Online Resources: Logic and Arguments

Our main resource should be the Introductory chapter of the Solomon text, Section D. However, there are several good online sites describing basic logic and the logic of arguments. Here are some of them:

• Garth Kemmerling's "Philosophy Pages" has several sites on logic and arguments:
• Arguments and Inference: http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e01.htm
• Main Logic Site: http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/index.htm
• Main Site for "Philosophy Pages": http://www.philosophypages.com/
• Atheism Web's Arguments Page: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
• An Introduction to Argument Diagrams: http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/diagram.html
• An Overview of Key Concepts in Logic--Truth, Validity, Soundness: http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/tvs.html

Definitions of Science

I came across the following recently. I thought it would make a good discussion topic. The definition of science (if there is a single "correct" definition) seems a crucial step towards the proper understanding of truth. Is science the sole guardian of truth? What relationships exist between science as a collection of facts and moral truth, if any? Can science help find God, or is this a foolish attempt that relies on a misunderstanding of terms? 

• Here's the resource: http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122sciencedefns.html.

One famous definition of science is Karl Popper's: Science deals with falsifiable statements. A "falsifiable statement" is a statement capable of being determined true or false on the basis of observation. In other words, a statement such as "The table is on the floor" is falsifiable because we can observe our surroundings and make a determination as to the statement's truth. On the other hand, a statement like "God exists" is not falsifiable because there is no possible observation that would prove the statement false. Popper puts it this way:

• I think that we shall have to get accustomed to the idea that we must not look upon science as a "body of knowledge", but rather as a system of hypotheses, or as a system of guesses or anticipations that in principle cannot be justified, but with which we work as long as they stand up to tests, and of which we are never justified in saying that we know they are "true"... (from The Logic of Scientific Discovery).

In other words, it is not "truth" that science seeks, but the removal of unjustified statements that do not stand up to the "right tests."

Free Will and Determinism

Are we free to choose our actions? Do humans possess freedom that other creatures do not? Does science determine human actions? Does God determine them? Are the concepts of "freedom" and "determinism" compatible with one another?

 

These and other issues have been discussed over the last several hundred years in the course of the free will debate. The central philosophical problem concerns the fact that physical events appear to be fully deterministic: they are driven by causal laws that never change. On the other hand, humans appear to be free creatures: they choose their behavior. These two apparent facts appear to be at loggerheads.

 

The problem can also be found in theology: if God is omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful), then how can human beings be free to choose their behavior? It would seem that if God is all-knowing, he knows what we will do before we do it. This finding seems to contradict the possibility of freedom.

 

Resources:

• An overview of the debate, with a focus on scientific (and not theological) determinism: http://www.galilean-library.org/int13.html.
• Yahoo's Web Directory for "FreeWill and Determinism" resources: http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/Philosophy/Free_Will_and_Determinism/.
• A list of online papers on Free Will (with links): http://consc.net/online2.html#freewill.
• Also see the papers in the Solomon text.

Issues: See above.

Intelligent Design

The debate over ID is raging. Intelligent Design is the theory that there are entities so complex that they must have been intelligently designed. A frequent extension of the theory is that such entities could not have evolved in the way that the theory of evolution says they evolved (through a large number of minor changes in physiology occurring over millions of years). Some schools, districts, and states want to teach ID in science classrooms, and this has generated a backlash among those who believe that such a move would violate the separation of church and state.

 

To understand ID, one needs to understand the science of evolution and the theoretical claims that proponents of ID are making. So, we begin with a summary of evolution theory. Then, a scientific debate on ID. Finally, some additional arguments, mostly on the political issues involved. 

• An overview of evolution theory: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml
• A comprehensive debate on ID can be found here: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html.
• An unfriendly summary of ID can be found here: http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html.
• A friendlier summary of ID: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC&id=2774&callingPage=discoMainPage.
• An argument from the LA Times (may require registration): http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-larson26aug26,0,5849191.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions.
• A summary and critique of ID efforts in education: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact.

Some of the issues raised by this topic are...

• Should ID be taught in public classrooms at all? If so, is it appropriate to include it in the science curriculum, or should it be moved to a philosophy or religious study course?
• Is ID a scientific theory?
• Must the universe have an intelligent designer, or is it possible for the universe's complexity to have evolved without such a designer?

Philosophy and Films

I wanted to start this topic to get some movie
recommendations going. Alex (in the 2PM class) recommends
"Waking Life." I have it, haven't seen it, and am
interested to hear what others might have to say about the
philosophical issues behind the film. Would it be a good
selection? What other choices come to mind?

Fabio Escobar, Adjunct Instructor
716-380-1755 (cellular)
Fenton 284

Echinacea

I thought this was a pretty good example of a health-related
argument. It would be a challenge to diagram, I think.

Here's the link:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050808/8healy.htm

Fabio Escobar, Adjunct Instructor
716-380-1755 (cellular)
Fenton 284

Gergen on Terror

Check out David Gergen's column on the war on terror. It's a tad dated (over a year old) but I think several of his arguments could be fruitfully diagrammed.

Link: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/040830/30edit.htm