|
From my KeyTap Memo 10/01/20
While working through the technical issues of establishing a new
framework, I realized the first re-focus and expansion of SLU_SNHU might
be to broaden the book into a formal inquiry regarding best practices
process to confirm
trust for internet sourcing by including my book already begun titled,
"Logic: the language and art of causality". (for menu item use - Nexus)
10/17/20
The following draft excerpt required nearly two years of daily writing
in order to fine tune the language. Library of Congress Copyright
#: TXu 2-112-665
Effective Date: 08/14/18 ─ Bob Fugett Logic:
the language and art of causality STUDY AID
-----------------------------------------------------
1) If A, then B
valid -- correct inferences --
2) A
therefore B (modus ponens)
3) not B
therefore not A (modus tollens)
invalid -- false inferences --
4) B
therefore A (affirming consequent)
5) not A
therefore not B (denying antecedent)
-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
1) If A, then B
2) A therefore B
3) not B therefore not A
4) B therefore A (is invalid)
5) not A therefore not B (is invalid)
Above are five (5) elements forming a linguistic and logical structure
that may be used to validate the major premise of a syllogism as
described by classic propositional logic.
This fundamental structure is comprised of a basic causality statement
plus four possible inferences.
Intuitively it would be easy to assume all four inferences flow
correctly from the original A/B statement.
However, only the first two of those assumed conclusions would be valid logic.
The final two are logically incorrect.
Taken together with this caveat that two of the inferences are invalid,
the above five statements serve as a concise functional definition for
the term syllogism itself.
Stated another way: above are five propositions combining to represent a
"syllogism" which is a logical construct establishing the simplest test
to begin confirming whether or not a suggested cause and effect truly
does exist.
More broadly what is being presented is a base expression in the
language of causality.
Thus we have the essential truth statement revealing how such statements
must always include an understanding that truth is never merely an
utterance.
Truth is a process.
Moreover truth is a process which human language is hard pressed to
describe.
As such any singular statement will never be more than a partial
reference pointing toward the fuller illumination of a given truth
process.
Along these lines it follows that any particular truth process will always
be an aside to the language describing it.
Consider again the four derived inferences shown above with their caveat
that two are valid and two are not.
The assertion being made is that while all four statements may
intuitively appear to be correct, the third and fourth are in fact false
logic.
These two invalid inferences are respectively termed "affirming the
consequent" and "denying the antecedent", and they are well known as the
two most basic examples of logical fallacy.
Be that as it may, the above five-stepped rudimentary linguistic
construction goes a long way toward explaining the concept of causality.
Causality is often hidden by the overwhelming pressure of intuition
reinforcing belief in the validity of the two false conclusions, so of
necessity this logical construct is highly specific and tightly focused.
You might visualize the whole as a hard shell nut (or kernel), or better
yet an egg shape with a nexus bar (see below).
Granted, beyond lending their imagined shapes as a helpful mnemonic,
neither nut nor egg has much to do with our current topic, but the
mental tool they provide us is still worthy of full consideration.
Picturing the strength of a nut and the oneway nature of an egg makes it
easier to hold in mind our causality construct for use in careful
observation of fact.
So we have a primary statement of "If A then B" along with four
associated argument forms that set the stage for thought experiments
that will routinely confirm the difficulty found in trying to establish
the validity of any stated causation.
Try this:
Take anything you believe to be true and apply the formula above by
substituting for A and B any cause and effect you believe exists.
Review all surrounding circumstances in order to decide whether or not
your belief still rings true if backlit by the what, why, where, and how
of the situation in consideration of each of the four argument forms in
turn.
Does your belief survive this test?
If not, why not?
And if not, can you successfully alter your belief so that it does
survive the test?
These five statements outline a generalized exercise model which will
show time and again how hard it is to establish the central truth in any
state of being.
With some practice you may notice that validating assertions by
confirming them in this way makes it harder to be lied to.
Such a checklist results in a useful test against honesty for all
supposed statements of fact.
Question everything.
If you are then unable to confirm your belief after a careful review
relative to each of the four possible inferences, you will know that the
test has identified a false premise.
If anybody ever tries to convince you that a stated truth must be
accepted at face value with no reference to an objective underlying
methodology (outlining a verifiable and repeatable supporting process)
you know you are likely being swindled, or at least being sold a
product.
You might see this checklist procedure as a formalized method for
achieving an enduring state of heathy skepticism.
The purpose of this explanation has been to aid in correctly memorizing
the 4 argument forms (warrants) that may be intuitively derived (valid
or not) from the foundational syllogistic statement of an A/B causality.
Mastering the interplay of these assertions is one of the surest means
to consistently observe, understand, and confirm true causality.
Such a checklist procedure provides a handy way to achieve a remarkable
degree of reliability in distinguishing fact from fiction and truth from
lies.
The central life and death requirement of all human activity is a
primary need to establish true causality by distinguishing fact from
fiction and truth from lies, so this presentation has not been trivial.
Further elaboration is provided immediately below by means of an
abstraction taken from the traditional root example generally cited in
the study of classic propositional logic.
The following abstract has been slightly simplified from the original
citation for better use with the truth structures as presented at the
top of this discussion.
Note: The → symbol in the recipe below should be read as "therefore".
Example
If human then mortal
valid
human → mortal (modus ponens)
not mortal → not human (modus tollens)
invalid
mortal → human (affirming consequent)
not human → not mortal (denying antecedent)
[As such, ]
[Accordingly, ]
Footnote 1 ---------------
From the Meriam-Webster online thesaurus, "affirm" implies conviction
based on evidence, experience, or faith. In the case of affirming the
consequent the evidence is falsely assumed.
Deny in "denying the antecedent" is used in the sense of refuse or
disallow, as in to deny an application, not in the sense of to dispute
or call into question.
----------------------------
Copyright ©
2020 Bob Fugett, all rights reserved, hands off
this page Created: 10/04/2020
for Last Update see top of page
|