So,
I am on another school break so that means that I have a chance to update my blog again.
And we care because . . .
I don't think he cares if you care.
I had a Logic class this go 'round and received quite a few kudos from the instructor for my ability to analyze concepts and put that analyzation into words. In fact, she is going to be using one of my papers as a resource for future classes (hat tip to CV Rick for his comments on taxation providing beautiful support for my position).
You're not going to tell him the paper was on irrationality and self-deception, are you?
I wouldn't.
Anywhoooo, a different assignment required that we take an argument from our environment and do the following with the argument:
- Create a counter-argument using one of the techniques studied in the course
- Transcribe the argument/counter-argument
- Explain why the counter-argument was chosen
- Explain likely obstacles to the acceptance of the counter-argument
Doing this assignment gave me a bit more insight into the argument and counter-argument so I'm adding it to my blog (Guns and Control v2.0, if you will). This post will cover the first two bullet points with subsequent posts covering the second two bullet points. This first two are short and kind of boring . . .
He's making the assumption that his other blog posts aren't boring
Indeed he is.
. . . but I am including them because they set up the the remaining two points and they also show where I made some assumptions in the first three Guns and Control posts. In working through the assignment, I realized that I had made some jumps over information relevant to the argument. The end result is the same and much of the information presented is the same as the information contained in the first three Guns and Control posts although written more formally and without comments from the voices in my head.
No wonder it's boring.
I concur.
Creating the counter-argument using reductio ad absurdum and answering the follow up questions that were posed does add a different perspective than previously presented. The combination of a more thorough examination of the underlying logic of the gun control argument and the new angle of approach prompted me to add these posts to the original Guns and Control trilogy.
This is why we are supposed to care?
I still don't think he cares if you care.
Think of a specific instance – real or hypothetical – in your own profession or daily environment in which using either (a) the method of counter-example or reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate an argument’s invalidity, or else (b) one of the techniques for escaping from a logical dilemma would be useful. Detail the instance.
If dogs (D) that bite (B) are an unsafe situation (~S) and unsafe situations should be avoided, then dogs or the act of biting or both dogs and the act of biting should be eliminated.
Dogs should not be eliminated so biting should be banned.
To ensure compliance with the ban, pit bulls (P) will be trained to bite.
All pit bulls are dogs.
Therefore, to prevent the unsafe situation of dogs that bite, dogs will be trained to bite to prevent dogs from biting.
(((D ^ B) --> (~S)) ^ (~ (~S)) --> ~ (D ^ B)
~~D ^ ~B
~ (D ^ B) --> (P ^ B)
P --> D
(~ (~S)) --> ((D ^ B) ^ ~ (D ^ B))
((D ^ B) ^ ~ (D ^ B)) violates the law of non-contradiction (P ^ ~P) and is always false. In a conditional statement, a true antecedent that leads to a false consequent is a false statement. The combination makes this a self-defeating and false argument.
The argument above is a substitution for the argument for gun control laws:
If people (P) who have guns (G) are an unsafe situation (~S) and unsafe situations should be avoided, then people or guns or both people and guns should be eliminated.
People should not be eliminated so guns should be banned.
To ensure compliance with the ban, government employees (E) will be given guns.
All government employees are people*.
Therefore, to prevent the unsafe situation of people having guns, people will be given guns to prevent people from having guns.
* You might argue that IRS agents are not human but in the logical sense, they are people.
(((P ^ G) --> (~S)) ^ (~ (~S)) --> ~ (P ^ G)
~~P ^ ~G
~ (P ^ G) --> (E ^ G)
E --> P
(~ (~S)) --> ((P ^ G) ^ ~ (P ^ G))
To be continued . . .