reasoninghub-blog

[reasoninghub-blog]

A procedure for establishing a proposition

A procedure for establishing a proposition is a set of steps or rules that guide the process of making a claim or an argument. Depending on the context and the purpose of the proposition, different procedures may apply. For example:

If you want to establish a proposition for a persuasive speech, you need to identify your main claim, your target audience, and your supporting evidence. You also need to consider the type of proposition you are making, whether it is a proposition of fact, value, or policy.

If you want to establish a proposition for a scientific hypothesis, you need to formulate a testable and falsifiable statement that explains a phenomenon or predicts an outcome. You also need to design an experiment or an observation that can verify or reject your proposition based on empirical data.

If you want to establish a proposition for a legislative initiative or referendum, you need to follow the guidelines and requirements of your state or jurisdiction. These may include an application process, registering sponsors, submitting the full text and an explanation of the measure, collecting signatures, and filing with the appropriate office.

A procedure for establishing a customer value proposition is a set of steps or rules that guide the process of creating a statement that describes how your products or services solve your customers' problems, deliver specific benefits, and tell them why they should buy from you instead of your competitors¹. Depending on the context and the purpose of the customer value proposition, different procedures may apply. For example:

If you want to establish a customer value proposition for a new product or service, you need to identify your target market, analyze your product's features and benefits, evaluate your competitors' offerings, and craft a clear and compelling message that highlights your unique value².

If you want to establish a customer value proposition for an existing product or service, you need to review your current value proposition, collect feedback from your customers and prospects, test different versions of your value proposition, and measure the impact on your sales and conversions³.

If you want to establish a customer value proposition for a specific segment or niche, you need to research your customers' needs, preferences, and pain points, segment your market based on relevant criteria, tailor your value proposition to each segment's characteristics and goals, and communicate it effectively through appropriate channels⁴.

Source: Conversation with Bing, 5/21/2023 (1) Customer Value Proposition Guide (With Tips and Examples). https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/customer-value-proposition. (2) How to Write a Great Value Proposition [7 Top Examples - HubSpot. https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/write-value-proposition. (3) Formulating a Customer Value Proposition. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/formulating-customer-value-proposition-jean-dieudonne. (4) Customer Value Proposition (CVP): Definition and Examples - toolshero. https://www.toolshero.com/marketing/customer-value-proposition-cvp/.

[reasoninghub-blog]

Contradiction Arguments

According to the Cambridge Dictionary, the meaning of contradiction in British English is "the fact of something being the complete opposite of something else or very different from something else, so that one of them must be wrong". For example, if someone says that they love animals but they eat meat, that is a contradiction. 

A contradiction can also be "a combination of words that is nonsense because some of the words suggest the opposite of some of the others". For example, “a square circle” or “a deafening silence” are contradictions in terms.

Contradiction arguments are arguments that involve premises or conclusions that are inconsistent or incompatible with each other¹.

A contradiction is a statement or proposition that asserts and denies the same thing¹². For example, "It is raining and it is not raining" is a contradiction. Contradiction arguments are usually considered invalid and fallacious, because they violate the logical principle of non-contradiction, which states that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense²³.

Source: Conversation with Bing, 5/21/2023 (1) Definition of Contradictory Premises - ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-contrast-composition-and-rhetoric-1689798. (2) Contradiction Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contradiction. (3) Contradiction - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction. (4) Contradictory vs Contrary Arguments - Lisa Shea. https://lisashea.com/lisabase/philosophy/logic/contradictorycontrary.html.

[reasoninghub-blog]

Deductive and Inductive Arguments

Inductive and deductive arguments are two types of arguments that differ in how they use evidence and reasoning to support a conclusion¹².

A deductive argument is an argument that uses general principles and statements to draw a certain conclusion²³. For example, if we know that all humans are mortal and that Socrates is a human, we can deduce that Socrates is mortal. A deductive argument is valid if the conclusion follows logically from the premises, and sound if the premises are true²³.

An inductive argument is an argument that uses specific observations and facts to make a probable generalization²³. For example, if we observe that every time we drop an apple, it falls to the ground, we can induce that apples always fall to the ground. An inductive argument is strong if the conclusion is likely based on the premises, and cogent if the premises are true²³.

The main difference between deductive and inductive arguments is that deductive arguments use a top-down approach, while inductive arguments use a bottom-up approach³⁴. Deductive arguments start with general statements and move to specific conclusions, while inductive arguments start with specific observations and move to general conclusions³⁴. Deductive arguments are logical and reliable, while inductive arguments are based on observation and limited in scope⁴⁵.

References: (1) Deductive and Inductive Arguments - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/deductive-inductive-arguments/. (2) "Inductive" vs. "Deductive" – What's The Difference? | Dictionary.com. https://www.dictionary.com/e/inductive-vs-deductive/. (3) Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning | Indeed.com. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/inductive-vs-deductive-reasoning. (4) What is the Difference between Inductive and Deductive Argument …. https://essaymusk.com/what-is-the-difference-between-inductive-and-deductive-argument-reasoning/. (5) Difference Between Deductive and Inductive Argument. https://askanydifference.com/difference-between-deductive-and-inductive-argument/.

[reasoninghub-blog]

Propositional logic

A Proposition means a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion.

Propositional logic is a branch of logic that studies ways of combining or altering statements or propositions to form more complicated statements or propositions. A proposition is a declarative sentence that is either true or false. Propositional logic uses symbols and connectives to represent propositions and their logical relationship.

here is an example of propositional logic. Suppose we have two propositions:

P: It is raining.

Q: The ground is wet.

We can use symbols and connectives to form more complex propositions, such as:

¬P: It is not raining.

P ∧ Q: It is raining and the ground is wet.

P ∨ Q: It is raining or the ground is wet.

P → Q: If it is raining, then the ground is wet.

Each of these propositions has a truth value that depends on the truth values of P and Q. We can use a truth table to show all the possible combinations and outcomes.

[reasoninghub-blog]

Good reasoning, bad reasoning

Good reasoning is the kind of reasoning that takes you from true or reasonable premises to true or reasonable conclusions.

Bad reasoning is the kind of reasoning that takes you from false or unreasonable premises to false or unreasonable conclusions, or that commits logical fallacies¹².

Good reasoning preserves fittingness or correctness: it takes you from fitting attitudes to further fitting attitudes, other things equal².

Bad reasoning does not preserve fittingness or correctness: it takes you from unfitting attitudes to further unfitting attitudes, other things equal². Good reasoning helps you acquire knowledge and make rational decisions. Bad reasoning can mislead you and make you act irrationally⁴.

References: (1) What is Logic? – Introduction to Philosophy: Logic. https://cwi.pressbooks.pub/intrologic/chapter/chapter-1/. (2) What is Good Reasoning? - onlinelibrary.wiley.com. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/phpr.12299. (3) Chapter One: Good Reasoning – A Guide to Good Reasoning: Cultivating …. https://open.lib.umn.edu/goodreasoning/chapter/chapter-1-good-reasoning/. (4) What is the difference between good and bad reasoning?. https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/an-introduction-to-cognitive-psychology-as-an-experimental-science/0/steps/62758.

[reasoninghub-blog]

Presuppose or entail Nominalisms

To presuppose something means to accept that something is true before it has been proved.

Science is a method of investigating the world, which relies on empirical observation and experimentation. Science does not presuppose or entail nominalism.

Nominalism is a philosophical position that rejects the existence of universals or abstract objects³. Therefore, to presuppose or entail nominalism means to assume or imply that there are no such things as universals or abstract objects.

For example, some philosophers argue that mathematics presupposes or entails nominalism, because it does not rely on the existence of abstract entities such as numbers or sets.

Nominalism is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. Science is based on empirical observation and experimentation, while nominalism is based on metaphysical arguments and analysis. However, some scientists may adopt a nominalist perspective in their work, and some philosophers may use scientific evidence to support or challenge nominalism. In this context, a human might say that nominalism and science are different but not necessarily incompatible.

References: (1) PRESUPPOSE | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/presuppose. (2) Nelson Goodman - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goodman/. (3) Presuppose Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/presuppose.

[reasoninghub-blog]

An example of nominalism

Suppose you see three red apples on a table. A realist might say that these apples share a universal property of redness, which exists independently of the apples and your perception of them. An idealist might say that these apples appear red to you because of the way your mind interprets the sensory data, but that redness does not exist outside of your mind. A nominalist might say that these apples do not have any property of redness at all, but that you call them “red” because of a convention or rule that you learned to apply to things that reflect light of a certain wavelength.

According to the nominalist, there is nothing in reality that corresponds to the word “red” or the concept of redness. There are only particular things that we group together under a common name for convenience or communication. The word “red” does not refer to anything real, but only to a way of speaking or thinking about things.

Question: From nominalism, the red is red?

Answer: From nominalism, the red is not red in any objective or universal sense. The red is only red in a conventional or subjective sense. That is, we call something “red” because of a human agreement or habit, or because of our personal experience or preference. There is no property of redness that exists in reality or in the mind that makes something red. There are only particular things that we label as “red” for practical or expressive purposes.

Question: Nominalism is using scientific way to see the world?

Answer: Nominalism is not necessarily using a scientific way to see the world, although some nominalists might appeal to science to support their position. Nominalism is a philosophical way to see the world, which denies the existence of universals and abstract objects.

Science is a method of investigating the world, which relies on empirical observation and experimentation. Science does not presuppose or entail nominalism, although some scientific theories or findings might be compatible or incompatible with nominalism.

For example, some nominalists might argue that science does not need to postulate universals or abstract objects to explain natural phenomena, and that scientific terms and concepts are just convenient tools or models that do not correspond to anything real.

However, some realists might argue that science does presuppose or entail the existence of universals or abstract objects, and that scientific terms and concepts are meaningful and referential because they track real features of reality.

Therefore, nominalism and science are not identical or equivalent, but they might have some points of agreement or disagreement depending on the specific arguments and evidence involved.

Question: Nominalism is necessarily true for the apple being "red"?

Answer: No, nominalism is not necessarily true for the apple being “red”. Nominalism is a philosophical position that denies the existence of universals and abstract objects, such as redness.

However, there are other possible positions that affirm the existence of universals and abstract objects, such as realism or idealism. These positions might have different ways of explaining why the apple is “red”.

For example, a realist might say that the apple is “red” because it has a property of redness that exists independently of our minds and language.

An idealist might say that the apple is “red” because it appears red to us due to our mental representation or perception of it. A nominalist might say that the apple is not “red” in any objective or universal sense, but only in a conventional or subjective sense. Therefore, nominalism is not necessarily true for the apple being “red”, but it is one possible way of interpreting the situation.

[reasoninghub-blog]

Idealism, realism and nominalism

Idealism, realism, and nominalism are three philosophical positions that deal with the nature of universals and abstract objects.

Universals are general concepts or properties that can be predicated of many particular things, such as redness, humanity, or justice. Abstract objects are entities that do not exist in space and time, such as numbers, sets, or propositions.

According to idealism, universals and abstract objects exist only in the mind or in some mental realm. They are dependent on our thoughts, perceptions, or linguistic practices. For example, an idealist might say that redness is not a property of physical objects, but a way of perceiving them, or that numbers are not objects in themselves, but mental constructs that we use to measure and count things.

According to realism, universals and abstract objects exist independently of the mind or any mental realm. They are objective and universal features of reality that we can discover and know. For example, a realist might say that redness is a property that some physical objects have in common, regardless of how we perceive them, or that numbers are objects that exist in a realm of pure mathematics that we can access through reason.

According to nominalism, universals and abstract objects do not exist at all. They are merely names or labels that we use to group or classify particular things. For example, a nominalist might say that redness is not a property of anything, but a word that we use to refer to things that reflect light of a certain wavelength, or that numbers are not objects of any kind, but symbols that we use to manipulate and communicate information.

These three positions have different implications for various philosophical issues, such as the nature of knowledge, truth, morality, mathematics, logic, and metaphysics. They also face different challenges and objections from their opponents. For example, idealists might be accused of making reality subjective and relative to our minds; realists might be accused of postulating mysterious and inaccessible entities; nominalists might be accused of denying common sense and undermining scientific explanations.

Question: the position that abstract concepts are merely words and that there is no independently accessible thing constituting the meaning of a word is known as what? idealism or realism?

Answer: The position that abstract concepts are merely words and that there is no independently accessible thing constituting the meaning of a word is known as nominalism. Nominalism is a form of metaphysical anti-realism that denies the existence of universals and abstract objects. According to nominalists, only particular things exist, such as individual dogs or cats, and words are just labels or names that we use to group them together. Nominalism contrasts with realism, which holds that abstract concepts have a real existence independent of our minds and language.

References: (1) Realism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/. (2) Understand the Philosophical Theories of Nominalism and Realism - ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/nominalism-vs-realism-2670598. (3) Independence of Idealist and Nominalist dimensions. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Independence-of-Idealist-and-Nominalist-dimensions_fig1_221407317. (4) Wilfrid Sellars, Idealism, and Realism - Bloomsbury. https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/wilfrid-sellars-idealism-and-realism-9781474238946/. (5) Nominalism and Idealism | SpringerLink. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10516-011-9150-3.

[reasoninghub-blog]

Difference between scientific theory and a scientific law

A scientific law is a concise statement that describes an observable phenomenon, while a scientific theory is a broad, underlying explanation for a set of laws. A law refers to a generalization that can often be expressed mathematically, whereas a theory refers to a specific explanation that attempts to describe why a phenomenon occurs using various scientific principles.

A law focuses on describing what, while a theory focuses on explaining how and why. A scientific theory cannot become a scientific law, as they are two different types of scientific facts.

[reasoninghub-blog]

Metaphysics

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of reality, such as the existence and nature of being, causality, time, space, possibility and necessity. Metaphysics also explores the fundamental questions about the meaning and purpose of life, the origin and structure of the universe, the nature of mind and matter, and the relation between human and divine. Metaphysics has a long and rich history, dating back to ancient Greece and India, and has been influenced by various philosophical traditions and schools of thought. Some of the main topics and problems in metaphysics are:

Ontology: the study of what kinds of things exist and how they are classified and related.

Identity: the study of the conditions under which things are numerically the same or different over time and across possible worlds.

Modality: the study of the modes or ways of being of things, such as necessity, possibility, contingency, essence and accident.

Causality: the study of the relations between causes and effects, and the principles that govern them.

Time: the study of the nature and structure of time, its direction, flow, measurement and relation to change and events.

Space: the study of the nature and structure of space, its dimensions, geometry, topology and relation to objects and motion.

Mind: the study of the nature and properties of mental phenomena, such as consciousness, intentionality, qualia, perception, cognition and emotion.

Matter: the study of the nature and properties of physical phenomena, such as substance, form, matter, energy, force and fields.

God: the study of the existence and attributes of God or gods, their relation to creation, providence, revelation and salvation.

[reasoninghub-blog]

Positivists and interpretivists agree that science is empirical (studies produce data) is true?

Generally speaking, yes. Constructivism and interpretivism are two related paradigms or perspectives that view reality as socially constructed by human actors through their meanings and understandings of the world.

Constructivism and interpretivism are often associated with qualitative data, which are rich and descriptive forms of data that capture the complexity and diversity of human experiences. Qualitative data can be collected through methods such as interviews, focus groups, observations, document analysis, case studies, etc. Qualitative data analysis involves identifying themes, patterns, categories and interpretations that emerge from the data.

Constructivist and interpretivist researchers aim to understand the perspectives and contexts of their participants, rather than to test hypotheses or establish causal relationships. They acknowledge that their own values and assumptions may influence their research process and outcomes, and they strive to be reflexive and transparent about their choices and limitations.

[reasoninghub-blog]

An argument is plausibly or persuasively?

To say that an argument is plausibly or persuasively argued means that the argument is not claiming to prove its conclusion with certainty or necessity, but rather to make its conclusion more likely or acceptable than its alternatives. A plausible or persuasive argument is one that appeals to the reason, emotion, or values of the audience, and that uses relevant and reliable evidence and examples to support its claims. A plausible or persuasive argument is not necessarily true or valid, but it is reasonable and convincing.

[reasoninghub-blog]

How to analyze and and evaluate arguments

There are different ways to evaluate and analyze arguments, but one common approach is to follow these steps123:

Identify the conclusion and the premises of the argument. The conclusion is the main claim that the author wants you to accept, while the premises are the reasons or evidence that support the conclusion. You can use keywords or phrases such as “therefore”, “hence”, “thus”, “because”, “since”, etc. to help you identify the conclusion and the premises.

Put the argument in standard form. This means writing the premises as a numbered list, followed by a line, followed by the conclusion. For example:

Premise 1: All humans are mortal. Premise 2: Socrates is a human.

Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

Decide if the argument is deductive or non-deductive. A deductive argument is one that claims that its conclusion follows necessarily from its premises, while a non-deductive argument is one that claims that its conclusion follows probably or plausibly from its premises. You can use keywords or phrases such as “necessarily”, “certainly”, “definitely”, “probably”, “likely”, “possibly”, etc. to help you decide if the argument is deductive or non-deductive.

Determine whether the argument succeeds logically. A deductive argument succeeds logically if it is valid, meaning that its conclusion must be true if its premises are true. A non-deductive argument succeeds logically if it is strong, meaning that its conclusion is probably true if its premises are true. You can use counterexamples, hypothetical scenarios, or logical rules to test if an argument is valid or strong.

Assess whether the premises are true. An argument can be logically valid or strong, but still have false or dubious premises. To assess whether the premises are true, you need to use your background knowledge, common sense, or empirical evidence. You can also look for potential biases, fallacies, or inconsistencies in the author’s reasoning.

By following these steps, you can evaluate and analyze arguments more effectively and critically.

Let’s take a this arguments as an example of how to apply these steps:

You should eat more fruits and vegetables, because they are good for your health and they taste good.

To apply the steps, we can do the following:

Identify the conclusion and the premises. The conclusion is “You should eat more fruits and vegetables”, while the premises are “they are good for your health” and “they taste good”.

Put the argument in standard form. We can write it as:

Premise 1: Fruits and vegetables are good for your health. Premise 2: Fruits and vegetables taste good.

Conclusion: You should eat more fruits and vegetables.

Decide if the argument is deductive or non-deductive. This argument is non-deductive, because it does not claim that its conclusion follows necessarily from its premises, but rather that it follows plausibly or persuasively from them.

Determine whether the argument succeeds logically. This argument is strong, meaning that its conclusion is probably true if its premises are true. It is not possible to find a counterexample or a scenario where the premises are true but the conclusion is false.

Assess whether the premises are true. This is where we might have some disagreement or doubt. The first premise seems to be supported by scientific evidence and common sense, but it might not be true for everyone or for all kinds of fruits and vegetables. The second premise seems to be subjective and based on personal preference, but it might not be true for everyone or for all kinds of fruits and vegetables. Therefore, we might question or challenge the truth of the premises, or ask for more clarification or qualification from the author.

By following these steps, we can evaluate and analyze this argument in a systematic and critical way.