View Poll Results: Do humans have an inherent capacity to decide that a conclusion follows necessarily from premises?

Voters
9. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    7 77.78%
  • No

    1 11.11%
  • I don't know

    1 11.11%
  • The question doesn't make sense

    0 0%
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 60

Thread: Do humans have an inherent capacity to decide that a conclusion follows necessarily from premises?

  1. Top | #21
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,314
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,976
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    Yes. But I am just guessing.
    And what about actually casting a vote?
    EB

  2. Top | #22
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,116
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    9,704
    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Here are some of the people who can't decide between "Yes", "No", Don't know" and "Doesn't make sense".

    Koyaanisqatsi,
    prideandfall,
    loose cannon,
    Bearded One,
    abaddon,
    couch_sloth,
    Keith&Co.,
    steve_bank,
    J842P,
    Tharmas,
    Angra Mainyu.
    What's wrong with them, do you think?
    EB
    I had chosen not to reply. I was not taking part in this thread. But you chose to attack. Why?
    The reason I chose not to reply was, precisely, the way you mistreat me in our interactions. But you chose to attack me and mistreat me even though I was not taking part in the thread. I would have no interest in discussing the matter with you, regardless of whether I can figure what you meant by "inherent" or as part of human nature, and regardless of whether I can give an answer. The reason I have no interest is that discussing the matter - or, as it seems, nearly any matters - with you is stressful because of how hostile you are towards me, and I have more interesting and happy things to do with my life - and if and when I decide to engage in a stressful exchange (which I do much less often lately due to meatspace commitments), I'd rather go for things with a bigger social impact than discussions about whether we have an inherent capacity in this case.

  3. Top | #23
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,053
    Rep Power
    13
    EB is taking down names...muast be we are in trouble.

    I am not undecided. I gave my view and my reasoning. I did not vote because in te end it is pointless. It is anoter one of EB's threads on logic that goes on forever. No interest in debate.

    The basic question is without EB's formal Aristotelian logic how on Earth could humans without articulate language and writing have accomplished anything at all.
    Last edited by steve_bank; 05-29-2019 at 12:42 AM.

  4. Top | #24
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,314
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,976
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Here are some of the people who can't decide between "Yes", "No", Don't know" and "Doesn't make sense".

    Koyaanisqatsi,
    prideandfall,
    loose cannon,
    Bearded One,
    abaddon,
    couch_sloth,
    Keith&Co.,
    steve_bank,
    J842P,
    Tharmas,
    Angra Mainyu.
    What's wrong with them, do you think?
    EB
    I had chosen not to reply. I was not taking part in this thread. But you chose to attack. Why?
    The reason I chose not to reply was, precisely, the way you mistreat me in our interactions. But you chose to attack me and mistreat me even though I was not taking part in the thread. I would have no interest in discussing the matter with you, regardless of whether I can figure what you meant by "inherent" or as part of human nature, and regardless of whether I can give an answer. The reason I have no interest is that discussing the matter - or, as it seems, nearly any matters - with you is stressful because of how hostile you are towards me, and I have more interesting and happy things to do with my life - and if and when I decide to engage in a stressful exchange (which I do much less often lately due to meatspace commitments), I'd rather go for things with a bigger social impact than discussions about whether we have an inherent capacity in this case.
    I'm really sorry that it should be at all stressful. If so, I recommend that you not visit my threads.

    Maybe I should say that I'm not hostile or agressive at all. I may be a bit robust in my approach but I generally like people, even those I disagree with, even in real "meatspace" life, where, arguably, it's definitely much more stressful. Still, I guess I understand, but there's not much I can do about it, accept to say sorry.

    That being said, I don't buy your explanation. This thread is a poll and is therefore not primarily about debating. Voting is of the essence. Debating is optional.

    And as for voting, I don't buy that you can't decide between "Yes", "No", Don't know" and "Doesn't make sense". I scratch my head and can't find any other reasonable option that would be missing.

    Still, you do as you please, but I would have appreciated you input, if only the vote.

    Sorry again that I can't take a different, softer, approach, and I don't believe I'm wrong on this.
    EB

  5. Top | #25
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,314
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,976
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    I am not undecided. I gave my view and my reasoning. I did not vote because in te end it is pointless. It is anoter one of EB's threads on logic that goes on forever. No interest in debate.
    It's a poll, Johnny.

    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    The basic question is without EB's formal Aristotelian logic how on Earth could humans without articulate language and writing have accomplished anything at all.
    You're wrong again, on substance, Johnny.

    The basic question has been spelled out: Do humans have an inherent capacity to decide that a conclusion follows necessarily from premises?
    EB

  6. Top | #26
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,116
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    9,704
    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    If so, I recommend that you not visit my threads.
    That would not be a good idea, because then I will not know whether in a thread you will attack either me or other people I would care to defend in this venue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    Maybe I should say that I'm not hostile or agressive at all. I may be a bit robust in my approach but I generally like people, even those I disagree with, even in real "meatspace" life, where, arguably, it's definitely much more stressful. Still, I guess I understand, but there's not much I can do about it, accept to say sorry.

    That being said, I don't buy your explanation. This thread is a poll and is therefore not primarily about debating. Voting is of the essence. Debating is optional.
    And now you accuse me of lying. The accusation is false, and unwarranted. Voting would be unclear, because first I would need to address what you mean by "inherent", and explain my position depending on how one construes that. Moreover, voting in a public poll would risk a reply from you, what I would have wanted to avoid if I had known it was a public poll (I did not, so as far as I knew, voting would give you no info about my position, but then, since I do not understand the question, there is no proper option).

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    And as for voting, I don't buy that you can't decide between "Yes", "No", Don't know" and "Doesn't make sense". I scratch my head and can't find any other reasonable option that would be missing.
    Another option: I do not understand what you mean by "inherent".
    Note that this is not at all the same as 'I do not know'. I might or might not know the answer to the question. I just do not know what the question is (though I can make approximate guesses based on other things you said).
    This is also not the same as 'makes no sense'. For all I know, it might.

    The part about human nature helps, but is not enough. But I will try once more, under that interpretation:

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    Please understand "inherent" to signify that it is in our nature. We have two legs because of our nature but some will be missing one or two because of the imponderables of life.
    Okay, so according to that, the question is: Is the capacity to tell whether an argument follows from premises part of human nature?
    If you mean that, then I do not know. A previous question (under that assumption) is: Is language part of human nature? Is it like having two legs, or a moral sense, or an epistemic sense that allows us to make intuitive probabilistic assessments, acquire beliefs, etc.? (which I would argue do not require language, and are part of human nature). Or is it a technology, like fire? To put it in a different way, a human without legs is malfunctioning considerably. A human (I'm talking about adults) without a moral sense is malfunctioning massively. A human that makes no intuitive probabilistic assessments and/or fails to acquire beliefs is malfunctioning much more massively still, and probably will die very soon. A human without fire may not be malfunctioning. It depends on why she does not have fire. Is a human without language malfunctioning?
    I do not know. The jury is out, as far as I know. If the answer is "no" (i.e., not always), then clearly, a human who cannot tell whether a conclusion follows necessarily from premises is also not always malfunctioning. On the other hand, if the answer is "yes", then there are further questions.

    Now, one could ask whether a person who has language but fails to have the capacity to tell whether an argument follows from premises without learning, is malfunctioning. That, however, would be the wrong question when it comes to saying whether something is part of human nature (it would make all sorts of highly specialized things part of human nature, given that one can always asked whether someone who has acquired such-and-such expertise fails to do something further).
    Last edited by Angra Mainyu; 05-29-2019 at 07:47 PM.

  7. Top | #27
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,314
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,976
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    Please understand "inherent" to signify that it is in our nature. We have two legs because of our nature but some will be missing one or two because of the imponderables of life.
    Okay, so according to that, the question is: Is the capacity to tell whether an argument follows from premises part of human nature?
    If you mean that, then I do not know.
    OK, fair enough, you think you don't know. Take some more time and cast your vote. It's just a poll. Sometimes simple questions receive surprising answers. We all learn from the answers from others.
    EB

  8. Top | #28
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,116
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    9,704
    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    Please understand "inherent" to signify that it is in our nature. We have two legs because of our nature but some will be missing one or two because of the imponderables of life.
    Okay, so according to that, the question is: Is the capacity to tell whether an argument follows from premises part of human nature?
    If you mean that, then I do not know.
    OK, fair enough, you think you don't know. Take some more time and cast your vote. It's just a poll. Sometimes simple questions receive surprising answers. We all learn from the answers from others.
    EB
    Thinking more about it would be of no help, without further input from you regarding the meaning of the question you asked. I already explained what I think my position is, conditioned to the hypothesis that you meant to ask whether it is part of human nature. If that is what you mean, then the answer is clearly that I do not know, because I do not have sufficient information to know whether language (the kind that is relevant here; i.e., that allows people to make arguments with premises) is part of human nature. Consider, for example, a troop of chimpanzees. They do have, in a sense, a language of sorts - they have vocalizations that allow them to communicate to some extent with each other, pass on information, etc. However, they do not have the sort of language that would allow them to make arguments with premises and a conclusion. So, it is not part of chimp nature to have the capacity to decide (or, more precisely, to ascertain) whether a conclusion follows from premises.

    Of course, humans are not chimpanzees. Every human community that we are familiar with, has language. Then again, every human community that we are familiar with, has fire. But knowing how to make fire is not a part of human nature. Rather, it is a technology (or rather, many technologies) that was (were) learned many times, and passed on to other generations, etc. There might be a community without fire - an unethical but possible experiment could easily be set up -, without any sort of malfunctioning.

    So, the question is:

    Q: Could there be a human community without language (of the sort that is relevant here), without any (relevant; i.e., blindness is not relevant) malfunctioning?
    If the answer to Q is 'yes', then the capacity to ascertain whether a conclusion follows from premises is not part of human nature.
    If the answer to Q is 'no', then the capacity to ascertain whether a conclusion follows from premises might or might not be part of human nature, though I would say it very probably is (with some caveats).

    Since I do not know whether the answer to Q is 'yes' or 'no', then I reckon do not know whether the answer to your question is 'yes' or 'no'...as long as my interpretation of your question (based on your statement "Please understand "inherent" to signify that it is in our nature. We have two legs because of our nature but some will be missing one or two because of the imponderables of life." and its context) is correct.

    On the other hand, if my interpretation of your question is not correct, then I do not understand your question, so I do not know whether I know the answer. Moreover, in that case, thinking more about that will not help, since I do not have any further input from you. For that reason, I would ask you:

    1. Is my interpretation of your question correct? Equivalently, is your question whether the capacity to ascertain whether a conclusion follows from premises, part of human nature? If so, please let me know, so that I vote "I do not know".
    2. If your answer to 1. above is 'no', then if you want further input from me regarding your question, I will need further input from you regarding what you mean by that question.

  9. Top | #29
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,053
    Rep Power
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post

    OK, fair enough, you think you don't know. Take some more time and cast your vote. It's just a poll. Sometimes simple questions receive surprising answers. We all learn from the answers from others.
    EB
    Thinking more about it would be of no help, without further input from you regarding the meaning of the question you asked. I already explained what I think my position is, conditioned to the hypothesis that you meant to ask whether it is part of human nature. If that is what you mean, then the answer is clearly that I do not know, because I do not have sufficient information to know whether language (the kind that is relevant here; i.e., that allows people to make arguments with premises) is part of human nature. Consider, for example, a troop of chimpanzees. They do have, in a sense, a language of sorts - they have vocalizations that allow them to communicate to some extent with each other, pass on information, etc. However, they do not have the sort of language that would allow them to make arguments with premises and a conclusion. So, it is not part of chimp nature to have the capacity to decide (or, more precisely, to ascertain) whether a conclusion follows from premises.

    Of course, humans are not chimpanzees. Every human community that we are familiar with, has language. Then again, every human community that we are familiar with, has fire. But knowing how to make fire is not a part of human nature. Rather, it is a technology (or rather, many technologies) that was (were) learned many times, and passed on to other generations, etc. There might be a community without fire - an unethical but possible experiment could easily be set up -, without any sort of malfunctioning.

    So, the question is:

    Q: Could there be a human community without language (of the sort that is relevant here), without any (relevant; i.e., blindness is not relevant) malfunctioning?
    If the answer to Q is 'yes', then the capacity to ascertain whether a conclusion follows from premises is not part of human nature.
    If the answer to Q is 'no', then the capacity to ascertain whether a conclusion follows from premises might or might not be part of human nature, though I would say it very probably is (with some caveats).

    Since I do not know whether the answer to Q is 'yes' or 'no', then I reckon do not know whether the answer to your question is 'yes' or 'no'...as long as my interpretation of your question (based on your statement "Please understand "inherent" to signify that it is in our nature. We have two legs because of our nature but some will be missing one or two because of the imponderables of life." and its context) is correct.

    On the other hand, if my interpretation of your question is not correct, then I do not understand your question, so I do not know whether I know the answer. Moreover, in that case, thinking more about that will not help, since I do not have any further input from you. For that reason, I would ask you:

    1. Is my interpretation of your question correct? Equivalently, is your question whether the capacity to ascertain whether a conclusion follows from premises, part of human nature? If so, please let me know, so that I vote "I do not know".
    2. If your answer to 1. above is 'no', then if you want further input from me regarding your question, I will need further input from you regarding what you mean by that question.
    Humans learned to control fir long before Aristotle or any system of logic.

  10. Top | #30
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,314
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,976
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    For that reason, I would ask you:

    1. Is my interpretation of your question correct? Equivalently, is your question whether the capacity to ascertain whether a conclusion follows from premises, part of human nature? If so, please let me know, so that I vote "I do not know".
    Yes, by "inherent" here I meant that the capacity is understood to be part of human nature.
    EB

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 589
    Last Post: 11-26-2018, 04:57 PM
  2. Fair and Balanced? I decide **NO**!!
    By Loren Pechtel in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-03-2018, 03:51 AM
  3. Kermit the Frogs New Girlfriend - has everyone come to the same conclusion?
    By Potoooooooo in forum Media & Culture Gallery
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-12-2015, 06:00 AM
  4. What doesn't necessarily cure poverty
    By ksen in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: 04-02-2015, 04:43 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •