Rather, the sense of necessity might have to do with moral conduct. On the other hand, if the son is told that he must treat his boss well, what is meant might be that being nice to one's boss is required not so much by morality but by rules of prudence. Introduction M Literal meaning M Definitions M Evaluating definitions M Examples M Verbal disputes M Necessity and sufficiency M Types of possibility M Obscurity M Distortion M Empty content Quote of the page Where observation is concerned, chance favours only the prepared mind.
Popular pages What is critical thinking? What is logic? Hardest logic puzzle ever Free miniguide What is an argument? Knights and knaves puzzles Logic puzzles What is a good argument? Improving critical thinking Analogical arguments. Consider these statements : It is impossible to be a tall man without being tall.
In terms of Analytic and Synthetic Reasoning :. Roughly speaking, it can be easy to match logical possibility with analytic reasoning, and causal possibility with synthetic reasoning. Analysis is required to determine logical possibility, and an understanding of causal possibility is what allows us to synthesize and incorporate new information into our line of thinking. But analysis is also required in synthesis, as causal possibility presupposes logical possibility; even if we believe that there are phenomena that exist outside of our rational schema, our ability to explain causal relationships depends upon that schema.
Any phenomena that exists outside of reason may be collected as data, but without analytical cogency, cannot be synthesized into a coherent causal explanation. The only place that these two sets of distinctions do not overlap is that synthetic reasoning need not be consulted when determining logical possibility. In terms of a priori and a posteriori knowledge :. This one is a bit tricky. The obvious connections are between logical possibility and a priori knowledge, and between causal possibility and a posteriori knowledge, but as usual, this depends on what philosophers you consult.
If logical possibility aims primarily to determine what we are capable of thinking without contradiction, then for those who believe we are born with reason a priori would indeed find that as the source of our ability to do so.
However, for those who do not believe we are born with any a priori knowledge, the rational capacity that allows us to think through logical possibilities would be drawn from a posteriori experience, even if it need not follow the dictates of that experience.
This, essentially, would become a weak understanding of a priori — rather than framing it as innate knowledge, it would be only knowledge that has been learned previously, rather that explicitly verified.
To put it more simply, if one believes that logic itself is learned a posteriori, then logical possibility will derive from learned experience, even if it does not consult the causal possibility that also governs that experience. Reason would be more of an abstraction from the limits of experience than a function in its own right. Causal possibility requires both this logic and explicitly a posteriori information, as it hinges upon the laws of nature and the complexity of causal chains as they exist in the world.
This may come in the form of a direct cut-off figure that really only means 'its probably in this range' or a measure of certainty standard deviation such as we see in CERN reports.
Originally posted by humy You haven't understood what I am saying at all: I am saying a 'causal probability' can NEVER have 'exactly zero' 'logical probability' AND only that 'logical probability' is the 'true' probability, NOT the 'causal probability' which merely is the less valid BUT more convenient estimate of the 'true' probability.
Well you confused me with this definition: A proof that shows the causal probability, but not necessarily also the logical probability, of something, to be exactly 0 or 1, it is a 'causal proof'. That directly contradicts what you have now said. Originally posted by twhitehead Well you confused me with this definition: A proof that shows the causal probability, but not necessarily also the logical probability, of something, to be exactly 0 or 1, it is a 'causal proof'.
Originally posted by humy how do the two statements contradict? Statement A: A proof that shows the causal probability Originally posted by twhitehead Statement A: A proof that shows the causal probability To avoid that confusion, I should have said that as something more like: "a 'causal probability' of a causal possibility can be 'exactly zero' but the 'logical probability' of that same causal possibility or any other causal possibility or any logical possibility can NEVER be 'exactly zero' " -to make it clear what the probability is of.
Originally posted by humy statement b actually reads: "a 'causal probability' can NEVER have 'exactly zero' 'logical probability' I still find it confusing and unnecessarily complicated. For a start logic does not have probabilities.
Something is either logically possible or not logically possible impossible. To assign a probability is unnecessary and confusing as it suggests the availability of alternatives of given frequencies etc which is not the case at all. Saying that square circles have a 'logical probability' of zero of existing seems unnecessary.
I don't like it. I have I believe challenged you in the other thread and if I haven't then consider it the challenge here to provide a reference to a definition of the term 'probability' that allows for events that are not possible or more accurately allows for things that are not events, as events are defined as being possible.
Originally posted by twhitehead I still find it confusing and unnecessarily complicated. Saying that square Doesn't that depend on exactly how you mean and therefore how you should exactly define what is a probability? I have been working on that very problem for years and I am still very far from satisfied that I have decided what meaning and definition of the word 'probability' should be. Not if you assign exactly either 1 or 0 logical probability, as this tells you there is zero probability of an alternative therefore there is no alternative.
This brings us back to the thorny problem of what do you mean and therefore how should you define probability? It is 'thorny' because different people mean slightly different things by it so what none arbitrary criteria one should use to narrow down our valid choices of meaning?
Maybe there really is no answer so its a stupid question? If you or anyone else here do have an answer, I love to hear it. Originally posted by humy Doesn't that depend on how you define what is a probability? Which is why I have challenged you to find a formal definition that doesn't agree with me but agrees with you. The average person simply has not thought it through. In addition there is the issue of causal probability that most people are intuitively aware of even if they have not thought it through ie when they say there is 'zero probability' they really mean 'very very unlikely' rather than 'logically impossible', or they just equate the two situations for simplicities sake.
It is 'thorny' because different people mean slightly different things by it. It should only be thorny if you are a dictionary writer and you are interested in what public usage is.
0コメント