#carnapping

[carlocarrasco]

Wanted carnapping suspect arrested in Parañaque City

Recently in the City of Parañaque, local police officers armed with a warrant of arrest successfully apprehended a man who has been wanted for carnapping, according to a Daily Tribune news report. To put things in perspective, posted below is an excerpt from the news report of Daily Tribune. Some parts in boldface… Parañaque City police operatives arrested a 47-year-old man identified as alias…

[philosophybits]

It is not our business to set up prohibitions, but to arrive at conventions... In logic, there are no morals.

Rudolf Carnap, The Logical Syntax of Language

[c4rl1g]

v1

v2

Unlike dogday which is on chains, catnap is on stakes, is that worse?

[perkwunos]

Causal relation means predictability. This does not mean actual predictability, because no one could have known all the relevant facts and laws. It means predictability in the sense that, if the total previous situation had been known, the event could have been predicted. For this reason, when I use the term “predictability” I mean it in a somewhat metaphorical sense. It does not imply the possibility of someone actually predicting the event, but rather a potential predictability. Given all the relevant facts and all the relevant laws of nature, it would have been possible to predict the event before it happened. This prediction is a logical consequence of the facts and laws. In other words, there is a logical relation between the full description of the previous condition, the relevant laws, and the prediction of the event. The relevant single facts involved in the previous situation can, in principle, be known. (We ignore here the practical difficulty of obtaining all the facts, as well as the limitations imposed in principle by quantum theory on knowing all the facts at the subatomic level.) With respect to knowing the relevant laws, a much larger problem arises. When a causal relation is defined by saying that an event can be logically inferred from a set of facts and laws, what is meant by “laws”? … What is meant when it is said that event B is caused by event A? It is that there are certain laws in nature from which event B can be logically deduced when they are combined with the full description of event A. Whether the laws L can be stated or not is irrelevant. Of course, it is relevant if a proof is demanded that the assertion is true. But it is not relevant in order to give the meaning of the assertion. It is this that makes the analysis of causality such a difficult, precarious task. When a causal relation is mentioned, there is always an implicit reference to unspecified laws of nature. It would be much too exacting, too far out of line with current usage, to demand that every time someone asserted that, “A was the cause of B”, he must be able to state all the laws involved. Of course, if he can state all the relevant laws, then he has proved his assertion. But such proof must not be demanded before his statement is accepted as meaningful.

Rudolf Carnap, Philosophical Foundations of Physics

[crystel-nery]

[existentialcomicsfeed]

Philosophy Strike!

[marta-bee]

As a former (academic) philosopher, I'm always chuckling whenever a Tumblr poll lists "I'm bald" as an option to just see the results.

See, there's a controversy in philosophy of language revolving around the sentence, "The present king of France is bald." Is it false? Well, if you round up all the bald things in existence, the present king of France is certainly not among them - because there isn't a king of France, France is a republic. But logic tells us, if X is false, not-X should be true. At least according to some, that would mean "The present king of France is not bald" would be true, which is also not the case since --again-- there is no present king of France. If you collected all the not-bald things, the present king of France would emphatically not be among them either.

Let me tell you I have listened to arguments about this utterly, completely stupid point until my ears bled. It's probably a big part of why I got into medieval phil-lang and not its mid 20th century counterpart. I still find the specialty fascinating. Just not, you know, *gestures*

And every time I see one of you happening froods say you're bald, I get flashbacks to the wars. Followed quickly by the urge to giggle. Thank goodness it's not my problem to untangle any more.

[philosophybitmaps]

[tagitables]

Hans Reichenbach !! 😙

[geopolicraticus]

Beyond the Striving after Correctness

The Adventure of Modern Logic.—A science of science is a function of the conceptual framework of a civilization or an era of history. There is a sense in which we can say that we had a science of science that was slowly and incrementally built up from Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics up through nineteenth century works on logic like Bernard Bolzano’s Theory of Science. The re-founding of logic as mathematical logic upended this entire tradition, ending the science of science that had been adequate to the needs to pre-modern science. In this way, mathematical logic is to the science of modern science as Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics was to the science of pre-modern science. We had to abandon our previous science of science and set out upon the uncharted waters of modern science with no foundation or map, in order to inaugurate a new age of science, which might someday converge on its own science of science. Rudolf Carnap, one of the founders of mathematical logic, gave a sense of what was involved in this, and presented it as an adventure: “The first attempts to cast the ship of logic off from the terra firma of the classical forms were certainly bold ones, considered from the historical point of view. But they were hampered by the striving after ‘correctness.’ Now, however, that impediment has been overcome, and before us lies the boundless ocean of unlimited possibilities.” All adventures, however, are fraught with peril. The adventure of modern logic, freeing itself from what Carnap called the striving after correctness, has its perils as well, since, without this ancient sense of correctness, we are left with dead reckoning as our only means of navigation.

[carlocarrasco]

E-trike driver caught in Las Piñas City for motorcycle theft, crime partner still at large

Recently in the City of Las Piñas, an electric tricycle (e-trike) driver was caught for the theft of a motorcycle while his partner-in-crime managed to escape, according to a Manila Bulletin news report. To put things in perspective, posted below is an excerpt of the news report of the Manila Bulletin. Some parts in boldface… An E-trike driver was arrested for vehicle theft, while his partner…

[philosophybits]

The function of logical analysis is to analyse all knowledge, all assertions of science and of everyday life, in order to make clear the sense of each such assertion and the connections between them. One of the principal tasks of the logical analysis of a given proposition is to find out the method of verification for that proposition.

Rudolf Carnap, Philosophy and Logical Syntax

[corruptology]

I'm so sick of reading 100+ pages about logical positivism and protocol sentences or whatever the fuck carnap, neurath, and schick were rambling on about for this damn philosophy class. Imagine claiming that metaphysics is bullshit without even being able to settle what a protocol sentence is.... couldn't be me

[perkwunos]

We begin the analysis [of causality] by asking: between what kinds of entities does the causal relation hold? Strictly speaking, it is not a thing that causes an event, but a process. In everyday life we speak of certain things causing events. What we really mean is that certain processes or events cause other processes or events. We say the sun causes plants to grow. What we really mean is that radiation from the sun, a process, is the cause. But if we make “processes” or “events” the entities involved in cause-and-effect relations, we must define these terms in an extremely wide sense. We must include, as we do not in everyday life, processes that are static. Consider, for example, a table. I can observe nothing about it that is changing. Yesterday it may have been moved, in the future it may be damaged or destroyed, but at the moment I observe no change. It can be assumed that its temperature, mass, even the reflection of light on its surface, and so on remain unchanged for a certain period. This event, the table existing without change, is also a process. It is a static process, one in which the relevant magnitudes remain constant in time. If processes or events are spoken of as involved in cause-effect relations, it must be recognized that these terms include static processes; they stand for any sequence of states of a physical system, both changing and unchanging.

Rudolf Carnap, Philosophical Foundations of Physics

[llizzajanne]

oo and i have a cool job fuck yall hoes

[existentialcomicsfeed]

Ambiguity Man