I came across this article and found it as a very interesting way to look at logic.
"If I believe that whales are mammals and that all mammals are fish, then it would also make sense for me to believe that whales are fish. Even someone who (rightly!) disagreed with my understanding of biological taxonomy could appreciate the consistent, reasonable way in which I used my mistaken beliefs as the foundation upon which to establish a new one. On the other hand, if I decide to believe that Hamlet was Danish because I believe that Hamlet was a character in a play by Shaw and that some Danes are Shavian characters, then even someone who shares my belief in the result could point out that I haven't actually provided good reasons for accepting its truth."
Illustrations of the way arguments can be valid but unsound, or unsound because invalid.
ReplyDeleteWho is your source? Even on blogs, it is good practice to attribute quotations and paraphrases.
That is a crazy paragraph to google. Long long list of hits. I bet you could find porn sites with it. But I think this is a pessimistic way of looking at things. The author expressed a great truth, and on the same hand it seems pretty vague. That is the problem with a short paragraph sometimes.
ReplyDeleteI like how simply the paragraph puts the ideas that we all think into one small piece. It would be useful to come back to this paragraph anytime I'm having trouble with an argument.
ReplyDelete