際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo

How to Think: Introduction to Logic, Lecture 3 with David Gordon - Mises Academy

The Ludwig von Mises Institute
The Ludwig von Mises Institute

For lecture videos, readings, and other class materials, you can sign up for this independent study course at academy.mises.org.

Convert to study materialsBETA

Transform any presentation into ready-made study materialselect from outputs like summaries, definitions, and practice questions.

1 of 16
The Laws of Thought LESSON 3
"Liberalism is in tension with democracy. Democracy is a means not only of dispersing political power and thus of protecting the private sphere against invasion by the public sphere, but also of enabling people to enforce their dislike of other people's self-regarding behavior" Richard Posner, Overcoming Law, (Harvard, 1995), p.25. This is an ignoratio elenchi. Posner says there are problems with democracy. But even if he is right, this doesnt respond to the point about elitist judges. Why does Posner start talking about democracy? He assumes that without judicial review, all decisions would be made by majority rule. Joyce calls this a false cause fallacy. Richard Posner responds the objection to judicial review that it permits elitist judges to impose their values on the rest of us in this way: Review
An I Proposition. Some S is P, does not rule out All S is P, the corresponding A proposition. It leaves this open. An A Proposition implies the corresponding I proposition. All S is P implies Some S is P This isnt true in mathematical logic. Examples: All men are mortal implies: Some men are mortal. Some men are mortal leaves open: All men are mortal In ordinary language, we often dont say some if we can say all. I wouldnt say, Some U.S. Presidents were older than 35 if they all are. But this is isnt a requirement of logic. Review
How to Think: Introduction to Logic, Lecture 3 with David Gordon - Mises Academy
If A, then B If A, then not-B. This does not violate the law of contradiction. Can you see why not?
The law of contradiction says that something that exists cannot have contradictory properties. A hypothetical proposition does not say that anything exists. If A, then B and If A, then not B. are not contradictory unless we assert that A exists.
If you deny the law of contradiction, then you also have to affirm it Only if someone says, the law of contradiction is never true. If someone says, There is at least one true contradiction, this refutation does not work. Is This Correct?
Law of Identity
As far as metaphysical reality is concerned (omitting human actions from consideration, for the moment), there are no 'facts which happen to be but could have been otherwise'... Since things are what they are, since everything that exists possesses a specific identity, nothing in reality can occur causelessly or by chance. The nature of an entity determines what it can do and, in any given set of circumstances, dictates what it will do." (The Ayn Rand Lexicon, 333.) Apart from human actions, however, Rand believed that every event was determined in the sense that, at any given moment, only one outcome was possible nothing that happens could have happened otherwise. Leonard Peikoff uses the example of a helium-filled balloon to clarify the issue: if, under the same set of circumstances, it were possible for a balloon to act in more than one way if it could rise or fall then the law of identity would be violated. "Such incompatible outcomes would have to derive from incompatible (contradictory) aspects of the entity's nature. But there are no contradictory aspects. A is A." This is a misapplication of the law of identity. If the helium balloon goes up on one occasion and down on another, these arent contradictory properties at the same time. If Peikoff says that incompatible properties would have to derive from incompatible aspects of the balloons nature, he is assuming the law of causation. But he is trying to show that this law follows from the law of identity, so he is begging the question.
How to Think: Introduction to Logic, Lecture 3 with David Gordon - Mises Academy
Contradictory and Contrary Propositions An A proposition and an O propositions are contradictories. All men are mortal (Universal affirmative) and Some men are not mortal (Particular negative) An E proposition and an I proposition are contradictories. No dogs are evil (Universal negative) and Some dogs are evil. (Particular affirmative) An A and an E proposition are contraries. All men are mortal and No men are mortal
A distributed term applies to the whole extension of the term. An undistributed term does not. In All men are mortal, men is distributedall men. Mortal is undistributed. We dont know how many of the mortal beings are men.
Because cooking takes less time and labor than it used to, the cost of eating has droppedThis is what I mean when I say that free markets have created the obesity epidemic. Advances in food technology have reduced the monetary and time costs of eating, and these technological advances are a result of free market enterprises responding to consumer demand. Some market defenders might dispute me on this matter, pointing out that the obesity epidemic has only taken off in the last several decades, whereas capitalist enterprise has only been around for at least two hundred years. But by this reasoning, we'd be forced to conclude that free markets aren't responsible for HDTVs, or iPods, or aluminum siding, none of which existed at the dawn of time. Peter Ubel, Free Market Madness (Harvard Business Press, 2009), pp. 27-28
Because cooking takes less time and labor than it used to, the cost of eating has droppedThis is what I mean when I say that free markets have created the obesity epidemic. Advances in food technology have reduced the monetary and time costs of eating, and these technological advances are a result of free market enterprises responding to consumer demand. Some market defenders might dispute me on this matter, pointing out that the obesity epidemic has only taken off in the last several decades, whereas capitalist enterprise has only been around for at least two hundred years. But by this reasoning, we'd be forced to conclude that free markets aren't responsible for HDTVs, or iPods, or aluminum siding, none of which existed at the dawn of time. This is an ignoratio elenchi. The relevant point is when the advances in food technology occurred, not when free markets began. Ubel argues that advances in technology caused the obesity epidemic. If they didnt, its irrelevant whether free markets were responsible for the advances in technology.
The basic defense, [of appropriating unowned property by claiming it] however, is quite general and straightforward. It is that if a prospective owner can in fact perform it, taking possession of a thing is a feasible act of his that is admissible if it is not a tort (in this case not trespass) and violates no right; but this is the case by definition, by the thing being identified as unowned. Anthony de Jasay, Against Politics, Routledge, 1997, p. 173
The basic defense, [of appropriating unowned property by claiming it] however, is quite general and straightforward. It is that if a prospective owner can in fact perform it, taking possession of a thing is a feasible act of his that is admissible if it is not a tort (in this case not trespass) and violates no right; but this is the case by definition, by the thing being identified as unowned This begs the question: it assumes that there are no rights to unowned property.

More Related Content

How to Think: Introduction to Logic, Lecture 3 with David Gordon - Mises Academy

  • 1. The Laws of Thought LESSON 3
  • 2. "Liberalism is in tension with democracy. Democracy is a means not only of dispersing political power and thus of protecting the private sphere against invasion by the public sphere, but also of enabling people to enforce their dislike of other people's self-regarding behavior" Richard Posner, Overcoming Law, (Harvard, 1995), p.25. This is an ignoratio elenchi. Posner says there are problems with democracy. But even if he is right, this doesnt respond to the point about elitist judges. Why does Posner start talking about democracy? He assumes that without judicial review, all decisions would be made by majority rule. Joyce calls this a false cause fallacy. Richard Posner responds the objection to judicial review that it permits elitist judges to impose their values on the rest of us in this way: Review
  • 3. An I Proposition. Some S is P, does not rule out All S is P, the corresponding A proposition. It leaves this open. An A Proposition implies the corresponding I proposition. All S is P implies Some S is P This isnt true in mathematical logic. Examples: All men are mortal implies: Some men are mortal. Some men are mortal leaves open: All men are mortal In ordinary language, we often dont say some if we can say all. I wouldnt say, Some U.S. Presidents were older than 35 if they all are. But this is isnt a requirement of logic. Review
  • 5. If A, then B If A, then not-B. This does not violate the law of contradiction. Can you see why not?
  • 6. The law of contradiction says that something that exists cannot have contradictory properties. A hypothetical proposition does not say that anything exists. If A, then B and If A, then not B. are not contradictory unless we assert that A exists.
  • 7. If you deny the law of contradiction, then you also have to affirm it Only if someone says, the law of contradiction is never true. If someone says, There is at least one true contradiction, this refutation does not work. Is This Correct?
  • 9. As far as metaphysical reality is concerned (omitting human actions from consideration, for the moment), there are no 'facts which happen to be but could have been otherwise'... Since things are what they are, since everything that exists possesses a specific identity, nothing in reality can occur causelessly or by chance. The nature of an entity determines what it can do and, in any given set of circumstances, dictates what it will do." (The Ayn Rand Lexicon, 333.) Apart from human actions, however, Rand believed that every event was determined in the sense that, at any given moment, only one outcome was possible nothing that happens could have happened otherwise. Leonard Peikoff uses the example of a helium-filled balloon to clarify the issue: if, under the same set of circumstances, it were possible for a balloon to act in more than one way if it could rise or fall then the law of identity would be violated. "Such incompatible outcomes would have to derive from incompatible (contradictory) aspects of the entity's nature. But there are no contradictory aspects. A is A." This is a misapplication of the law of identity. If the helium balloon goes up on one occasion and down on another, these arent contradictory properties at the same time. If Peikoff says that incompatible properties would have to derive from incompatible aspects of the balloons nature, he is assuming the law of causation. But he is trying to show that this law follows from the law of identity, so he is begging the question.
  • 11. Contradictory and Contrary Propositions An A proposition and an O propositions are contradictories. All men are mortal (Universal affirmative) and Some men are not mortal (Particular negative) An E proposition and an I proposition are contradictories. No dogs are evil (Universal negative) and Some dogs are evil. (Particular affirmative) An A and an E proposition are contraries. All men are mortal and No men are mortal
  • 12. A distributed term applies to the whole extension of the term. An undistributed term does not. In All men are mortal, men is distributedall men. Mortal is undistributed. We dont know how many of the mortal beings are men.
  • 13. Because cooking takes less time and labor than it used to, the cost of eating has droppedThis is what I mean when I say that free markets have created the obesity epidemic. Advances in food technology have reduced the monetary and time costs of eating, and these technological advances are a result of free market enterprises responding to consumer demand. Some market defenders might dispute me on this matter, pointing out that the obesity epidemic has only taken off in the last several decades, whereas capitalist enterprise has only been around for at least two hundred years. But by this reasoning, we'd be forced to conclude that free markets aren't responsible for HDTVs, or iPods, or aluminum siding, none of which existed at the dawn of time. Peter Ubel, Free Market Madness (Harvard Business Press, 2009), pp. 27-28
  • 14. Because cooking takes less time and labor than it used to, the cost of eating has droppedThis is what I mean when I say that free markets have created the obesity epidemic. Advances in food technology have reduced the monetary and time costs of eating, and these technological advances are a result of free market enterprises responding to consumer demand. Some market defenders might dispute me on this matter, pointing out that the obesity epidemic has only taken off in the last several decades, whereas capitalist enterprise has only been around for at least two hundred years. But by this reasoning, we'd be forced to conclude that free markets aren't responsible for HDTVs, or iPods, or aluminum siding, none of which existed at the dawn of time. This is an ignoratio elenchi. The relevant point is when the advances in food technology occurred, not when free markets began. Ubel argues that advances in technology caused the obesity epidemic. If they didnt, its irrelevant whether free markets were responsible for the advances in technology.
  • 15. The basic defense, [of appropriating unowned property by claiming it] however, is quite general and straightforward. It is that if a prospective owner can in fact perform it, taking possession of a thing is a feasible act of his that is admissible if it is not a tort (in this case not trespass) and violates no right; but this is the case by definition, by the thing being identified as unowned. Anthony de Jasay, Against Politics, Routledge, 1997, p. 173
  • 16. The basic defense, [of appropriating unowned property by claiming it] however, is quite general and straightforward. It is that if a prospective owner can in fact perform it, taking possession of a thing is a feasible act of his that is admissible if it is not a tort (in this case not trespass) and violates no right; but this is the case by definition, by the thing being identified as unowned This begs the question: it assumes that there are no rights to unowned property.