Do you think the future is inevitable?

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Jesus the Friend

Member

12-01-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodoku View Post
Philosophy is not another word for "rubbish nonsense", even if a lot of it happens to be that.
Maybe your mind is not sharp enough to understand philosophy, that's why it appears to be "rubbish nonsense".

Science and philosophy have often been at odds with each other.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

poe tay toes

Senior Member

12-01-2012

in your coin flip example, you're assuming the flip takes place in a controlled environment. you aren't controlling the physics that affect it. you can't know every bit of physics that will affect it, especially things that aren't in motion until after the coin is tossed.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kodoku

Senior Member

12-01-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by poe tay toes View Post
in your coin flip example, you're assuming the flip takes place in a controlled environment. you aren't controlling the physics that affect it. you can't know every bit of physics that will affect it, especially things that aren't in motion until after the coin is tossed.
Who said anything about knowledge? It's precisely the lack of knowledge that makes it so both heads and tails are possibilities. If you knew the exact physics, then you'd know which way it'd come up and the other would no longer be possible. But those physics are there whether you know them or not, so the result is still inevitable while you're oblivious to the results.

Quote:
Maybe your mind is not sharp enough to understand philosophy, that's why it appears to be "rubbish nonsense".

Science and philosophy have often been at odds with each other.
I'm a fourth year philosophy (and math) student at the university with the best philosophy department in my country -_-.

Saying philosophy and science have been at odds at eachother is rather silly, given that science is essentially a branch of philosophy with a narrowed methodology.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Bilbosky

Senior Member

12-01-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodoku View Post
....

That's basically a summary of what a deductive argument is.
Only if your statements linking "inevitable" and "what will happen" was an actual premise and not a semantic equivalency. All you did was restate your premise; you didn't make any logical steps.

"If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."

This is a classic circular argument, and is identical in form to the one you proposed.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kodoku

Senior Member

12-01-2012

Quote:
"If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."

This is a classic circular argument, and is identical in form to the one you proposed.
Whaaat? That's not even an argument, that's a conditional proposition. Unless you're referring to an argument with 0 premises and 1 conclusion, which by definition cannot be circular.

Quote:
Only if your statements linking "inevitable" and "what will happen" was an actual premise and not a semantic equivalency. All you did was restate your premise; you didn't make any logical steps.
?? But I didn't link those until the end, with "Therefore the future is inevitable", which was inferred based on the implicit premise that something that cannot be changed or avoided is inevitable (if that's not the case, then I clearly don't know what inevitable means). Also, statements of semantic equivalency are premises. In fact, every non-trivial deductive argument requires them, as no progress can be made without fixing the meanings of terms.

Your objections are just bizarre.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Bilbosky

Senior Member

12-01-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodoku View Post
Whaaat? That's not even an argument, that's a conditional proposition.
That statement is commonly defined as a circular argument.

It's a fallacy because the definition of illegal is "prohibited by law."

If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law.

I'm calling your argument a fallacy because the definition of inevitable is "certain to happen."

Your argument flows like this: The future will happen, therefore the future is inevitable.

I really can't break it down further than that.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kodoku

Senior Member

12-01-2012

Quote:
That statement is commonly defined as a circular argument.
By who? It's neither an argument, nor is it circular.

Quote:
It's a fallacy because the definition of illegal is "prohibited by law."

If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law.
Even if it was an argument, that wouldn't make it fallacious, it would just make it correct by definition. The statement "If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by law" is a simple, true fact. The worst you can say about it is that it's not particularly informative.

Quote:
I'm calling your argument a fallacy because the definition of inevitable is "certain to happen."

Your argument flows like this: The future will happen, therefore the future is inevitable.
So your objection is that the conclusion follows from the definitions of the terms in question? When did I suggest otherwise, and why do you think that's a defect?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

sammich kek

Senior Member

12-01-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2kool4life View Post
Do you think the future is inevitable?

yes


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Bilbosky

Senior Member

12-01-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodoku View Post
So your objection is that the conclusion follows from the definitions of the terms in question? When did I suggest otherwise, and why do you think that's a defect?
You used it as a deductive argument about free will versus determinism when in fact all you did was state the dictionary definition of "future" as a premise and conclusion.

The statement I used is a commonly used example of begging the question/circular reasoning.

http://www.entish.org/fallacies.html

http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/fallacy-summary


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kodoku

Senior Member

12-01-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbosky View Post
You used it as a deductive argument about free will versus determinism when in fact all you did was state the dictionary definition of "future" as a premise and conclusion.
I do not state the definition of future in either of the conclusions. The first conclusion is of the form "therefore Py", from the premises "x = y" and "Px". The second conclusion is of the form "therefore Qy", from the previous conclusion "Py" and the implicit premise "Py => Qy". Neither of these conclusions are a statement of the meaning of 'future'.

More concretely:
y := the future.
x := what will happen
Pa := 'a' is unchangeable.
Qa := 'a' is inevitable.

1. x = y
2. Px
3. (Implicitly): Py => Qy
4. Therefore Py (by 1 and 2)
5. Therefore Qy (by 3 and 4)

This is not a circular argument because neither of the conclusions appear as premises.


Quote:
The statement I used is a commonly used example of begging the question/circular reasoning.

http://www.entish.org/fallacies.html

http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/fallacy-summary
Unfortunate, as that's a downright terrible example.