpose of conveying our mental states. these contents also have intentionality. 

"you are my best companion", "I feel so lonely", "this pizza is amazing!", "I love this song because my grandmother used to sing it", "do you smell the salt in the air?" "wow, the sky and the sea are so blue," "this is such a beautiful landscape,"   

INTENTIONALITY IS A PRIMITIVE PROPERTY, it's the “ABOUTNESS” of a thought. Without intentionality our life would be completely mechanical. A SYNONYM FOR INTENTIONALITY IS QUALIA, i.e., THE UNIQUE PRIVATE SUBJECTIVE "FEEL" OF YOUR MENTAL STATE. 

NOW COMES MY ANALISYS OF THE MIND AS SYSTEMIC PROPERTY OF THE BRAIN. 

 

this is a sketch of a systemic model for the mind (going up emergence, going down supervinience)

Emergent property → is a property which is caused by things that lack that property & interact in certain ways. IN SISTEMS THE WHOLE IS BIGGER THAN THE PARTS. The emergent property arises when all parts are put together. ● The mind is emergent upon and caused by brain activity. EX: Love at first sight. ● Life is an emergent property. ● HURRICANES (baja presión, agua caliente, lluvias, aire frío y caliente, tormenta) ← ALL of these variables MUST happen in order for the emergent property to arise.

click here for examples of emergent properties,

Downward causation → Downward causation is used to explain the effect of the environment on biological evolution. It suggests the causal relationship between the HIGHER levels of a system to LOWER levels of that system. For example: mental events causes physical events. There is a two-way interaction between consciousness and the brain: Consciousness determines the succession of nerve impulses, and nerve impulses determine the content of consciousness.

click here for a brain-systemic model for the mind,

Aquí otra opción al asunto: el pansiquismo. 

2 + 2 = 5

La suma del título (arriba) tiene un pasado notorio.

Aquí forman tremendo ruido y no arreglan nada.  

Aquí by reductio resulta interesante, pero queda coja.

Aquí el mío por reducción al absurdo (sin usar otra cosa que adición y números enteros): 

Probar que  Θ 2 + 2 = 5

1. Supongamos 2 + 2 = 4 es falso.

2. Entonces,  (1 +1 ) + (1 +1 ) = 4  Por asociatividad.

3. Se tiene,     2 + 2 = 4

Sin embargo, dado Θ,  

           2 + 2 ≠ 4 

_________________________

No hay nada que añadir. El resultado es equivalente a esta pintura de Magritte:

 

  

chapter 4 (the philosophy of mind)

watch this sort of funny video as an introduction to the problem, 

click here for my notes to chapter 4,

Criteria of adequacy of scientific theories

The features of what distinguishes a good theory from a bad one:

1. Consistency: Lack of internal contradictions.

2. Simplicity: Quality of relying on only a small number of assumptions.

3. Scope: The amount of diverse phenomena observed.

4. Conservatism: Quality of fitting well with existing theories.

5. Fruitfulness: The number of new facts predicted of problems solved.

Thought experiment

A thought experiment: is the description of a possible situation in which the concept should apply if the theory in question is true.

Counterexample: A counterexample that runs counter or conflicts with a theory.

Paper proposal sample (next wednesday, october 25)

1- Heading (in Times New Roman, point 12). Left hand side: write your name (last name first), "Philosophy Paper Proposal."
2- Write the title in bold letters, middle alignment.
3- The first paragraph has your thesis, followed by a brief explanation supporting it. The second paragraph has the counter thesis and contains a brief explanation supporting it. So and so depends of your paper topic, i.e., Me too critics, Pro-choice advocates, Climate skeptic advocates, etc. 

4- Try to mimic this model. This is how you learn to be clear and succinct.
   
______________________________________________

Rodriguez, Juan 
Philosophy Paper Proposal

Phi 2010 Honors

  Even with factory farms, animals should be protected against abuse

          In this paper, I try to prove that animals being raised in factory farms in America deserve a better treatment. My argument shows the public health risks associated with unregulated factory farming, while stressing that animal cruelty is ethically wrong. 

         So and So advocates disagree by stating that our present regulations are necessary to offer much needed food products at competitive market prices. 

Correlation doesn't mean causation

Correlation: A mutual relationship or connection between two variables. 

When there is a positive correlation, an increase in one variable is associated with an increase in the other. (For instance, scientists might correlate an increase in time spent watching TV with an increase in risk of obesity.) 

Where there is an inverse correlation, an increase in one value is associated with a decrease in the other. (Scientists might correlate an increase in TV watching with a decrease in time spent exercising each week.) 

A correlation between two variables does not necessarily mean one is causing the other. Thus, is not sufficient for causation.

Different possibilities of causation

1. Direct causation: A causes B (direct causation). 

The pool stick striking the billiard ball causing it to jump. 

2. Reverse causation: B causes A (reverse causation). 

The correlation between recreational drug use and psychiatric disorders. Perhaps the drugs cause the disorders, or else, people use drugs to self medicate for preexisting conditions, which brings causes the disorder. 

Children that watch a lot of TV are the most violent. Clearly, TV makes children more violent. 

This could easily be the other way round; that is, violent children like watching more TV than less violent ones!       

3. Concomitant causes: A and B both cause C 

In the case of COVID 19, a person with a preexisting condition. John gets Covid, but he's 76 years old, and has a heart condition. 

Is COVID a direct cause of death? 

Before we answer let's keep in mind these 4 conditions: 

1. COVID must precede John's death (IT DOES), 

2. It's nearly impossible for COVID being there and John not dying (FALSE, John could survive the COVID and his existing heart failure and not die). At this point the answer is already NO, because we need the four conditions together, but revise the last two:

3. the cause must make a difference (IT DOES to some extent). 

4. there is no common cause (AND HERE THERE IS: the heart condition!). 

So, this shows clearly that COVID IS CANNOT BE THE DIRECT CAUSE OF DEATH.

4. Cyclic causation: A causes B and B causes A 

In predator-prey relationship, predator numbers affect prey numbers, but prey numbers (i.e. food supply of predators) also affect predator numbers.

5. Indirect causation: A causes C which causes B  

6. Fringe case: A and B are consequences of a common cause, but do not cause each other. 

Example (from psychology): The relationship between anxiety and shyness shows a statistical value (strength of correlation) of +.59. Therefore, it may be concluded that shyness, causally speaking, influences anxiety.

Yet, there is a catch, the so-called "self-consciousness score", with a sharper correlation (+.73) where  shyness brings up a possible "third variable" known as "self-consciousness". So now we have shyness, anxiety and self-consciousness together. When three such closely related measures are found, it suggests that each may be a cluster of correlated values each influencing one another to some extent. 

So, the first conclusion above (in gray) is false.Ishmael hits Ahab with his car. Ahab is rushed to the hospital and is sent into surgery. During the course of the operation, the surgeon is careless and causes Ahab more injuries. 

No causation: There is no connection between A and B (coincidence)

See the two curves in the chart above (consumption of margarine and the divorce rate in Maine over 10-year period). As if Americans' fondness for margarine correlated with the divorce rate in Maine. This is an instance of two unrelated data sets showing a coincidental pattern.

Confounding (in statistics): A situation where one or more unrecognized variables (conditions or events) were responsible for some effect. 

This could give the faulty impression that the effect was due to something else. Confounding often occurs when researchers did not “control” for the possibility that other variables were or could be at work. 

Example:  The estimated risk ratio for CVD (cardiovascular diseases) in obese as compared to non-obese persons is RR = 0.153/0.86 = 1.79, suggesting that obese persons are 1.79 times as likely to develop CVD compared to non-obese persons. 

However, it is well known that the risk of CVD also increases with age. Could any (or all) of the apparent association between obesity and incident CVD be attributable to age? If the obese group in our sample is older than the non-obese group, then all or part of the increased CVD risk in obese persons could possibly due to the increase in age rather than their obesity. If age is another risk factor for CVD, and if obese and non-obese persons differ in age, then our estimate of the association between obesity and CVD will be overestimated, because of the additional burden of being older. Thus, age meets the definition of a confounder (i.e., it is associated with the primary risk factor(obesity) and the outcome (CVD). In fact, in this data set, subjects who were 50+ were more likely to be obese (200/400 = 0.500) as compared to subjects younger than (100/600=0.167), as demonstrated by the table below.   

¿Qué es la verdad?

En clase les he dicho que la verdad es complicada. Y lo es, pero eso no significa que la filosofía no haya definido el concepto de verdad.

En general tenemos tres definiciones: 

1. Correspondence Theory of Truth (la verdad como correspondencia), 

A proposition is true by its correspondence with reality.  

Ejemplo: Un vertebrado es un animal que tiene un esqueleto con columna vertebral y cráneo, y cuyo sistema nervioso central está formado por la médula espinal y el encéfalo.

2. The Coherence Theory of Truth (la verdad como coherencia con lo que ya se cree).

Truth is what best coheres with our existing knowledge. 

Ejemplo: En cosmología, se entiende por Big Bang,​ o Gran Explosión,​ al comienzo del universo, es decir, el punto inicial en el que se formó la materia, el espacio y el tiempo. 

3. The Pragmatic Theory of Truth (la verdad pragmática).

Truth is, whatever best does the job at hand.  

Ejemplo: El cuadro Guernica de Picasso es una obra maestra de la pintura del siglo XX. 

¿Qué es un experimento mental? (mind experiment)

DEF: The description of a possible situation in which a concept should apply or a condition should be met if the theory in question is true.

Es decir, un experimento mental es un recurso de la imaginación empleado para investigar la naturaleza de las cosas. La mente es el laboratorio del filósofo. Mind experiments nos ayudan a ver concebir las condiciones de posibilidad de las cosas.

Varias teorías o posturas filosóficas se fundan en los resultados de experimentos mentales: 

el dilema del tranvía en ética, 

la habitación china y 

la tierra gemela en filosofía del lenguaje, 

el cerebro en una cubeta y...

el cuarto de Mary en filosofía de la mente, etc.

chapter 6: epistemology

Epistemology's main characters,

A brief history of epistemology, 

Some necessary epistemological concepts,

A PBS video to help you see these ideas,

different kinds of knowledge and examples

1. knowledge by acquaintance: knowledge of what it is to have a certain experience.

example: knowledge of what it is like to be pregnant, knowledge of how it feels to have a heart attack, etc.

2. performative knowledge: knowledge of how to perform a certain activity. 

example: knowledge of how to dance tango or how to ride a bicycle.

3. propositional knowledge: knowledge of whether a proposition is true or false. 

examples:  

"Napoleon died in 1821," 

"John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963,"

" F = ma"

"A planet is an astronomical body orbiting a star,"  

4. a priori knowledge: knowledge that can be acquired independent of experience. 

examples: 

"brothers are male siblings," 

"5 is a prime number," 

"two points determine a line," 

"if two lines intersect, then they intersect in exactly one point."

5. a posteriori knowledge: knowledge based on experience. 

examples: 

"all mammals are vertebrate," 

"water boils down at 100 degrees celsius," 

"Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system",

"A mushroom is the fleshy, spore-bearing fruiting body of a fungus",

"Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter was born and raised in Houston, Texas,"

6. analytic proposition: a proposition that is a logical truth or can be turned into a logical truth by substituting synonym for synonym. 

examples: 

"all bachelors are unmarried males," 

"all triangles have three sides,"  

7. synthetic proposition: a proposition whose predicate concept is not contained in its subject concept but related. 

examples: 

"All creatures with hearts have kidneys,"

"An invertebrate is a cool-blooded animal with no backbone."

Logical and causal possibility (think of mind experiments)

Logical Impossibility:

Something is logically possible if and only if it violates a law of logic.

Law of non-contradiction: 

Nothing can both have and lack a property at the same time. 

Conceivability: 

1. If p is conceivable, it means it is imaginable (imagination is a mental faculty linked to rationality). An example of that is mind experiments in physics and math. 

2. The first step in the evidence that p is possible is to conceive it. Just that. 

we say p is imaginable when its details can be filled and its implication drawn without it being contradictory, i.e., 

ø That the Big Bang has a cause is conceivable. Therefore, it's causally possible.

Analysis: 

Does ø violate a law of nature? Well, according to Big Bang Theory, it does, but there's a conflict here. The Big Bang Theory can be contradicted with another cosmological theory in the future. If so, then ø is causally possible. LQQD.

Clearly, not everything that is conceivable is possible, e.g. Superman, dragons, gremlins, and succubi are all conceivable but not possible (they violate laws of nature).

If p is conceivable, then from 2. It's logically possible. 

finally,

3. p is causally possible if it doesn't violate a law of nature.  

Now, let's talk a little bit about LAWS OF NATURE: 

Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena; they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, the applicability of a law is limited to circumstances resembling those already observed, and the law may be found to be false when extrapolated. 

How do logical possibility (LP) and causal possibility (CP) relate?

If something is logically impossible, it is causally impossible.

If something is causally possible, it is logically possible. 

LI → CI
CP → LP

Clearly, LI is sufficient for CI. Is it necessary? It would be if CI cannot exist without LI. Let's pursue this point further.

Something cannot be and not be at the same time. But time is a causal variable, not a logical one. If time is outside us, then "same time" is sort of cheating for a logical category. Logic is aprioristic. And yet, Kant has argued that time is not outside. Of course, being a physicist, you will swear that time is outside since you can work with it mathematically. But that doesn't contradict Kant's point (though we don't have time to pursue that here).

Law of Unintended Consequences (due to the limits of our knowledge)

The complexity of society supervenes on individuals and societies (of societies) supervene on societies. 

The reason for supervenience is that we cannot stop messing things up. In economics, history, and system theory, this is known as Law of Unintended Consequences (Adam Smith's "invisible hand" in economics in the link's page's second paragraph). 

Here are some examples from History: 

*Spain's discovery of the New World and gold actually made Spanish mercantilism stronger (more money, more mismanagement), which made for more war (England, France, etc.), which ended up depleting the very sources of wealth. Spain became poorer and weaker. 

*Antibiotics are one of the significant medical advances, but their overprescription has resulted in the development of antibiotic-resistant diseases. 

*The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in Russia announces a new era of human equality and progress. Instead, it brings the horrors of the gulag labor camps and the purges of the 1930s under Stalin. *The discovery of nuclear fission, crucial for nuclear power, simultaneously became the main ingredient for the nuclear arms race during the Cold War. 

*More recently, Germany’s "green" policies. In 2000, Germany passed a major green initiative Promulgated by a Socialist-Green coalition government. It forced providers to purchase renewable energy at exorbitant fixed prices and feed that power through their grids for twenty years. In 2011, stubborn Angela Merkel doubled down and shut down eight reactors in the immediate aftermath of the Fukushima disaster (which was caused by a tsunami –a threat Germany isn’t exposed to!)😅 "Green power" is so unreliable that Germany is constructing four new coal plants to replace the nuclear energy it has taken offline. And most of these coal-fired facilities lignite! which is strip-mined and emits nearly 35% more carbon dioxide than hard coal!

Here are some additional variables to the Law of Unintended Consequences:

There are so many variables:

1- Ignorance! We can't tell the distant future. 

2- Errors in our models (remember induction?) What worked in the past doesn't have to apply to the current situation. 

3- Immediate interests override long-term interests (it's called short-termism). Though someone's long-termism may be someone else's short-termism!

4- Basic values that may require or prohibit specific actions even if the long-term result might be unfavorable (these long-term consequences may eventually cause changes in basic values). 

5- Self-defeating prophecy, or the fear of some consequence, which drives people to find solutions before the problem occurs; thus, the non-occurrence of the problem is not anticipated. 

This is also known as the Munchausen paradox.

6- Grupthink is definitely a candidate.

Homework #3 (causation)

 click here for more information.

Lista de algunos paradigmas científicos que han cambiado

 pincha aquí.

Cause and effect can betray even the smartest amongst us!

When is C a cause of E?

Take this simple example: Pluto's barking causes Dick to wake up.

We need four steps:

1. The cause must precede the effect,

2. It's nearly impossible for the cause to happen and the effect not to happen. Another way of saying it: if the cause had not happened, the effect would not have happened. 

3. The cause makes a difference, (without the cause, there's no effect),
4. There's no common cause,   Think of a person suffering from depression. You could frame their depression using the common-cause relationship as well. Depression leads to a lack of motivation AND a lack of appetite.

   
so, we have:

1. The barking precedes Dick's waking up, 
2. It's nearly impossible for Pluto to bark and Dick not to wake up,

3. Without the barking, there's no waking up, 
4. Suppose both the barking and waking up is caused by a person jumping Dick's fence and making a noise which causes Pluto to bark and Dick to wake up). 

necessary, sufficient, and contributory causes:

Pluto's barking is a necessary cause of Dick's waking up if the barking precedes the waking, but it doesn't imply the latter will occur, i.e., Dick may not wake up (it's not guaranteed).      

Pluto's barking is a sufficient cause of Dick's waking up if the the barking necessarily imply the waking, although another cause may also contribute to Dick's waking (noise coming from the bathroom where Dick's wife was taking a shower). Here the presence of the waking doesn't guarantee the prior occurrence of the barking.

A cause is a contributory cause if it's one among several co-occurrent causes. In general, there is no implication that a contributory cause is necessary, though it may be so.

Reciprocally, a contributory cause is not sufficient for the effect, because it is by definition accompanied by other causes, which would not count as causes if they are sufficient, for your information, most causes are contributory, i.e., there are more than one. 

Want one paramount example of contributory causation? 

 

Climate change, with all its contributory causes: sun, orbital variations of the earth, low cloud cover, oceans, albedo effect, man-made C0₂, etc.

REMEMBER, VERY IMPORTANT...

CORRELATION DOESN'T MEAN CAUSATION

Fallacies (watch out, most of info you get from sources is fallacious)

A fallacy is an argument which provides poor reasoning in support of its conclusion. Here are some examples:

Begging the Question: The argument's conclusion is used as one of its premises. Basically the proof is assumed.
 

A: He's mad right now.
B: How do you know?
A: Because he's really angry.

Of course smoking causes cancer. The smoke from cigarettes is a carcinogen!

Prosecutor to defendant: So how did you feel when you killed your wife?

Ad hominem (or Against the Person): When someone tries to win an argument by denigrating its presenter (favorite fallacy used by politicians and the media to put down an enemy)

"You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well."

"Hey, Professor Moore, we shouldn't have to read this book by Freud. Everyone knows he used cocaine."

Argumentum ad Populum (Literally "Argument to the People"): Using an appeal to popular assent, often by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the multitude rather than building an argument.

Ex: "The Bold and the Listless must be a great book. It’s been on the best seller list for 8 weeks."

Appeal to ignorance (ad ignorantiam): It has two forms: The fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. Ad ignorantiam wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim.

"She hasn't said she doesn't like you, right? So she's probably interested. Call her up."

"Nobody has conclusively proven that the Yeti doesn't exist, therefore it must exist."

 "I thought I had every reason to think I was doing fine leading the group; no one complained."
 
Hasty Generalization: You are guilty of hasty generalization when jumping into conclusion about all things of a certain type based on evidence that concerns only a few things of that type (favorite argument used by politicians and ideologues).  

"The department of law enforcement in Miami is corrupt. Five police officers in three different departments were involved in drug dealing in 2017" (right answer: Miami has  4,780 police employees, i.e., 5 corrupt officers are 0.16% of the force).  
 
"Men are toxic! It's crystal clear:  They perpetrate over 76% of the violent crime in the US." (right answer: violent men committing violent crimes constitute 6% of the population of males in the US).

Appeal to Authority: A claim is accepted because not because of its merit, but because of the authority (power, fame, etc) of the person saying it.  

"Pacifism is a good idea because the brilliant scientist Einstein advocated it."

"If the Pope says it, it must be true."  

 "Nobody is a better judge than public opinion."

Red Herring: This fallacy consists in diverting attention from the real issue by focusing instead on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first. 

Daughter: "I'm so hurt that Todd broke up with me, Mom." 
Mother: "Just think of all the starving children in Africa, honey. Your problems will seem pretty insignificant then."

Appeal to Fear: To use threat or harm to advance an argument. Ex: "If we don’t stop petroleum consumption, global warming will increase. Therefore, we need to stop petroleum consumption immediately." 

False Dilemma: It presumes that there are only two alternatives to a given problem, when in fact there are more than two.  

"Either science can explain how she was cured or else, it's a miracle."

"Since there is nothing good on TV tonight, I will just have to get drunk."

"If you are don't accept our climate catastrophe, then you're a denier!"

False Cause: Supposing that two events are connected when in fact they are not. 

"They had a very successful business. Then they decided to adopt a child, and the business went immediately into the red."

Inconsistency: A person commits the fallacy of inconsistency when he or she makes contradictory claims. 

"I'm a strong believer in freedom of speech. However, when a person like John Dean can influence our youth , you have to draw a line and say no more."

"This is the truth: truth is subjective."

Etimological fallacy: Believing that the present day meaning of a word of concept should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. 

"So-and-so" (a phrase used in the 19th Century) should not be used anymore. It's very offensive! 

Necessary and sufficient conditions

Necessary conditions:

X is a necessary condition for Y, 

if X is not present, Y doesn't happen.

(yet, to say that X is a necessary condition for Y does not mean that X guarantees Y)

Having gasoline in my car (gasoline engine cars) is a necessary condition for my car to start. Yet,  having gasoline in the car does not guarantee that my car will start. There are many other conditions needed for my car to start.

Having oxygen in the earth's atmosphere is a necessary condition for human life. However, having oxygen will not guarantee human life. There are many other conditions needed for human life other than oxygen in the atmosphere.


Sufficient conditions:

X is a sufficient condition for Y,

if X is present, Y happens (X guarantees Y)

Rain pouring from the sky is a sufficient condition for the ground to be wet (not necessary, since the ground could be wet for other reasons).
______

Test yourself: 

*Is sunlight a necessary or sufficient condition for the flowers to bloom?

*Is earning a final grade of C a necessary or sufficient condition for passing the course?

*Is being a male a necessary or sufficient condition for being a father?

*Is having AIDS a necessary or sufficient condition for having the HIV virus?

*Is studying for a test a necessary or sufficient condition for passing a test?

*Is completing all the requirements of your degree program a necessary or sufficient condition for earning your degree?

Homework #2 (deduction, induction)

Are these deductive or inductive?

1. The sum of the interior angles of any triangle is 180°. In triangle #1, angle A is 30°, angle B is 90°. Therefore, angle C is 60°. 
2. If I get an A, then I will pass this course. Odds are, I will make a B. So, I probably won't pass this course. 
3. The platypus is not a mammal (google & find out) because no mammal lays eggs, and the female platypus does. (Check this Britannica discussion, defending that the platypus is a mammal)
4. The last time I ate here, the shrimp dish I ordered was disgusting. It must be the case that this restaurant buys lousy seafood. 
5. The sign on the candy machine reads "Out of Order." The candy machine must be broken. 

are these valid or invalid? 

1. If it rained, the streets are wet. The streets are wet, so it must have rained. 
2. If Richard Roe is willing to testify then he's innocent. He's not willing to testify therefore he's not innocent. 
3. If Bogotá is north of New Orleans and New Orleans is north of Mexico City, then Bogota is north of Mexico City. 

are these strong or weak? 

4. Every day you've lived has been followed by another day in which you've been alive. Therefore, everyday you ever will live will be followed by another day in which you are alive. 
5. Nobel prize-winning biologist Herbert Ralls says that chlorinated hydrocarbons in our water supply constitute a major threat to the public health. Since no scientists disagree with him on this point. Accordingly, we conclude that the presence of these chemicals is a threat.
6. Every day you've ever lived has been a day before tomorrow, so, every day you will ever live will be a day before tomorrow. 

Socratic axis of knowledge

In the Y axis, I know that I know (certainty) 

In the X axis, I know I don't know (philosophy)

In the -Y axis, I don't know, I know (ignorance)

In the -X axis, I don't know I don't know (blissful ignorance or self-deceit) 

deductive and inductive arguments

PREMISE:

A premise is a reason given.

ARGUMENT:

An argument is a set of premises and a conclusion.

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

An argument is a set of premises and a conclusion. Look at this argument:

"Socrates is a man"  first premise
"Men are mortal"    second premise
________
"Socrates is mortal" conclusion

Now, there are deductive and inductive arguments.

Deductive argument are “truth preserving”, because the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion.

Deductive arguments can be valid or invalid. If VALID, then the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises (even if the premises were false).

"Socrates is a man" (T)
"Men are mortal"    (T)
________
"Socrates is mortal"  (T)

the above argument is valid. in addition the premises are true. if the argument is VALID and its premises true, the conclusion must be true. we call this kind of argument SOUND. 

now let's play a bit with truth values:

"Socrates is a man"  (T)
"Men are immortal" (F)
__________
"Socrates is immortal" (F)

the above argument IS VALID, i.e, though the conclusion follows from the premises, though one premise is false. We have a false premise and a false conclusion, yet the above argument is VALID, but UNSOUND

See that deduction is independent from experience beause the reasoning is self contained in the premises. Remember that the premises could be false and the argument still be valid. 

DEDUCTION IS APRIORISTIC. MATHEMATICS IS AN EXAMPLE OF AN APRIORISTIC DISCIPLINE. 

______________

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS:

An inductive argument establishes a conclusion with high degree of probability. Here the truth of their premises does not guarantee the truth of their conclusion.

Every windstorm observed so far in this area comes from the north. We can see a big cloud of dust in the distance. So, probably a new windstorm is coming from the north.

Analysis: The above argument is a strong inductive argument. The "so far" in the premise is simple and cautious, and the conclusion uses "probably."  Strong inductive arguments establish the conclusion with high probability IF the premises were true.

 

There are three kinds of inductive arguments: 

Inductive generalization: It goes from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the population, or it derives general principles from specific observations.  

Analogical Induction: The process of analogical inference involves noting the shared properties of two or more things and from this basis inferring that they also share some further property:

Example:
 

Athenians and spartans are similar with respect to speaking the same language & being Pantheists
An Athenian has been observed to have further property X
Therefore, a Spartan probably also has property X.

Enumerative Induction: It reasons from particular instances to all instances. 

Example: If one observes 100 swans, and all 100 are white, one might infer "All swans are white." 

 

(As you can see, even if the premises are true, it does not entail the conclusion's truth. The conclusion might be true, and might be thought probably true, yet it can be false).

Inference to the best explanation IBE: 

Phenomenon Q.

E provides the best explanation for Q.

Therefore, it is probable that E is true.

________________

As you can see, a big difference between deduction and induction is that the latter depends from experience. 

INDUCTION IS BASICALLY A POSTERIORI. 

SO, WE CAN SAY THAT SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE A POSTERIORI, NEVER ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN.