Comments on: All reasoning is deductive http://jonathanichikawa.net/weblog/all-reasoning-is-deductive/ Jonathan Ichikawa's website Sat, 04 Sep 2010 20:29:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Jonathan http://jonathanichikawa.net/weblog/all-reasoning-is-deductive/#comment-22 Jonathan Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:07:44 +0000 http://jonathanichikawa.net/?p=76#comment-22 Nick, what parts of the relevant inferences are you worried about? Nick, what parts of the relevant inferences are you worried about?

]]> By: Nick http://jonathanichikawa.net/weblog/all-reasoning-is-deductive/#comment-18 Nick Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:14:38 +0000 http://jonathanichikawa.net/?p=76#comment-18 Do you count any part of the sort of inference that goes on when a person conditionalizes or Jeffrey conditionalizes as an ampliative inference? I think it might not be clear how to classify some of that stuff. Do you count any part of the sort of inference that goes on when a person conditionalizes or Jeffrey conditionalizes as an ampliative inference? I think it might not be clear how to classify some of that stuff.

]]> By: Gary Williams http://jonathanichikawa.net/weblog/all-reasoning-is-deductive/#comment-15 Gary Williams Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:07:22 +0000 http://jonathanichikawa.net/?p=76#comment-15 Is it a separate question as to whether people actually go through such simplistic reasoning processes on a day-to-day basis? I just can't imagine people have such simplistic "beliefs" about practical things like iPhones. It would probably look something like this: <blockquote> Herman has an iphone Therefore, my emotional state is that of jealously and this is biasing my perception and communication with Herman. He is so damn spoiled! </blockquote> Even this is an extreme simplification of what is actually happening on the psychological level. So my question then becomes, if these types of logic-games are not meant to accurately model the psychological processes of real human interaction, what is their purpose? To better understand the unique human capacity of logic although such skills are underemployed by the average person? "Belief-desire" psychology is so quaint and comes directly out of 17th century philosophy, so I would not be surprised if psychological theory eventually improved upon such vocabulary. Is it a separate question as to whether people actually go through such simplistic reasoning processes on a day-to-day basis? I just can’t imagine people have such simplistic “beliefs” about practical things like iPhones. It would probably look something like this:

Herman has an iphone
Therefore, my emotional state is that of jealously and this is biasing my perception and communication with Herman. He is so damn spoiled!

Even this is an extreme simplification of what is actually happening on the psychological level. So my question then becomes, if these types of logic-games are not meant to accurately model the psychological processes of real human interaction, what is their purpose? To better understand the unique human capacity of logic although such skills are underemployed by the average person?

“Belief-desire” psychology is so quaint and comes directly out of 17th century philosophy, so I would not be surprised if psychological theory eventually improved upon such vocabulary.

]]> By: Jonathan http://jonathanichikawa.net/weblog/all-reasoning-is-deductive/#comment-12 Jonathan Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:51:26 +0000 http://jonathanichikawa.net/?p=76#comment-12 That's helpful, Daniele. I'll think a bit about just how I want to respond. Thanks. That’s helpful, Daniele. I’ll think a bit about just how I want to respond. Thanks.

]]> By: Daniele http://jonathanichikawa.net/weblog/all-reasoning-is-deductive/#comment-11 Daniele Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:56:16 +0000 http://jonathanichikawa.net/?p=76#comment-11 Jonathan just talking about a reliable disposition to take for granted says next to nothing. What is the process of method involved? I'll put you a dilemma; either say your disposition to take fro granted the conditional is grounded in deductively conclusive evidence, and then you have to tell us what it is, or you say it is not, but then why not just say that the conclusion of the reasoning is justified becasue it is the product of a reliable disposition to infer from the premises to the conclusion. Jonathan
just talking about a reliable disposition to take for granted says next to nothing. What is the process of method involved?
I’ll put you a dilemma; either say your disposition to take fro granted the conditional is grounded in deductively conclusive evidence, and then you have to tell us what it is, or you say it is not, but then why not just say that the conclusion of the reasoning is justified becasue it is the product of a reliable disposition to infer from the premises to the conclusion.

]]>