AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION. General Discussion Digest for Monday January 21, 2019.

                        

Jan 21, 2019 Philosophy & neoliberal rationality in education    1.  Assume as a placeholder that neoliberal... Jeremy Bendik-Keymer Formal Logic    2.  ​ I take exception to Miles Rind's... Alex Blum 3.  I should think that the proposition that a... Selmer Bringsjord 4.  >>I should think that the proposition that a... Miles Rind 5.  Yes, I do.  However, one shouldn't write a paper... Selmer Bringsjord 6.  After 50 years of listening to all sides of this... John Corcoran   1. Philosophy & neoliberal rationality in education Jan 21, 2019 11:03 AM Jeremy Bendik-Keymer Assume as a placeholder that neoliberal educational rationality involves asking how any educational program delivers return on investment, market competitiveness, or entrepreneurial abilities.  Accordingly, several things about value get left out:  long term value (beyond market cycles), intrinsic value, non-competitive or non-opportunistic values and capacities, and benevolent or socially just values, among others. I am curious how philosophy practitioners in education (at any level) have successfully defended philosophy without reducing it to neoliberal evaluation.  By a successful defense, I do not mean only the argument - although that is of interest - but also the programs, mission statements, public outreach, etc. that have been taken up in an educational system or program.  I am looking for case studies especially. Is it true, as seems so, that mission-driven institutions (e.g., Jesuit universities or a "lighthouse" university such as Central European University) have a better time in making the defense? Can programs in philosophy be structured to resist neoliberal educational rationality, and if so, how? Since neoliberal rationality tends to drive administrative and planning processes in programs and institutions, are there any good examples that come to mind of places that have built philosophical practice well into administration or strategic planning, thereby creating an alternative rationality to a neoliberal one in program or institutional planning processes? Etc. I should close by stating that I assume that philosophy, whose object is wisdom, and wisdom, which takes in values that exceed neoliberal rationality, cannot be successfully reduced to neoliberal rationality and essentially resists it as a good guide to human life. ------------------------------ Jeremy Bendik-Keymer Beamer-Schneider Professor in Ethics Case Western Reserve University Cleveland OH ------------------------------      2. Re: Formal Logic Jan 21, 2019 4:11 AM Alex Blum ​I take exception to Miles Rind's restriction. For formal logic serves as a template for much of correct reasoning in any area where heavy reasoning is done. ------------------------------ Alex Blum Professor Emeritus Bar-Ilan University Ramat-Gan ------------------------------    ------------------------------------------- Original Message: Sent: 01-20-2019 03:41 From: Alex Blum Subject: Formal Logic In response to John's note, I think it would be hard to understand no less appreciate, say Quine, "to be is to be the value of a variable", or Davidson on causality and events, the slingshot, or Kripke on the necessity of identity, or on the necessity of some a posteriori  truths, without at least a solid knowledge of a text such as Quine's Methods, or the first half of Copi's Symbolic Logic. Furthermore, elementary reasoning such as if p implies q then the necessity of the former implies the necessity of the latter, or simply modus tollens, it seems to me, may not be at a philosopher's fingertips without a solid grounding in formal logic. I was wondering how much? Original Message------ Most philosophers need very little formal logic.I would say very few need any symbolic logic. I would add that almost none need to know the basics of mathematical logic: soundness and completeness of first-order logic.And none need to be indoctrinated into the latest fashions and jargon.  But regard these words as a tentative opening of a dialogue. ------------------------------ John Corcoran Bradenton FL ------------------------------   3. Re: Formal Logic \ Jan 21, 2019 7:15 PM Selmer Bringsjord I should think that the proposition that a philosopher needs a lot of formal logic (L) won't be refuted by anyone who knows little formal logic, because why believe ~L unless there's a sound argument for ~L? - and a sound argument must be formally valid.  Of course, in turn, formal validity, and the crafting and verification thereof, is a matter mostly of formal logic, and its use.  As far as I can tell, Aristotle worked out nothing more than a tiny, tiny fragment of first-order logic and a matching proof-theory for it, but we then saw a continuous ascension of formal logic that continues to this day.  Yet philosophy-separate-from-formal logic could be put in front of Aristotle and he would smoothly digest.  That, I submit, should be a revealing contrast, when pondered.  Most informal philosophy, when formalized, makes use, minimally, of higher-order logic, and intensional operators to boot, so it's also stunning to see the continued survival of the notion that a quick course or two that stops at the rudiments of first-order logic and its metatheory is sufficient for a degree in philosophy. ------------------------------ Selmer Bringsjord Profesor RPI Troy NY ------------------------------    ------------------------------------------- Original Message: Sent: 01-19-2019 13:32 From: Alex Blum Subject: Formal Logic ​How much formal logic is essential for a philosopher to master? ------------------------------ Alex Blum Professor Emeritus Bar-Ilan University Ramat-Gan ------------------------------   4. Re: Formal Logic Jan 21, 2019 7:23 PM Miles Rind >>I should think that the proposition that a philosopher needs a lot of formal logic (L) won't be refuted by anyone who knows little formal logic, because why believe ~L unless there's a sound argument for ~L? - and a sound argument must be formally valid.<< So, according to you, a sound argument must be (not only valid but) formally valid, and there is no reason to believe a proposition that is not supported by a formally valid argument? Do you have a sound argument for that claim? ------------------------------ Miles Rind Adjunct Boston College Philosophy Department Cambridge MA ------------------------------    ------------------------------------------- Original Message: Sent: 01-21-2019 19:14 From: Selmer Bringsjord Subject: Formal Logic I should think that the proposition that a philosopher needs a lot of formal logic (L) won't be refuted by anyone who knows little formal logic, because why believe ~L unless there's a sound argument for ~L? - and a sound argument must be formally valid.  Of course, in turn, formal validity, and the crafting and verification thereof, is a matter mostly of formal logic, and its use.  As far as I can tell, Aristotle worked out nothing more than a tiny, tiny fragment of first-order logic and a matching proof-theory for it, but we then saw a continuous ascension of formal logic that continues to this day.  Yet philosophy-separate-from-formal logic could be put in front of Aristotle and he would smoothly digest.  That, I submit, should be a revealing contrast, when pondered.  Most informal philosophy, when formalized, makes use, minimally, of higher-order logic, and intensional operators to boot, so it's also stunning to see the continued survival of the notion that a quick course or two that stops at the rudiments of first-order logic and its metatheory is sufficient for a degree in philosophy. ------------------------------ Selmer Bringsjord Profesor RPI Troy NY   top previous  next 5. Re: Formal Logic Jan 21, 2019 7:37 PM Selmer Bringsjord Yes, I do.  However, one shouldn't write a paper in a forum like this, so i'll say only informally that:  If rational Jones is going to come to know ~L, then Jones is, minimally, going to come to believe ~L, and to believe that some argument A (or interconnected web of arguments) has as its output/conclusion ~L.  If this is rational belief, then A will need to be surveyable and verifiably valid.  (Otherwise, philosophy becomes rhetoric or pure power or some sort of swindling; rationality is gone.)  No argument can be surveyable and verifiably valid unless its inferential links abide by (= instantiates) some inference schemata.  But this is what formal validity is.  Easy peasy (though confessedly in broad strokes here). ------------------------------ Selmer Bringsjord Profesor RPI Troy NY ------------------------------   ------------------------------------------- Original Message: Sent: 01-21-2019 19:23 From: Miles Rind Subject: Formal Logic >>I should think that the proposition that a philosopher needs a lot of formal logic (L) won't be refuted by anyone who knows little formal logic, because why believe ~L unless there's a sound argument for ~L? - and a sound argument must be formally valid.<< So, according to you, a sound argument must be (not only valid but) formally valid, and there is no reason to believe a proposition that is not supported by a formally valid argument? Do you have a sound argument for that claim? ------------------------------ Miles Rind Adjunct Boston College Philosophy Department Cambridge MA   6. Re: Formal Logic Jan 21, 2019 9:16 PM John Corcoran After 50 years of listening to all sides of this important debate, which until now I stayed out of, I noticed that the more logic a person knows the less enthusiastic they are about requiring students to take courses in it and conversely the less logic a person knows the more enthusiastic they are about jamming the latest dogmas down the throats of unwilling students. I wrote about this without being contentious. I am not sure about any of my points. www.academia.edu/23200837/... www.academia.edu/33771248/FIRST_DAYS_OF_A_LOGIC_COURSE ------------------------------ John Corcoran Bradenton FL ------------------------------   ------------------------------------------- Original Message: Sent: 01-21-2019 19:37 From: Selmer Bringsjord Subject: Formal Logic Yes, I do.  However, one shouldn't write a paper in a forum like this, so i'll say only informally that:  If rational Jones is going to come to know ~L, then Jones is, minimally, going to come to believe ~L, and to believe that some argument A (or interconnected web of arguments) has as its output/conclusion ~L.  If this is rational belief, then A will need to be surveyable and verifiably valid.  (Otherwise, philosophy becomes rhetoric or pure power or some sort of swindling; rationality is gone.)  No argument can be surveyable and verifiably valid unless its inferential links abide by (= instantiates) some inference schemata.  But this is what formal validity is.  Easy peasy (though confessedly in broad strokes here). ------------------------------ Selmer Bringsjord Profesor RPI Troy NY

BLAST FROM THE PAST: A 2016 PRE-ELECTION POST ABOUT DONALD TRUMP. 10/19/2016.

(THE REALLY SAD PART ABOUT THIS IS THAT THE ELECTION WAS RIGGED. IN HIS FAVOR.)

FROM- 10/19/2016.

The most amazing thing about Donald Trump claiming the Presidential Election is Rigged, is not that it is completely unexpected, but that anyone who really studies the problem couldn't see it coming.

-  Donald Trump, and his Lackeys, realize that all the Misogynists, Bigots, Xenophobes, Homophobes, Religious Zealots etc., in the Country do not represent a Voting Majority.

-  That his Platform of ... well... Hating everyone who is not on the FAR RIGHT EXTREMIST LIST

OF PEOPLE ALLOWED TO LIVE IN THE U.S. WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING TARGETS OF PERSECUTION OR PREJUDICE, doesn't appeal to many undecided voters.

-  That Sound Bites Laced with Simplistic and Bombastic Drivel, that represent a profound inability to meet even the Most Minimal Levels of Intellectual Depth and Psychological Stability, do not indicate qualities that Most Americans would expect in their President.

So, as he sees the Election Slipping Away, Donald Trump plays the only Card he has left, given his limited abilities to convince Most Reasonable People that he is the Person who should sit in the White House. It is a Strategy that fits in perfectly with those who already support him, for it requires none of the following:

-  An understanding of the Rules of Logic.

-  The Ability to separate Gossip, Rumor, and Innuendo
    from Factual Data.

-  The Understanding that you do not start any Investigation,
    be it Science, Law, Politics.,etc with a CONCLUSION, and
    then try to Shape the Evidence to Support it. BAD EVIDENCE
    DOES NOT CHANGE THE TRUTH, NO MATTER
    WHAT YOUR AGENDA IS.

  -  The REALIZATION THAT  BASELESS ASSERTIONS ARE
      MEANINGLESS, NO MATTER HOW OFTEN YOU REPEAT
      THEM.

      For more information, you may want to read my article-  THE
      FALLACY OF PROVING A NEGATIVE.

I’m running for president. Kamala Harris (info@kamalaharris.org)

David,

Decency. Justice. Truth. Equality. Freedom. Democracy.

These aren’t just words: they’re the values we, as Americans, cherish. Right now, they’re all on the line.

We face the greatest crisis of leadership we’ve seen in our lifetimes, and powerful voices are filling the void, sowing hate and division among us.

We’ve witnessed an Administration that aligns itself with dictators and refers to white supremacists as “very fine people.” They’ve torn babies from their mothers’ arms and put children in cages.

They’ve slashed taxes for corporations and the wealthiest among us -- placing the burden on the middle class. They’ve actively fought against efforts to combat climate change. Time and again, they’ve sabotaged our country’s health care. And they’ve attacked our free and independent press at every turn.

We know America is better than this -- but it's on us to build it. We’re going to have to fight for it.

David, I’m ready to take on that fight alongside you. That’s why, today, I’m proud to announce that I’m running for President of the United States.

I want to be clear: ours will not be a campaign against our current president. It will be a campaign FOR the very future of our country. FOR the people.

Together, we will fight FOR a country with strong public schools in every zip code. A country where one job is enough to pay the bills. A country with full, universal health care for every single American.

Together, we will fight FOR a country where getting a college education doesn’t mean taking on a lifetime of debt. Where middle-class and working families are prioritized with tax breaks, not corporations or the wealthiest 1%. Where every single person can retire with dignity. Where every single person can breathe clean air and drink clean water. Where Black women aren’t three to four times more likely to die in childbirth than white women. A country where for-profit prison businesses -- a billion-dollar industry -- are a thing of the past. We’re going to fight FOR an America where all our civil rights are respected.

We’re going to seek truth and speak truth. That’s my promise to you.

Ours is a fight born of optimism -- of the promise of what our country can become  if we unite behind a common cause. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to earn your vote and -- most importantly -- your trust. Let’s do this, Kamala Harris

PAID FOR BY KAMALA HARRIS FOR THE PEOPLE

"DON'T TAKE TRUMPS DEAL." PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS OF AMERICA.

Progressive Democrats of America

 

Belen Sisa ..... Dreamer, activists, and PDA National Advisory Board member ..... speaking truth to power, Trump needs to stop the shutdown, and stop using 800,000 government workers and another million Dreamers as pawns in his schemes to build his Border Wall.

About this website

HUFFINGTONPOST.COM

Dreamer Rejects Trump's DACA Extension: Democrats 'Should Absolutely Not Take This Deal'