Phi 2010 HONORS

Tuesday, September 1, 2026

¿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 y 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 tabla de Carneades, en ética,

la habitación china, en filosofía de la mente,

la tierra gemela, en filosofía del lenguaje,

el cerebro en una cubeta y...

el cuarto de Mary en filosofía de la mente.

Here is an example of how to build a mind experiment.

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 are 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

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 a 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, a new windstorm is probably 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.

If the argument is not STRONG, then it is WEAK.

THRE 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. Click here for a good explanation of inductive generalizations.

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.

Click here for examples of analogical induction.

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 probably true, yet it can be false).

Click here for examples of enumerative induction.

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.

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?

Thursday, August 27, 2026

la naturaleza de la HIPÓ-TESIS

Henri Poincaré

La hipótesis (hypo: debajo, thesis: conclusión) es el recurso par excellence del descubrimiento científico.

"Siendo incierta la causa de las cosas, no es indigno del hombre conjeturarla; mas tenga por cierto solamente aquello que los hechos consienten." Anónimo, siglo I AD

"Así como el peregrino, viendo humo en lontananza, presume que allí ha de haber fuego, así el entendimiento, viendo las señales del mundo, propone lo que ellas pudiesen significar. Mas sólo Dios conoce la verdad." Fray Fabrenius, circa 1300 AD

"No debe llamarse verdad aquello que apenas ha sido supuesto para explicar los fenómenos; pero tampoco ha de despreciarse una hipótesis que, sometida a examen, ordena lo diverso y hace inteligible lo que antes parecía confuso." George Hamman, siglo 17.

Recuérdese. Hypótesis no es conclusión definitiva. Es meramente postulado plausible.

La hipótesis necesita confirmación. Esa confirmación se da en las matemáticas en forma absoluta (no así en las demás ciencias experimentales).

¿Qué garantías tenemos de que nuestra hipótesis funcione?

De esto vamos a hablar muy pronto.

Some excellent introductory math texts I recommend

Mi libro favorito de cálculo 1, 2 y 3. Tom Apostol Vol. 1, & Volume 2 (PDF).

Lynn Loomis and Schlomo Sternberg, for Advanced Calculus. What a mind, Svi Sternberg!

A great Linear Algebra Introduction (PDF).

Introduction to Abstract Algebra, by Michael Artin (2nd Edition).

Differential Equations, PDF, by Paul Blanchard. Professor Blanchard is an authority on the Mandelbrot set.

Applied Partial Differential Equations, David Logan, PDF.

Introduction to Set Theory, by Herbert Enderton, PDF.

Monday, August 24, 2026

LES PRESENTO EL AXIS DEL CONOCIMIENTO

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

In the X axis, I know I don't know (doubt, duda, la filosofía)

In the -Y axis, I don't know, I know (self deceit, autoengaño)

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

3. "No sé que sé"

Aquí las preguntas suelen revelar un saber que ya estaba operando

¿Cómo sabes que esta persona está mintiendo? «No sé… simplemente me doy cuenta.» Hay un saber, pero no está tematizado. El cocinero: ¿Cómo sabes hacer esto? «No sé cómo; simplemente puedo.» Se le llama saber práctico o tácito. ¿Cómo supiste que algo no estaba bien cuando entraste en la habitación? «No sé; lo sentí inmediatamente.» Reconocimiento sin una formulación consciente de las razones.

Y una pregunta más sartreana (a una joven cajera del Presidente): ¿Sabes que podrías dejar este trabajo y matricular el college? «No, tengo que seguir aquí.» La pregunta apunta a un saber sobre la propia libertad que el sujeto no quiere reconocer como saber.

Distingamos dos formas de 3:

3a. No sé que sé → saber tácito.

3b. No sé que sé → saber rechazado/negado.

4. "No sé que no sé"

Aquí las preguntas son mucho más extrañas, porque la persona no sabe todavía cuál es la pregunta que debería hacer. Ejemplos:

1- Un niño pregunta: «¿Por qué el cielo es azul?» Eso todavía es 2: sé que no sé. Pero antes de descubrir que existe una explicación física del color del cielo, podría ni siquiera preguntarse por qué tiene color. Ese sería el 4.

2- Un hombre del siglo XV: «¿Qué causa las enfermedades?» Puede formular la pregunta. Pero no puede preguntar todavía: «¿Qué microorganismo está causando esta infección?» No dispone del concepto de microorganismo.

3- Antes de Copérnico, alguien puede preguntar: «¿Por qué se mueven los planetas?» Pero difícilmente: «¿Qué evidencia demostraría que la Tierra gira alrededor del Sol?» Esa posibilidad no forma todavía parte de su horizonte conceptual.

4- Una persona que nunca ha oído hablar de inteligencia artificial no pregunta: «¿Qué efectos tendrá la IA sobre mi profesión?» No sabe todavía que existe esa cuestión.

Pregúntale a alguien: «¿Qué no sabes?»

Si responde: «No sé cálculo diferencial.» Está en 2.

Pero si le preguntas: «¿Qué cosas ignoras cuya existencia ni siquiera sospechas?»

Ya estás señalando 4.

Y ahí está la diferencia profunda:

El 2 puede formular su ignorancia.
El 4 no puede formularla porque todavía carece del objeto de su ignorancia.

Por eso 4 es el más cercano a la ignorancia absoluta, mientras que el 2 es ya una forma de conocimiento.

LOS PRESOCRÁTICOS (PADRES DE SOFÍA... ANTES DE LA FILOSOFÍA)

What is the fundamental "stuff" (arche) of the universe?

The crucial feature of pre-Socratic philosophy was the use of reason to explain the universe. The philosophers shared the intuition that there was a single explanation that could explain both the plurality and the singularity of the whole. For some reason, they believed this fundamental stuff of the universe was univocal.

They called it archë.

MILESIAN SCHOOL (born in Miletus)

Anaximander (610-546 BC), a geometer and the first writer on philosophy. He came up with the idea of apeiron , i.e., an undefined, unlimited substance without qualities, out of which the primary opposites.

Thales of Miletus: (of the Milesian school) Thales claims that the world rests on water with the view that water is the archē or fundamental principle, and he adds that “that from which they come to be is a principle of all things.” He suggests that Thales chose water because of its fundamental role in coming-to-be, nutrition, and growth and claims that water is the origin of the nature of moist things. archë is water because, as a substance, it contains motion and change.

Heraclitus: Fuego. The universe is a state of perpetual flux, connected by logical structure or pattern, which he termed logos.

Xenophanes: comes up with the notion of pephuke (explanation), which states that X is really Y when Y reveals the true character of X.

Pythagoras: the notion that NUMBER (or mathematics) reveals the structure of the universe.

ELEATIC SCHOOL (born in Elea)

Parmenides is the father of metaphysics and rationalism. His theory is that what IS CANNOT NOT BE.

So, BEING (NOUS) is UNCHANGING. For something to change, it has to NOT BE, which is a contradiction because NOTHING cannot exist, and out of nothing, nothing comes.

Atomist School

The Atomists: Leucippus (5th BC) and his pupil Democritus of Abdera (460-370 BC) from Thrace. the arche are atoms: small primary bodies, infinite in number, indivisible and imperishable, qualitatively similar, but distinguished by their shapes. They move eternally through the infinite void. They collide and unite, thus generating objects that differ in accordance with the varieties in number, size, shape, etc. We are ALL atoms.

The Pluralist School

Empedocles: comes up with the principle of attraction and rejection, or LOVE and STRIFE. One cannot be without the other. Love unites, strife separates.

Observaciones:

Lo interesante es que las respuestas del archë se hacen cada vez más abstractas:

Tales → agua. Una cosa concreta.

Anaximandro → ápeiron. No es una cosa determinada, sino un principio indeterminado.

Pitágoras → número. El fundamento pasa de la materia a la estructura.

Heráclito → fuego / logos. El fundamento está en el devenir ordenado.

Parménides → ser: El fundamento ya no es material, sino ontológico.

Empédocles → cuatro raíces. No hay una sola sustancia originaria, sino varias irreductibles.

Atomistas → átomos + vacío. La multiplicidad se explica mediante unidades materiales y el espacio que permite su movimiento.

No todos estos presocráticos usan arché en el mismo sentido. En Tales y Anaximandro, la palabra funciona muy bien; en Pitágoras, Heráclito y Parménides, ya estamos ante principios filosóficos más complejos. En

PHILOSOPHY AND ITS BRANCHES

LOGIC: The study of correct thinking. Su objeto no es qué pensamos, sino cómo pensamos y bajo qué condiciones un razonamiento puede considerarse válido.

Example: "A triangle has four sides". THIS IS NOT TRUE.

"If it rains, the streets are wet. It rained, therefore the streets are wet" . THIS IS INVALID.

AXIOLOGY: the study of value.

What is value? Think of something in terms of good or bad, i.e.,

"I hate broccoli." "I love R&B." "I hate roaches." "What she did to her sister was wrong." "My grandma's chicken soup is still the best." I'm not crazy about Picasso's art."

Without axiology, imagine what law, food, art, economy, and human relationships would be.

An essential question at this point is whether the value we posit is objective or subjective. In other words,

Is Catena Malbec 2014 good because I lived in Argentina, or am I Argentinian, instead of the juice in the bottle?

Or....

When we say "Slavery is wrong," are we talking about now, 2017, or any time in the past or the future?

Axiology is divided into two:

ETHICS: evaluating human actions, i.e., right and wrong conduct.

Ponder this: What makes an action right?

the action's results
the action's intentions
the emotive responses towards the action
the action itself
what (people, society, culture) think of it

Keywords: right, wrong.

AESTHETICS is the study of value in the arts or the inquiry into feelings, judgments, or beauty standards and related concepts.

What makes something beautiful, ugly, elegant, awful, attractive, charming, clumsy, mysterious, etc?
Are aesthetic properties objective, subjective, or inter-subjective?

Keywords: beautiful, ugly, amazing (sublime).

Ponder this: Is the sunset beautiful if no one sees it? or better, is there unseen beauty, majesty?
See that though we didn't witness the Big Bang, the idea of such an event has given physicists plenty to talk about. We've seen simulations of it in the movies.

EPISTEMOLOGY: the study of knowledge.

Epistemology investigates the origin, structure, methods, and integrity of knowledge.

How much do we actually know? More importantly, Is our knowledge warranted?

What is the difference between belief and knowledge?

Do I hold false beliefs?

Keywords: belief, truth, justification, explanation.

METAPHYSICS: the study of what is really real. This is heavy. We're dealing here with principles. The question in metaphysics is the existence status of any kind of stuff.

Consider the truths of mathematics: how is it that a triangle exists? Are points, lines, or planes really real?

What is a soul?

Under what conditions are these entities possible?

Keywords: identity, change, being, necessity, accident, category, etc.

WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? PRESENTED BY HANK GREEN

Click here for more information.

TEXTBOOK

Click here for our textbook.

¿Qué gano con estudiar filosofía? Philosophy es #1 en "analytic", "verbal" y "composite" para el GRE, LSAT and LGMAT (y el salario no es malo)

click here for more information,

Phi 2010 Honors, Syllabus, Fall 2026

Alfredo Triff, PhD.

Escéptico, tradicionalista, hedonista, cocinero, tutor y fumador —de pipa. 😎

atriff@mdc.edu

Texto: Philosophy Here and Now, by Lewis Vaughn (Fourth Edition).

Objetivos de la clase

* Familiarizarse con las tendencias contemporáneas en la filosofía.

* La dinámica laboriosa del diálogo y la discusión.

* Comprender el proceso de formación de creencias y cómo combatir los propios prejuicios.

* La importancia de la verdad filosófica frente a los supuestos "políticamente correctos".

* Cómo estimular la curiosidad y la perseverancia.

* Fundamentar una filosofía de vida. ☝

Evaluación

1. Las calificaciones "A", "B" y "C" representan sobresaliente, bueno y promedio, respectivamente. "D" está por debajo del promedio. "F" significa que no hay suficiente trabajo para justificar el crédito por el curso.

2. Aquí el desglose final: 2 exámenes, parcial y final, cada uno 20 puntos + alrededor de 12 tareas (20 puntos), trabajo final (15 puntos) + asistencia (25 puntos). Este desglose representa una aproximación cualitativa (mis calificaciones son algo curvas).

3. La asistencia es obligatoria. Tomo asistencia al comienzo de cada clase. Si un estudiante no responde, significa ausente. Si el estudiante entra en el aula después de que la clase haya comenzado, significa tarde. Asuntos de tardanza se tratan SÓLO al final de la clase.

Desglose de material

Capítulo 1: La filosofía (introducción): metafísica, lógica, condiciones de necesidad y suficiencia.

Capítulo 6: Epistemología

Capítulo 4: Filosofía de la mente y el cuerpo

Capítulo 5: Libre albedrío y determinismo

Midterm Exam

Capítulo 3: La vida moral

Capítulo 8: La sociedad justa

Capítulo 2: Dios y la religión

Final exam

Final Paper

I reserve the right to change the order of the chapters, provided I let you know in advance.

Thursday, November 13, 2025

chapter 3, ETHICS, fall 2025

let's start with this video,

click here for my intro to moral norms,

what are defensible moral judgments?

click here for my lectures on ethics,

Homework 7 (ETHICS, CHAPTER)

click here for more information.

Friday, November 7, 2025

HOMEWORK #9 TRES PÁRRAFOS DEL PHILOSOPHY PAPER

Click here for more information.

Thursday, November 6, 2025

PROS AND CONS TOPICS FOR FINAL PAPER

Click here for more information.

Monday, November 3, 2025

STRUCTURE OF YOUR PHILOSOPHY PAPER

Click here for more information.

Paper proposal sample (this Thursday)

1- Heading (in Times New Roman, point 12). On the left 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 short explanation supporting it. So and so depends on your paper topic, i.e., Second Amendment advocates, Climate Change skeptics, or advocates, etc.

4- Try to mimic the model below.

______________________________________________

Rodriguez, Juan
Philosophy Paper Proposal

Phi 2010 Honors

Even in factory farms, animals should be protected against abuse

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

Factory Farms advocates disagree, stating that despite animals' suffering during slaughter, our present regulations are necessary to offer much-needed food products at competitive market prices.