Linguistics and formal logic

[IndigoRose]

In a book I am reading is the following:
"Mathematical proofs are merely matters of form, with the question of meaning put aside....axioms are strings of uninterpreted symbols....any interpretations of the symbols play no role at all in deducing theorems."

My question is not a challenge of that, but a question of how often "logical arguments" become a discussion based on the meanings of the words contained in them. Do you have some good examples of where the problem was in the linguistics and not in the formal logic?
IndigoRose

 

[DrMatt]

In a book I am reading is the following:
"Mathematical proofs are merely matters of form, with the question of meaning put aside....axioms are strings of uninterpreted symbols....any interpretations of the symbols play no role at all in deducing theorems."

My question is not a challenge of that, but a question of how often "logical arguments" become a discussion based on the meanings of the words contained in them. Do you have some good examples of where the problem was in the linguistics and not in the formal logic?
IndigoRose

The whole categories of fallacy of accent, fallacy of equivocation, and so forth deal with semantics, rather than formal logic.
Does that help?

 

[Keneke]

Do you have some good examples of where the problem was in the linguistics and not in the formal logic?
IndigoRose

Just last week I was in a debate over "universal truths". So, were we talking about facts, or about pithy axiomatic sayings? I have no idea.

 

[DrMatt]

d(a,b) + d(b,c) <= d(a,c), except where void or prohibited by law.

 

[IndigoRose]

Re: Re: Linguistics and formal logic

The whole categories of fallacy of accent, fallacy of equivocation, and so forth deal with semantics, rather than formal logic.
Does that help?

Yes, fallacies of equivocation are what I am talking about. Can you give me some examples of those that you have come across? Can you give me some examples of fallacy of accent?
IndigoRose

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Linguistics and formal logic

Yes, fallacies of equivocation are what I am talking about. Can you give me some examples of those that you have come across? Can you give me some examples of fallacy of accent?
IndigoRose

A fallacy of equivocation is where you use the same word, but with two different meanings. A classic (joke) example :

Q: Which would you rather have, a cheese sandwich or complete happiness?

A: A cheese sandwich. Because nothing is better than complete happiness, but a cheese sandwich is better than nothing.

Typing "fallacy of equivocation" into your favorite web search engine should provide dozens of examples. Here's one from about.com : " 2. It is wrong to kill innocent human beings. (premise #1) Fetuses are innocent human beings. (premise #2) Therefore, it is wrong to kill fetuses. (conclusion)." The phrase "innocent human beings" is arguably being used in two different senses in the two premises. (Alternatively, it's being used consistently and is an example of "begging the question.")

Another classic (realistic) example is an argument that hinges on the identity of the God worshipped by Christians, Muslims, and Jews (of of the Jesus mentioned in the Koran and the New Testament). Despite the fact that the same words are often used, the underlying concepts as understood by believers are often quite different.

Finally, a political example with real-life consequences concerns the current "War on Terrorism" and the previous "War on Drugs." Mililtary law is set up with slightly different rules in "wartime" and "peacetime," based mainly on the idea that battlefield expediency may require. for example, certain judicial niceties to be waived or the rules about recruitment/retention of soldiers be adjusted. Can these rules, set up and justified in the 19th-century for the conditions of a battlefield war between national armies, be generalized to a "war" on a 21st century abstraction, such as "drugs" or "terrorism"?

Fallacies of accent are, frankly, just silly. They're fallacies of equivocation where the word equivocated upon has two different pronunciations -- for example, "conTRACT" the verb, and "CONtract" the noun. If I wrote that I had seen a book contract, and you interpreted it as seeing a book get smaller, you would be a) guilty of a fallacy of accent, and b) possibly in need of a medication adjustment.

 

[IndigoRose]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Linguistics and formal logic

Fallacies of accent are, frankly, just silly. They're fallacies of equivocation where the word equivocated upon has two different pronunciations -- for example, "conTRACT" the verb, and "CONtract" the noun. If I wrote that I had seen a book contract, and you interpreted it as seeing a book get smaller, you would be a) guilty of a fallacy of accent, and b) possibly in need of a medication adjustment.

Thank you for the examples. I am hoping to get even more examples from people's experiences.

The accent examples are good sources of humor.
IndigoRose

 

[BillHoyt]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Linguistics and formal logic

Fallacies of accent are, frankly, just silly. They're fallacies of equivocation where the word equivocated upon has two different pronunciations -- for example, "conTRACT" the verb, and "CONtract" the noun. If I wrote that I had seen a book contract, and you interpreted it as seeing a book get smaller, you would be a) guilty of a fallacy of accent, and b) possibly in need of a medication adjustment.

There is no fallacy here. IndigoRose may have misconstrued you, but that is not a fallacy. To commit the fallacy one must make an argument in which one equivocates on the pronunciation error.

 

[IndigoRose]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Linguistics and formal logic

There is no fallacy here. IndigoRose may have misconstrued you, but that is not a fallacy. To commit the fallacy one must make an argument in which one equivocates on the pronunciation error.

I did not ask for fallacies, I asked for examples, and the examples given met my needs.
IndigoRose

 

[Dancing David]

The most interesting semantic argument i have seen is the irreducable qualia argument:
In two forms it seems to be a semantic based argument, based upon langiage and not coherence, as a materialist i could be very wrong.

Some idealists have stated that materialism is a closed system that requires and 'objective' or 'reductionist' stance, and that for something to be 'true' in the 'objective' stance it must be observable by more than one observer. Therefore qualia(the basis sensation) are irreducable and not in the material realm, because only "I" can have my experience of the color red, it can not be shared. Since it can not be shared it is not objective.

Even more interesting was the argument of Titus Rivas, a theoretical psychologist. His argument about the mystery of cognition maintained that if the brain was purely mechanical it would be like reducing all thought to numbers. Some thoughts are about mundane things and he felt that these most likely could be reduced in a mechanical sense, as could qualia(to an extent).
But the variety and subtle gradations of qualia represent an infinite number of states. Sort of like the real and irrational numbers, a colr could equate to a real number but in between a color and another color there would be a very large set of other colors and in between any qualia and another qualia there could be a very large set of experiences. Therefore the human brain could not possibly mechanicaly represent all the varieties of color or other qualia, and therefore they must reside in some mystic phenomena.
Even more interesting to him was thinking, he felt that thinking about mundane things could be represented mechanicaly, except for qualia, but that there are thoughts about thoughts and thoughts that are about thinking about thoughts. Such meta-cognition can not be represented mechanicaly and therefore it too needed some mystic phenomena to explain it.

As far as I can tell these are arguments that rest upon the semantics used.

 

[BillHoyt]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Linguistics and formal logic

I did not ask for fallacies, I asked for examples, and the examples given met my needs.
IndigoRose

You seem to be establishing a strange pattern here. You say something. Someone responds to it. Then you say you didn't say what you said. Here we go again.

First of all, I was responding to drkitten. I responded directly to drkitten's post. Drkitten wrote:

Fallacies of accent are, frankly, just silly. They're fallacies of equivocation where the word equivocated upon has two different pronunciations -- for example, "conTRACT" the verb, and "CONtract" the noun. If I wrote that I had seen a book contract, and you interpreted it as seeing a book get smaller, you would be a) guilty of a fallacy of accent, and b) possibly in need of a medication adjustment.

I then pointed out:

There is no fallacy here. IndigoRose may have misconstrued you, but that is not a fallacy. To commit the fallacy one must make an argument in which one equivocates on the pronunciation error.

This was a direct reponse to drkitten's hypothetical.

Now onto what you asked for. Despite your claim above, here is what you wrote:

Yes, fallacies of equivocation are what I am talking about. Can you give me some examples of those that you have come across? Can you give me some examples of fallacy of accent?
IndigoRose

Perhaps you will be so good as to note you not only asked about fallacies, but specifically about fallacies of equivocation.

 

[IndigoRose]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Linguistics and formal logic

Perhaps you will be so good as to note you not only asked about fallacies, but specifically about fallacies of equivocation.

You seem to be having some difficulty understanding, so I will state what I said again:

"Can you give me some EXAMPLES of those that you have come across? Can you give me some EXAMPLES of fallacy of accent?"

If you don't have any examples to offer, why are you bothering to respond to a request for examples?
IndigoRose

 

[IndigoRose]

The most interesting semantic argument i have seen is the irreducable qualia argument:
In two forms it seems to be a semantic based argument, based upon langiage and not coherence, as a materialist i could be very wrong.

Some idealists have stated that materialism is a closed system that requires and 'objective' or 'reductionist' stance, and that for something to be 'true' in the 'objective' stance it must be observable by more than one observer. Therefore qualia(the basis sensation) are irreducable and not in the material realm, because only "I" can have my experience of the color red, it can not be shared. Since it can not be shared it is not objective.

Even more interesting was the argument of Titus Rivas, a theoretical psychologist. His argument about the mystery of cognition maintained that if the brain was purely
mechanical it would be like reducing all thought to numbers. Some thoughts are about mundane things and he felt that these most likely could be reduced in a mechanical sense, as could qualia(to an extent).
But the variety and subtle gradations of qualia represent an infinite number of states. Sort of like the real and irrational numbers, a colr could equate to a real number but in between a color and another color there would be a very large set of other colors and in between any qualia and another qualia there could be a very large set of experiences. Therefore the human brain could not possibly mechanicaly represent all the varieties of color or other qualia, and therefore they must reside in some mystic phenomena.
Even more interesting to him was thinking, he felt that thinking about mundane things could be represented mechanicaly, except for qualia, but that there are thoughts about thoughts and thoughts that are about thinking about thoughts. Such meta-cognition can not be represented mechanicaly and therefore it too needed some mystic phenomena to explain it.

As far as I can tell these are arguments that rest upon the semantics used.

Can you give me some examples you have come across?
IndigoRose

 

[BillHoyt]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Linguistics and formal logic

You seem to be having some difficulty understanding, so I will state what I said again:

"Can you give me some EXAMPLES of those that you have come across? Can you give me some EXAMPLES of fallacy of accent?"

If you don't have any examples to offer, why are you bothering to respond to a request for examples?
IndigoRose

I responded to drkitten's example by explaining that it was incorrect. It is not at all an example of a fallacy. If you would take the time to read my response you will see I took the time to explain why it is incorrect.

 

[IndigoRose]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Linguistics and formal logic

I responded to drkitten's example by explaining that it was incorrect. It is not at all an example of a fallacy. If you would take the time to read my response you will see I took the time to explain why it is incorrect.

Since I am the one requesting the examples that I need, I am the one who decides whether the examples meet the criteria I stated at the beginning of the thread. I did not ask you to evaluate them as to whether they were examples of fallacies.
IndigoRose

 

[BillHoyt]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Linguistics and formal logic

Since I am the one requesting the examples that I need, I am the one who decides whether the examples meet the criteria I stated at the beginning of the thread. I did not ask you to evaluate them as to whether they were examples of fallacies.
IndigoRose

Wrong. This is a public forum run by a skeptical organization. It is here to educate people. If you want to have a private discussion, then email or PM someone. If, on the other hand, you post to a public skeptical forum, you should expect to see both replies and replies to replies. You should also expect that some answers, however good they may have seemed at first, might be wrong. The post about which I commented was an example of this.

The key to the notion of fallacy is that it is an argument gone wrong. There are two types: formal and informal. Formal fallacies are flat-out wrongly formulated syllogisms in a more mathematical sense. Informal fallacies span a broader range, encompassing the topic of semantic errors that you raised here.

Drkitten's post was in error. The example given was: "If I wrote that I had seen a book contract, and you interpreted it as seeing a book get smaller, you would be a) guilty of a fallacy of accent, and b) possibly in need of a medication adjustment. " Your interpretation would not be a fallacy, as you did not make an argument here. You simply misunderstood what had been written. This is different. You must construct an argument wherein you set up a major premise using contract in the "legal document" sense and wherein the minor premise uses contract in the "get smaller" sense. Only when you set up such an argument, have you made the semantic shift and made the fallacy.

 

[IndigoRose]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Linguistics and formal logic

Wrong. This is a public forum run by a skeptical organization. It is here to educate people. If you want to have a private discussion, then email or PM someone. If, on the other hand, you post to a public skeptical forum, you should expect to see both replies and replies to replies. You should also expect that some answers, however good they may have seemed at first, might be wrong. The post about which I commented was an example of this.

The key to the notion of fallacy is that it is an argument gone wrong. There are two types: formal and informal. Formal fallacies are flat-out wrongly formulated syllogisms in a more mathematical sense. Informal fallacies span a broader range, encompassing the topic of semantic errors that you raised here.

Drkitten's post was in error. The example given was: "If I wrote that I had seen a book contract, and you interpreted it as seeing a book get smaller, you would be a) guilty of a fallacy of accent, and b) possibly in need of a medication adjustment. " Your interpretation would not be a fallacy, as you did not make an argument here. You simply misunderstood what had been written. This is different. You must construct an argument wherein you set up a major premise using contract in the "legal document" sense and wherein the minor premise uses contract in the "get smaller" sense. Only when you set up such an argument, have you made the semantic shift and made the fallacy.

If you want to start a thread on fallacies then you can do that. If you have no examples to offer, then quit trying to sidetrack those who are supplying me with the examples I asked for. DrKitten was responding to my request. You are not.
IndigoRose

 

[BillHoyt]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Linguistics and formal logic

If you want to start a thread on fallacies then you can do that. If you have no examples to offer, then quit trying to sidetrack those who are supplying me with the examples I asked for. DrKitten was responding to my request. You are not.
IndigoRose

I have pointed out to you that I am responding directly to drkitten's response. I have pointed out to you that drkitten's example was wrong. This is direct response to your question. You asked for an example of a particular type of fallacy. The example given was of no fallacy whatsoever.

 

[IndigoRose]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Linguistics and formal logic

I have pointed out to you that I am responding directly to drkitten's response. I have pointed out to you that drkitten's example was wrong. This is direct response to your question. You asked for an example of a particular type of fallacy. The example given was of no fallacy whatsoever.

DrKitten supplied me with what I was looking for. You did not. That means that your interpretation of what I am looking for is wrong. If you want to start a thread on fallacies, then why don't you do that instead of posting to this thread.
IndigoRose

 

[BillHoyt]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Linguistics and formal logic

DrKitten supplied me with what I was looking for. You did not. That means that your interpretation of what I am looking for is wrong. If you want to start a thread on fallacies, then why don't you do that instead of posting to this thread.
IndigoRose

Don't be obtuse. That was not an example of the fallacy you sought. If you think otherwise, then please spell out your reasoning.