everything happens for a reason R: the reason H:what's happening R-->H (there is enough reason but yet not happens) T F F or there is not reason but happens F T T therefore the principle of sufficient reason and causality (for every cause there is an effect C E) only logically implicated or correlated
Would examples where both antecedent and consequent are true but there isn't a relationship between the two be a problem for assertion theory? E.g. If Sydney is in Australia then King Henry VIII is dead.
I'm sorry, I do not see the problem you mention with the conditional assertion. While the actual statement used appears intuitively to be false, in fact it is only false if the antecedent is true. It seems to me, based on my computer logic background, that in any conditional statement where the antecedent - the "condition" or "IF" - is false, the consequent or "THEN" statement becomes irrelevant and only with a further statement of "ELSE" does the statement have any relevance. In the absence of an "ELSE", the statement ends when the condition is false. Using this logic, the statement "If God exists, then God does not exist" cannot be true because the truth of the antecedent necessarily makes the consequent false. However if the the antecedent is false, then the consequent has no relevance and the statement is neither true nor false, but simply an irrelevant statement overall.
If Goldbach's conjecture is true, then Goldbach's conjecture is true and there are an infinity of primes. If Goldbach's conjecture is false, then Goldbach's conjecture is false and there are an infinity of primes. Under conditional assertion theory, one of these sentences is true, and the other doesn't have a truth value. That doesn't seem right. They both seem true.
The first statement could be written (G-->T)&P and the second statement written (-G-->-T)&P, which preserves the truth of both sentences using conditional assertion theory, given that P is true and (G-->T) is true in the first statement, and (-G-->-T) is true in the second statement. It would not be written, G-->T&P, because you'd be linking an independent claim (P) to the conditional (T), which is a non-starter (as you said) in conditional assertion theory.
Emily Xiong Hi Emily. It should help a little bit with the LSATs though it s a little more theoretical than what is often asked on the LSATs. For pure LSAT help, i'd highly recommend working through our critical thinking section. Especially the two videos on Necessary and Sufficient conditions. Those are directly related to questions you will be asked on the exam. ua-cam.com/play/PLtKNX4SfKpzU2ChXr_FNgQKvVZbf3CwhX.html
Wireless Philosophy Also our content on Khan Academy has some assessments along with it so you can test your knowledge. You can access the content there and do the work through that site as well www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/wi-phi
I don't understand how the conclusion "god exists" is drawn from the falsehood of the conditional. it is false that if god exists then he doesn't exist, if he exists he exists and if he\she doesn't then he doesn't. we cannot draw a conclusion. Moreover it is also true that it's false that if god doesn't exist then he exists - according to your claim then god doesn't exist too.
The God thing is an equivalence, not a simple conditional. God’s nonexistence is determined by God’s existence because both can’t be true by the law of non-contradiction. Since that’s the reasoning, the reverse conditional is also false; if God doesn’t exist, then God exists. Taken together, it’s an equivalence that states “God exists if and only if God doesn’t exist”. Equivalences are only true if the antecedent and consequent have the same truth value. Then there are two instances where it could be false; all that matters is that the two don’t match up. I think the law of non-contradiction explains why they can’t be viewed as separate conditionals; the two conditionals that make up the equivalence are themselves only false because their opposite is also false. I’m not sure how any of that helps us to understand conditionals better, just an insight that occurred to me.
![PHILOSOPHY - Language: Gricean Pragmatics [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/we6uSVf4qss/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - Language: Gricean Pragmatics [HD]](/img/tr.png)
This is why I love philosophy; I never really thought about material implication.
everything happens for a reason
R: the reason
H:what's happening
R-->H (there is enough reason but yet not happens) T F F
or there is not reason but happens
F T T
therefore the principle of sufficient reason and causality (for every cause there is an effect C E) only logically implicated or correlated
Great series
Is there a symbol is symbolic logic for a conditional assertion?
Material: → or ⊃
Strict: ⥽ or ◻
Assertion: ?
Would examples where both antecedent and consequent are true but there isn't a relationship between the two be a problem for assertion theory? E.g. If Sydney is in Australia then King Henry VIII is dead.
I'm sorry, I do not see the problem you mention with the conditional assertion. While the actual statement used appears intuitively to be false, in fact it is only false if the antecedent is true. It seems to me, based on my computer logic background, that in any conditional statement where the antecedent - the "condition" or "IF" - is false, the consequent or "THEN" statement becomes irrelevant and only with a further statement of "ELSE" does the statement have any relevance. In the absence of an "ELSE", the statement ends when the condition is false.
Using this logic, the statement "If God exists, then God does not exist" cannot be true because the truth of the antecedent necessarily makes the consequent false. However if the the antecedent is false, then the consequent has no relevance and the statement is neither true nor false, but simply an irrelevant statement overall.
If Goldbach's conjecture is true, then Goldbach's conjecture is true and there are an infinity of primes.
If Goldbach's conjecture is false, then Goldbach's conjecture is false and there are an infinity of primes.
Under conditional assertion theory, one of these sentences is true, and the other doesn't have a truth value. That doesn't seem right. They both seem true.
The first statement could be written (G-->T)&P and the second statement written (-G-->-T)&P, which preserves the truth of both sentences using conditional assertion theory, given that P is true and (G-->T) is true in the first statement, and (-G-->-T) is true in the second statement. It would not be written, G-->T&P, because you'd be linking an independent claim (P) to the conditional (T), which is a non-starter (as you said) in conditional assertion theory.
Does this help with LSAT?
Emily Xiong Hi Emily. It should help a little bit with the LSATs though it s a little more theoretical than what is often asked on the LSATs. For pure LSAT help, i'd highly recommend working through our critical thinking section. Especially the two videos on Necessary and Sufficient conditions. Those are directly related to questions you will be asked on the exam. ua-cam.com/play/PLtKNX4SfKpzU2ChXr_FNgQKvVZbf3CwhX.html
Wireless Philosophy Also our content on Khan Academy has some assessments along with it so you can test your knowledge. You can access the content there and do the work through that site as well www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/wi-phi
Wireless Philosophy wow, thanks~~ it's so amazing that you are actually reading my replies~~ :D
If material conditional theory is true, then too many sentences are counted as true.
Doesn't this sentence have a truth value?
I don't understand how the conclusion "god exists" is drawn from the falsehood of the conditional. it is false that if god exists then he doesn't exist, if he exists he exists and if he\she doesn't then he doesn't. we cannot draw a conclusion. Moreover it is also true that it's false that if god doesn't exist then he exists - according to your claim then god doesn't exist too.
The God thing is an equivalence, not a simple conditional. God’s nonexistence is determined by God’s existence because both can’t be true by the law of non-contradiction. Since that’s the reasoning, the reverse conditional is also false; if God doesn’t exist, then God exists. Taken together, it’s an equivalence that states “God exists if and only if God doesn’t exist”. Equivalences are only true if the antecedent and consequent have the same truth value. Then there are two instances where it could be false; all that matters is that the two don’t match up. I think the law of non-contradiction explains why they can’t be viewed as separate conditionals; the two conditionals that make up the equivalence are themselves only false because their opposite is also false. I’m not sure how any of that helps us to understand conditionals better, just an insight that occurred to me.
I didn't understand anything at all
"If god exists, thn god does not exist" is false in the case that god exists is true.