Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
II 74
Implication/Russell: it is also true if p is wrong. >Paradox of implication.
Implication/WittgensteinVsRussell: Paradox for two reasons:
1. We confuse implication with reasoning.
2. In everyday life we never use " if... then " in this sense. It is always hypotheses in which we use that expression. Most of the things we talk about in everyday life are in fact always hypotheses. For example, "All humans are mortal." >Hypotheses.
Just as Russell uses it, it remains true even if there is nothing that corresponds to the description f(x).
II 75
But we do not believe that all humans are mortal even when there are no humans.
II 79
Implication/Wittgenstein: we can say that one sentence follows the other, provided the W's of the latter include those of the former. >Conclusions.
II 137
Implication/Paradox/Material/Existence/WittgensteinVsRussell: in Russell's notation both "All S are P" and "No S is P" is true, if there is no S at all. Because the implications are also verified by ~fx. In reality, this fx is independent both times!
All S are P: (x) gx >.fx
No S is P: (x) gx > ~fx
This independent fx is irrelevant, it is an idling wheel!
Example: If there are unicorns, they bite, but there are no unicorns = there are no unicorns. >Non-existence.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.