http://forums.philosophyforums.com Active discussions in all fields of philosophy. en-us I often hear it said that epistemology and metaphysics are distinct, separable areas of inquiry. There is how things are and how they are known to beâ€"metaphysics deals with being, and epistemology deals with knowing. But how can the two be separate? If something is beyond knowing, how can it be thought about, and so the subject of a discipline? Further, how can one know a thing without encompassing what it is that thing is? But how can this be done, if the knowledge of something is separate from what the thing is? Why would knowledge ever reach being, if it were not the same thing - how would the gap between the two ever be bridged? Put simply, if I state everything about what a thing is, I have also stated all that it is known to be - and if I have stated all that it is known to be, then I have stated all that can be said of it, that it is. http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/knowledge-and-the-thing-54218.html Fri, 18 May 2012 07:35:54 GMT http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/54218/ hello friends, I ma new here,I ma a big fan of game. i like to play all typed of game. so please share with us which type of game do you like most......... ____________________ [url=http://www.casinomegamall.com]best poker sites[/url] http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/which-type-of-game-so-you-liike-most-54215.html Fri, 18 May 2012 06:24:13 GMT http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/54215/ Let's say I present an argument involving the quality of cars made by two different car manufacturers, A and B: 1. If A-cars break down less frequently than B-cars, then A-cars are higher quality than B-cars 2. A-cars break down less frequently than B-cars ∴ A-cars are higher quality than B-cars This argument is valid (as far as I can tell). Let's say I have a friend that doesn't agree with the conclusion: he thinks B-cars are higher quality than A-cars. He needs to reject one of the premises. Let's assume premise 2 is uncontroversial. He must reject premise 1. An objection is obvious: the consequent does not necessarily follow from the antecedent because reliability is not the only factor in car quality. My friend claims that there are other factors in quality, e.g. acceleration, handling, braking, fit and finish, safety, convenience, cargo capacity, range, etc. I reply: "It is true that reliability is not the only factor in car quality, but it is the most important. Assuming both types of cars meet minimum consumer protection agency standards, reliability trumps all other quality factors." My friend replies: "I don't agree. I think if B is better than A at handling, acceleration, and safety, and both types of cars meet minimum consumer protection agency standards for reliability, then the B is higher quality." Me: "I think you're wrong." Friend: "Well, I think I'm right." -- I have some questions about this argument. Feel free to answer just one, or all, or none, or whatever: 1. There doesn't seem to be any obvious way to prove that either I or my friend is correct at this point. Why is this? What do philosophers have to say about this type of impasse? Is all we can say, "difference of opinion", and move on? 2. Let's say my friend and I look up the definition of quality in the dictionary and we both agree on the definition. Yet, we still don't agree about which car is higher quality. Why is this? What role is the term quality playing in this discussion? 3. Many threads on Philosophy Forums (PF) play out in a similar fashion to my example scenario: the thread creator starts with an argument in a formal or semi-formal format. The first page or two of discussion goes to establishing validity. Then most of the rest of the thread is spent arguing over soundness. Often agreement is not finally reached. I'm curious about this as a pattern. Does this pattern have a name? If not, what would you call it? 4. It is fairly easy to construct a valid argument, but extremely hard to demonstrate (or convince people of) its soundness. Why is this? What are some relevant philosophical ideas related to this phenomenon? Does this have a name? If not, what would you call it? 5. To establish the soundness of an argument, you must determine the truth value of the argument's premises. Is there a term for the process/practice of establishing the truth value of premises? http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/questions-about-soundness-natural-language-and-discussion-54214.html Fri, 18 May 2012 00:49:03 GMT http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/54214/ Hi All, I'm wrapping up a Logic course this semester and it has been very interesting, in particular the proofs. However while doing some review I've realized that I can't prove a simple logical inference. The book we are using is Language, Proof and Logic along with the bundled software Fitch. I was reviewing chapter 5 and tried to write a formal proof for exercise 5.1: Premise: P ∨ Q Premise: ¬P Goal: Q Writing a truth table makes it painfully obvious that this is a valid inference, but for the life of me I can't set up a valid ∨ elimination in Fitch to prove this. I'm embarrassed to ask something so simple, but hoping somebody can help me fill this gap in my understanding. Thanks! http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/stumped-by-seemingly-simple-proof-lpl-54213.html Thu, 17 May 2012 23:04:55 GMT http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/54213/ The saying the grass is always greener over there, is this the underlying factor why what we always wish for never seems to meet our expectations long term, short term yes, but as a species we get bored of the norm as it becomes, as the lottery winner always wished for, lying on a beach all day or golfing all day. When he/she won they got bored. So why is this the case that as a species we never are satisfied or is it the case we can never be satisfied. http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/what-we-wish-for-54212.html Thu, 17 May 2012 22:28:09 GMT http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/54212/