Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Joe jumped off a cliff and died.

  1. Top | #11
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    60
    Where does the deduction come in?

    “Joe jumped off a cliff and died” is equivalent to, “Joe jumped off a cliff, and Joe died.” It doesn’t translate into “Joe jumped off a cliff, and because of that, Joe died.” The former is the conveyance of two facts (with only suggestion of dependence) while the latter stipulates a connection.

  2. Top | #12
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,286
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,948
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Where does the deduction come in?
    "Classical propositional logic".

    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    “Joe jumped off a cliff and died” is equivalent to, “Joe jumped off a cliff, and Joe died.” It doesn’t translate into “Joe jumped off a cliff, and because of that, Joe died.” The former is the conveyance of two facts (with only suggestion of dependence) while the latter stipulates a connection.
    Please read the question carefully. Please don't go into the usual wild and nonsensical answers most people here usually do.

    If you understand both English and human deductive logic, it should be a piece of cake.
    EB

  3. Top | #13
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,318
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,607
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Please read the question carefully. Please don't go into the usual wild and nonsensical answers most people here usually do.

    If you understand both English and human deductive logic, it should be a piece of cake.
    EB
    The most nonsensical party if the thread is your posts, and in particular your notion that you hold a monopoly on the English language, but whatever.

  4. Top | #14
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,286
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,948
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Please read the question carefully. Please don't go into the usual wild and nonsensical answers most people here usually do.

    If you understand both English and human deductive logic, it should be a piece of cake.
    EB
    The most nonsensical party if the thread is your posts, and in particular your notion that you hold a monopoly on the English language, but whatever.
    I don't see how I could possibly reply to a nonsensical comment except to say it is nonsensical.
    EB

  5. Top | #15
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    How is the idea expressed in classical propositional logic that one event caused another one event?

    For example:

    Joe jumped off a cliff and died.
    Please read the question carefully. Please don't go into the usual wild and nonsensical answers most people here usually do.

    If you understand both English and human deductive logic, it should be a piece of cake.
    EB
    You say to read the question carefully. When I look, I see the question, and the question reads, “How is the idea expressed in classical propositional logic that one event caused another one event?” I understand the question, but because of the qualifications, I can’t rightly say that I know the answer.

    I do suspect, however, that you (yourself) misarticulate the distinction I bring up.

    P1. Joe jumped off a cliff.
    P2. Joe landed in the water.
    P3. Joe swam to the shore.
    P4. Joe got into a vehicle
    P5. Joe drove towards town
    P6. Joe lost control of his vehicle
    P7. Joe wrecked his vehicle
    P8. Joe suffered injuries
    P9. Joe died.

    Each individual statement is true. P1 is true, P2 is true, ... P9 is true.

    Statements of combined true facts are also true: P1 and P2 is true, P1 and P3 is true, P1 and P4 is true, ... P2 and P3 is true, ... etc etc, and of course, P1 and P9 is true; in fact, it’s the actual example you give. The problem is, it’s not because he jumped off the cliff that he died, so with all this careful reading you insist upon, I wonder why you don’t give an example that actually reflects your question—regardless of what the answer actually is.

    When (In English), you use the conjunction “and,” that doesn’t IMPLY but in some contexts merely suggest a casusal relationship. In ordinary conversation, people talk in shorthand. It’s very prevalent—happens all the time, and yes you probably do mean for the example to be an example of what you want it to be an example of, but then, you go into this carefully read spewl, and what else am I to do but take into account what you explicitly say, and what you do not explicitly say is that “joe jumped off a cliff resulting in his death.”

    As to your answer, I’m still not rightly sure, but i’d imagine you should be explicit and not leave it ambiguous. Maybe there’s a special symbol for notating a causal effect.

  6. Top | #16
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Port Clinton, Ohio
    Posts
    2,197
    Archived
    591
    Total Posts
    2,788
    Rep Power
    61
    Joe is the familiar of Joseph, the stepfather of our Lord Jesus of Nazareth. The stepson saved him, and then yawned at the ease of saving "Joe" and solving the resulting riddle. What good is raising a savior if you can't fall off a cliff now & then?

  7. Top | #17
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,318
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,607
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Please read the question carefully. Please don't go into the usual wild and nonsensical answers most people here usually do.

    If you understand both English and human deductive logic, it should be a piece of cake.
    EB
    The most nonsensical party if the thread is your posts, and in particular your notion that you hold a monopoly on the English language, but whatever.
    I don't see how I could possibly reply to a nonsensical comment except to say it is nonsensical.
    EB
    Well, I read the question carefully and concluded that it's based on a false premise if what the English sentence "Joe jumped off a cliff and died" means.
    Last edited by Jokodo; 10-08-2019 at 06:13 PM.

  8. Top | #18
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,924
    Rep Power
    12
    p2 en asks question
    p2 question answered, statement not a proposition'
    p3 eb ignores response
    c eb is illogical.

    Conclusion follows from premises.

  9. Top | #19
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    60
    How do we answer the question?

    What does it even mean to express an idea using propositional logic? Would the structure be different if a causal connection was intentionally avoided versus intentionally stipulated?

    The young girl touched the hot stove and burned her hand. Just like his example, the paranoia that I am possibly being misled is alive and well. While it seems a no-brainer that the speaker fully intends to suggest that one event caused the other, the out loud explicit connection is omitted leaving the smidgen of ponder in my mind.

    Oh goodness, I told her never to touch a hot stove
    Oh, but that’s not how she burned her hand.
    But, you said ...
    Yes, I did, but I didn’t explicitly say and thus convey what you think I did.

    Right now, I’m still inclined to think that if you want to use propositional logic and feel the need to convey that one event caused another, then just SAY SO explicitly when writing out a proposition.

  10. Top | #20
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,561
    Rep Power
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    How is the idea expressed in classical propositional logic that one event caused another one event?

    For example:

    Joe jumped off a cliff and died.
    Please read the question carefully. Please don't go into the usual wild and nonsensical answers most people here usually do.

    If you understand both English and human deductive logic, it should be a piece of cake.
    EB
    This is not the expression of an idea. This is the statement of two facts, which may or may not be connected.
    In logic, this would be written:

    A and B

    If you wish to assign causality, you would write it as

    A -> B

    ...which in English would be "if Joe jumped off a cliff, then joe is dead".

Posting Permissions

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