tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post345906916086246066..comments2024-03-29T07:36:41.429-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: The Argument from PredicationBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-39964139032672723402009-12-30T09:30:13.103-05:002009-12-30T09:30:13.103-05:00Nal,
Thanks for the link. I reviewed that page an...Nal,<br /><br />Thanks for the link. I reviewed that page and have confirmed that the proper code is inserted in the desired spot in my blog. It's still not behaving. I'm surmising that it's because I updated to the new editor *after* I originally published my post. Supposing that's the reason for the issue, I'll just have to wait for my next lengthy post to experiment with the "read more" function. T'is a pity, I do look forward to using this function.<br /><br />Chris,<br /><br />Greetings to you too!<br /><br />In response to your thoughts/questions:<br /><br />1. Glad you're enjoying it!<br /><br />2. A book? I'd love to. Got any spare time you could donate?<br /><br />3. I don't know whether or not Kelley deals specifically wiht the problem of induction in any of his books, as I've not read them all. He has published a lecture which he gave on the topic back in 1986 in which he interacts directly with Hume's conception of the problem. If Kelley figured that was sufficient treatment of the topic, I could see why. By correcting many of Hume's own errors in framing the problem, and showing how the Aristotelian conception of causality and Rand's theory of concepts work together in justifying inductive generalization, Kelley shows that the problem really doesn't exist so long as one does not accept Hume's errors and adopts a rational approach to philosophy. I'd say a good place to start would be with Rand's <i>Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology</i>. It's brief, but packed with a lot of content.<br /><br />4. Likewise to you and everyone else reading this: Happy New Year! I think it's going to take a little extra effort in 2010 to achieve and maintain happiness... There are some profound forces attacking our ability to be happy for the foreseeabel future.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-22111761747664463542009-12-29T14:26:02.849-05:002009-12-29T14:26:02.849-05:00Dawson,
Four brief comments/questions:
1. This i...Dawson,<br /><br />Four brief comments/questions:<br /><br />1. This is a good read, though I am not quite finished yet. I appreciate that the argument is evaluated on its own terms followed by an argument from Objectivist principles rather than having the two squished together.<br /><br />2. Might we expect a book coming from you at some point?<br /><br />3. What is the name of the book wherein David Kelley deals specifically with the Problem of Induction and what other books might you recommend now that I have better access to a library?<br /><br />4. A late Merry Christmas and an appropriately timed Happy New Year to you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-5506727560913571882009-12-27T23:08:11.766-05:002009-12-27T23:08:11.766-05:00Hmmm. If you're using a third-party customized...Hmmm. If you're using a third-party customized template, you'll have to add some code. Check the bottom of this <a href="http://www.google.com/support/blogger/bin/answer.py?answer=154172" rel="nofollow">page</a>.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-44566386031473061092009-12-27T20:21:51.067-05:002009-12-27T20:21:51.067-05:00Hi Nal,
Thanks for clarifying. I found the place ...Hi Nal,<br /><br />Thanks for clarifying. I found the place where I could update the post editor (didn't know that was available!), and I did just as you suggested. I placed the jump break after the first paragraph. Curiously, it is not showing up on my blog, even though I can see it in the editor (both in the compose mode, as a grey bar, and in the HTML mode - as a "more" tag. Not sure why it's not behaving.<br /><br />I did make some other edits to my paper, though. Caught a few typos and clarified a few points.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-42658409830885860522009-12-27T10:52:05.308-05:002009-12-27T10:52:05.308-05:00To Dawson,
On the create post page, click on the ...To Dawson,<br /><br />On the create post page, click on the "Settings" tab. Down at the bottom under "Global Settings" is the "Select post editor" option. Click on "Updated editor", and "Save Settings". <br /><br />Then, under the "Compose" option for creating posts, you'll see a torn page icon all the way on the right. Just click this with the cursor in the desired position.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-68856809746994355962009-12-27T10:00:31.698-05:002009-12-27T10:00:31.698-05:00One wonders what the presuppositionalists would co...One wonders what the presuppositionalists would come up with if they actually studied logic (a subject they claim to be quite interested in, although it isn't obvious given their arguments).<br /><br />For instance, the claims about "presupposes" in the article indicate that it is some sort of binary modal operator, and a weird one at that. For instance, we might formulate our logic as some system of natural deduction where we have different sorts of judgments. In such a system, you might have judgments <b>prop</b> that some formula is a well-formed proposition, and <b>true</b> that some proposition is true. So, typically you'd have rules like (pardon the messiness, but blogger doesn't give a lot of formatting horsepower):<br /><br />P <b>prop</b> Q <b>prop</b><br />_________________<br /> P ∧ Q <b>prop</b><br /><br />And you might have hypothetical judgments in some context, so:<br /><br />Γ , P <b>true</b> ⊢ Q <b>true</b><br />___________________<br />Γ ⊢ P → Q <b>true</b><br /><br />(where the <b>prop</b>-ness of P and Q is assumed to hold). But, the interpretation of "presupposes" in the article indicates that we need to have a logic where <b>prop</b> may only hold hypothetically. So we might have:<br /><br />Γ, P <b>true</b> ⊢ Q <b>prop</b><br />__________________<br />Γ ⊢ P ⇒ Q <b>prop</b><br /><br />Γ, P <b>true</b> ⊢ Q <b>prop</b> Γ, ¬ P <b>true</b> ⊬ Q <b>prop</b><br />_________________________________________<br />Γ ⊢ P ⇒ Q <b>true</b><br /><br />Where ⇒ is the presuppositional modality. Then the argument that both C and ~C imply their presupposition would look more like:<br /><br />Γ ⊢ P ⇒ Q <b>true</b> Γ ⊢ Q <b>prop</b><br />____________________________<br />Γ ⊢ P <b>true</b><br /><br />Which at least is a somewhat sensible set of rules (inasmuch as they express what the presupper wants to happen, not that they make sense in themselves; and perhaps I shouldn't have used the <b>prop</b> judgment of well-formed propositions like above, but some other similar judgment, but you get the idea). But I've not seen a logic quite like this before.<br /><br />Of course, it's my suspicion that presuppers are allergic to drawing up rules like this to make their arguments precise, since Logic (TM) was created by god, and my activities above make it look like logics are just systems of rules a mere human like me can pick out to formally model some particular (bizarre) form of argumentation.Dan Doelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16761291400347369301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-25366305210123066692009-12-27T02:53:01.468-05:002009-12-27T02:53:01.468-05:00To NAL, who requested that I incorporate the "...To NAL, who requested that I incorporate the "Continue Reading" function into my longer blog entries...<br /><br />I'm sorry. I tried incorporating the code for this function into this blog entry, but it did not work. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong, but I believe I followed the directions to the letter. At any rate, it is not working, so I had to remove the code from the HTML version of my blog in order to reduce the blank space it caused. Readers will simply have to "muscle through" with another of my "lengthy, arrogant posts."<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.com