Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Proving Natural Law

This post has 1,361 Replies | 16 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 230
Points 5,620

Anarchist Cain:

Anarcho-Mercantilist:
This means that we cannot identify an "essence" for all mammals.  We can only define a "mammal" either by prototypes of a typical mammal; or by exemplars of the abstracted characteristics of all mammals.

If there are multiple tenets to being something then it does not follow that we can define what a mammal means.

Here I can do it:

1. Is it warm-blooded?

2. What are its birthing actions?

The naked mole rat "is" cold-blooded.

The platypus lays eggs.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Tue, Jul 7 2009 8:46 PM
This means that we cannot identify an "essence" for all mammals.
No. That means that mammals is just an arbitrary category. You miss the point. I hope you are not doing it on purpose.

So, again, show an exception to the rule of the excluded middle. Did you write your last post ? Or did you not write it ? (i.e. someone else wrote it)

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

Anarcho-Mercantilist:

The naked mole rat "is" cold-blooded.

The platypus lays eggs.

The two questions should be applied to a singular creature.

The naked mole rat is cold-blooded but does it birth its young or does it lay eggs?

The platypus lays eggs but is it warm blooded?

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 230
Points 5,620

Juan:
This means that we cannot identify an "essence" for all mammals.
No. That means that mammals is just an arbitrary category. You miss the point. I hope you are not doing it on purpose.

The prototype theory does not recognize "essences" but still not arbitrary in the identification of entities.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Tue, Jul 7 2009 8:51 PM
Please show an exception to the law of the excluded middle.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 230
Points 5,620

Anarchist Cain:

Anarcho-Mercantilist:

The naked mole rat "is" cold-blooded.

The platypus lays eggs.

The two questions should be applied to a singular creature.

The naked mole rat is cold-blooded but does it birth its young or does it lay eggs?

The platypus lays eggs but is it warm blooded?

A mutant platypus who has evolved cold-bloodedness to adapt to climate change.  Why do we still identify it as a mammal?  Because of its similarity of the prototypical monotreme.  See prototype theory.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Tue, Jul 7 2009 8:54 PM
All mammals are warm-blooded. The naked mole rat is cold-blooded. Therefore, the naked mole rat is not a mammal.
Translation : your arbitrary classification sucks. That has nothing to do with logic. Who said that all mammals are or should be warm-blooded anyway ??

Please DO show an exception to the law of the excluded middle

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

Anarcho-Mercantilist:
A mutant platypus who has evolved cold-bloodedness to adapt to climate change.  Why do we still identify it as a mammal?  Because of its similarity of the prototypical monotreme.

And what if we all become overmen tomorrow!? Honestly, we are now leaving the world of logic and reason and taking a trip into Nieztche wonderworld.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 230
Points 5,620

Juan:


Please DO show an exception to the law of the excluded middle

An animal "is" either a mammal or not a mammal.  The mutant platypus who lacks an endothermic mechanism does not fall within Anarchist Cain's definition of a "mammal," but we still identify it as a "mammal" because of its similarity to the prototypical monotreme (which "is", in turn, a mammal).

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

Anarcho-Mercantilist:
The mutant platypus who lacks an endothermic mechanism does not fall within Anarchist Cain's definition of a "mammal," but we still identify it as a "mammal" because of its similarity to the prototypical monotreme (which "is", in turn, a mammal).

There is no such platypus.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Tue, Jul 7 2009 9:01 PM
An animal "is" either a mammal or not a mammal.
No. You are miserably cheating. An animal either feeds its offspring with milk produced by the female or NOT. There's no third possibility. YOU DON'T GET IT.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,124
Points 37,405
Angurse replied on Tue, Jul 7 2009 9:02 PM

Anarcho-Mercantilist:
A mutant platypus who has evolved cold-bloodedness to adapt to climate change.  Why do we still identify it as a mammal?  Because of its similarity of the prototypical monotreme.  See prototype theory.

Why do we need to still identify it as a mammel? A "mammel" is nothing more than a made up class. This isn't an example of an exception to the excluded middle.

"I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality."
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 230
Points 5,620

Anarchist Cain:

Anarcho-Mercantilist:
A mutant platypus who has evolved cold-bloodedness to adapt to climate change.  Why do we still identify it as a mammal?  Because of its similarity of the prototypical monotreme.

And what if we all become overmen tomorrow!? Honestly, we are now leaving the world of logic and reason and taking a trip into Nieztche wonderworld.

That has nothing to do with your definition of "nihilism."  The prototype theory merely corrects some flaws of the Aristotelian system such as over-generalization of entities.  It does not "reject" Aristotelian logic.  It merely refines it with more precision.

Do you accept prototype theory?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Tue, Jul 7 2009 9:10 PM
Angurse:
Why do we need to still identify it as a mammel? A "mammel" is nothing more than a made up class. This isn't an example of an exception to the excluded middle.
Indeed. You can put things in different classes according to the way you define class membership. An object can be in different classes at the same time, It can be in overlapping classes, etc. All that is beside the point though.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator
Anarchist Cain:
Honestly, we are now leaving the world of logic and reason and taking a trip into Nieztche wonderworld.
Hmm, can you elaborate?

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Tue, Jul 7 2009 11:14 PM
Interesting, but you're not addressing a basic point. Your objections to 'aristotelian' logic are based on your misunderstanding of the status of 'aristotelian' logic. Your position is contradictory and you are not just brushing off performative contradictions. You are brushing off all sorts of contradictions.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 712
Points 13,830
zefreak replied on Wed, Jul 8 2009 1:46 AM

Anarcho-Mercantilist:

Pretty funny.. I must agree with Juan that instead of exposing issues regarding the law of excluded middle, you seem to be critiquing the uncritical application of the law, resulting in categorization error.

edit: just read the wiki regarding prototype theory and found it interesting. It doesn't seem to contradict Aristotlean logic as I understand it.

“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken


 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Wed, Jul 8 2009 2:02 AM
One of my favorites (fallacies) is : All cats are four legged animals. Therefore, all four legged animals are cats.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 712
Points 13,830
zefreak replied on Wed, Jul 8 2009 2:05 AM

Juan:
One of my favorites (fallacies) is : All cats are four legged animals. Therefore, all four legged animals are cats.

My cat was born with three legs. What is it?

“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken


 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Wed, Jul 8 2009 2:43 AM
Poor thing. Well, the universe must implode now. It's like a general protection fault of sorts.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 230
Points 5,620

Juan:
Poor thing. Well, the universe must implode now. It's like a general protection fault of sorts.

Even if we assume that the laws of logic are a "necessary given," it does not suggest that the laws of logic are flawless.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Wed, Jul 8 2009 3:12 AM
Well, show a flaw in the laws of logic then.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 230
Points 5,620

Juan:
Well, show a flaw in the laws of logic then.

I will show the flaws of the Aristotelian laws of logic below.

In categorizing entities, the law of the excluded middle does not have as much precision as prototype theory.

The law of the excluded middle says: a thing is either completely A or not-completely-A.

Prototype theory says: a thing can have many degrees of similarity towards the category A.

The law of the excluded middle is two-valued logic, while prototype theory is infinite-valued logic.

The mutant monotreme and the three-legged cat does not quite fit into two-valued logic.  Infinite-valued logic deals with them better.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,124
Points 37,405
Angurse replied on Wed, Jul 8 2009 7:26 AM

Do the laws logic even apply to categorizing entities? Prototype theory just seems to be an approach to linguistics that differs from the conditions used in Aristotelian logic, not necessarily a rebuke of Aristotelian logic itself.

"I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality."
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 230
Points 5,620

Angurse:

Do the laws logic even apply to categorizing entities? Prototype theory just seems to be an approach to linguistics that differs from the conditions used in Aristotelian logic, not necessarily a rebuke of Aristotelian logic itself.

I never had 'rejected' Aristotelian logic in the sense of completely rejecting the use of its respective laws of logic. 

I also have 'rejected' its the laws of logic in the 'metaphysical' sense that humans normatively invent the laws of logic.  I previously had conflated my 'metaphysical' rejection of the laws of logic with my 'practical' criticism of Aristotelian logic.  Humans normatively invent the non-Aristotelian laws of logic too. (zefreak and Lilburne also had 'rejected' the laws of logic in the 'metaphysical' sense.)

But that does not mean that I reject the application of the Aristotelian and non-Aristotelian laws of logic as methods for reasoning.  I had mentioned in the past that non-Aristotelian logic has more generality than Aristotelian logic.  I 'reject' Aristotelian logic in the sense of the application of Aristotelian logic without any non-Aristotelian refinements.

Seems like some had rejected 'prototype theory' because they merely did not understand know what 'prototype theory' means.  Neither prototype theory nor general semantics 'reject' Aristotelian logic in the sense of completely rebuking them.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,124
Points 37,405
Angurse replied on Wed, Jul 8 2009 10:34 AM

Then you really haven't shown any flaws in the Aristotelian laws of logic.

"I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality."
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 712
Points 13,830
zefreak replied on Wed, Jul 8 2009 10:46 AM

Anarcho-Mercantilist:

Angurse:

Do the laws logic even apply to categorizing entities? Prototype theory just seems to be an approach to linguistics that differs from the conditions used in Aristotelian logic, not necessarily a rebuke of Aristotelian logic itself.

I never had 'rejected' Aristotelian logic in the sense of completely rejecting the use of its respective laws of logic. 

I also have 'rejected' its the laws of logic in the 'metaphysical' sense that humans normatively invent the laws of logic.  I previously had conflated my 'metaphysical' rejection of the laws of logic with my 'practical' criticism of Aristotelian logic.  Humans normatively invent the non-Aristotelian laws of logic too. (zefreak and Lilburne also had 'rejected' the laws of logic in the 'metaphysical' sense.)

But that does not mean that I reject the application of the Aristotelian and non-Aristotelian laws of logic as methods for reasoning.  I had mentioned in the past that non-Aristotelian logic has more generality than Aristotelian logic.  I 'reject' Aristotelian logic in the sense of the application of Aristotelian logic without any non-Aristotelian refinements.

Seems like some had rejected 'prototype theory' because they merely did not understand know what 'prototype theory' means.  Neither prototype theory nor general semantics 'reject' Aristotelian logic in the sense of completely rebuking them.

I see your position more clearly now. I always applied the law of identity and excluded middle in a more general way, IE assume A, it is A. Of course there are entities that are much more difficult to classify, but they are still "themselves". I think this is Juan's point of view.

And I reiterate my agreement that the laws of logic are merely the method we use to percieve and understand reality, and are not metaphysical entities "out there". Some people do not understand that without logic, entities would not cease to be themselves. There would simply be no way to observe, understand, and make predictions regarding phenomena.

“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken


 

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,255
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Sounds to me as if prototype theory is merely an extension of classical logic. One thing I do hate about discussions of alternative logics is the tendency to conflate epistemic issues with metaphysical ones.

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Wed, Jul 8 2009 2:54 PM
AM:
In categorizing entities, the law of the excluded middle does not have as much precision as prototype theory.
The law of the excluded middle doesn't have 'precision' - it's not a measuring instrument. You are making yet another category error.
The law of the excluded middle says: a thing is either completely A or not-completely-A.
Wrong. It says nothing about completeness. You are attacking a strawman.
Prototype theory says: a thing can have many degrees of similarity towards the category A.
Irrelevant to your non-proof that the law of the excluded middle is 'flawed'.
The law of the excluded middle is two-valued logic, while prototype theory is infinite-valued logic.
Entities and their attributes either EXIST or NOT. There's no third possibility and there's no 'infinite-valued logic'.
The mutant monotreme and the three-legged cat does not quite fit into two-valued logic.
A problem with the definition of arbitrary categories, not a problem with logic itself.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Wed, Jul 8 2009 2:55 PM
Angurse:
Do the laws logic even apply to categorizing entities?
Only in the sense that they provide the foundation for correct reasoning, but they don't deal with categorizing directly. That's another issue AM is confused about.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

good posts juan

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Wed, Jul 8 2009 3:13 PM
zefreak:
And I reiterate my agreement that the laws of logic are merely the method we use to percieve and understand reality, and are not metaphysical entities "out there".
Where do the laws of logic come ? Why do we need logic to understand reality ? What do you mean by 'merely' a method ?
Some people do not understand that without logic, entities would not cease to be themselves.
Nobody said that. The inescapable laws of logic reflect the inescapable fact that entities exist and that entities are what they are. You either accept that as self-evident or try to deny it and so engage in endless contradictions. Of course, if you choose to not use reason, it doesn't follow the universe is absurd, it only follows that your position is absurd.
There would simply be no way to observe, understand, and make predictions regarding phenomena.
Why is that so ?

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Wed, Jul 8 2009 3:15 PM
good posts juan
Maybe we could be preachers in the Church of Logic (tm) ? =P

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 768
Points 12,035
Moderator

Juan:
good posts juan
Maybe we could be preachers in the Church of Logic (tm) ? =P

 

 

"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization.  Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism.  In a market process." -- liberty student

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 230
Points 5,620

zefreak:
I always applied the law of identity and excluded middle in a more general way, IE assume A, it is A. Of course there are entities that are much more difficult to classify, but they are still "themselves".

What did you mean by "but they are still 'themselves'"?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

they are who they are, and its not the case that they arent who they are.

 

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 230
Points 5,620

nirgrahamUK:

they are who they are, and its not the case that they arent who they are.

 

Imagine an animal that looks like a cat, but has three legs.  You would assume it "is" still a cat.

Imagine an animal that looks like a cat, but has a head shaped like a dog.  "Is" it still a cat?

Imagine an animal that looks like a cat, except it has a head shaped like a dog, barks, and behaves like a dog.  "Is" it still a cat?

Two-valued logic would fail at the last two cases.  We cannot determine if it "is" either a cat or not a cat.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

it either is a cat or it isnt, if it means something to 'be a cat'.

if being a cat has no meaning, then it is not a question to be decided by any logic. one would be mad to ask question of truth about it.

you are merely denying that to 'be a cat' is anything knowable, not that things can contradict.

 

your asking me whether an animal that has some features similar to and some features different than, what is often associated with 'cat', is a cat or not... this puts one into an analytic inquiry as to what is it to be a 'cat', but regardless of whether that particular animal is a cat or not, it certainly could not both be a cat and not be a cat. to admit that it could be a cat, and not a cat, is to be mad. I suppose you might be mad. 

 

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 35
Page 33 of 35 (1362 items) « First ... < Previous 31 32 33 34 35 Next > | RSS