Re: Torkel Franzén is dead

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/prior.1.i.html

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/interpretation.html

MoeBlee wrote:
George Dance wrote:
All right; that's a good place to begin by introducing evidence. So
I'd like to introduce the following link, which I'll label Exhibit B
(Exhibit A was the quote from his exchange with xyz):

http://tinyurl.com/lmyxl

Read it and make your own judgement. I would make two claims about
that thread: :

1) In it, Torkel advances his thesis that there are some people who are
incapable of understanding symbolic logic; and that for them to try use
it would only muddle their thinking. (For convenience, I will call
those "Submathematical" humans, or SMs.)

Until I have time to respond to the rest of George Dance's posts, I
want to catch the above comment.

What Franzen actually wrote in that thread is:

[B.86]
"Formal logic is essentially a mathematical
subject, and experience supports neither the idea that people who
reason well in non-mathematical contexts should have an aptitude for
formal logic, nor the idea that a study of formal logic will help
people reason well in non-mathematical contexts."

What Torkel actually wrote in that thread was more than one paragraph.
While each paragraph has to be looked at individually, that is no
excuse for forgetting its context - in particular, the disagreement the
argument concerns:

[B.10]
"> It would be a good thing for people in general to know logic,
" Why? As you yourself have demonstrated, an exposure to formal
logic can cause people to make all sorts of absurd assertions
that they wouldn't otherwise make."

Torkel is arguing against the proposition that it would be good for
people in general to know logic, and for the proposition that it would
not be good for some people to know logic. B.86 has to be read in
context of, as support for, B.10.

Maybe elsewhere Franzen claimed that there are people incapable of
understanding symbolic logic

He says [B.10] that even exposure to formal logic 'can cause' some some
people to make 'absurd assertions' - presumably even after they know
the subject, as he is denying that it would be good for those people
not know it, and if their knowing it prevented those absurd assertions
it would not be a reason.

(well, there are people who are incapable,
so what is at stake is a claim that some people who are otherwise
fairly intelligent are incapable of understanding symbolic logic). But
in the very thread that George Dance cites, Franzen did NOT mention
incapability but rather that certain people who are otherwise logical
don't have an APTITUDE for symbolic logic. To say that someone does not
have an aptitude (in the sense of a talent or special inclination) for
something isn't a claim that he or she is incapable of understanding
it.

Aptitude. "An individual's ability to learn or to develop proficiency
in an area if provided with appropriate education or training. Aptitude
tests include tests of general academic (scholastic) ability; tests of
special abilities (ie, verbal, numerical, mechanical); tests that
assess "readiness" for learning; and tests that measure ability and
previous learning that are used to predict future performance."
www.wrightslaw.com/links/glossary.assessment.htm

Though English was not Franzen's first language, he used it better than
many native English-speakers. There is no reason to think that he was
unaware of the definition, or that he was using the word in a special
sense.

I don't have an aptitude for car mechanics, but I am capable of
understanding it if I choose to concentrate upon it.

So you are unable to learn car mechanics, regardless of education or
training, because you don't choose to concentrate upon it? Does the
fact that you don't choose to concentrate upon car mechanics falsify
the idea that it would be good for you to know car mechanics? I don't
think so; so I don't think it was reasonable to take the peple Franzen
was talking about, for whom it would not be good to know logic, as
being those who don't choose to concentrate upon logic.

Nor does Franzen
argue that the fact that some people who lack aptitude get muddled with
symbolic logic entails that they must always be muddled by it.

He says [B.1] that exposure to logic can cause those people to make
'absurd' or contradictory assertions, which knowing the subject will
not prevent - as his worries about these absurdities are his reason for
denying that it would be good
for those people to know logic. (Which could only be if the
absurdities persisted even in those who knew the subject.)

But most
important here is that Dance goes on to call such people
"submathematical humans".

We have to call them something; it makes more sense than referring to
them as 'some,' 'those,' or 'such' people.

But that is entirely unsuitable if we are
discussing Franzen's, not Dance's, views on this matter, since Franzen
never devised such a rubric, which as it is devised by Dance, carries
truly terrible connotations such as 'sub-human' and other rubrics of
horrible ideologies.

What term would suit you better? I don't mind being labelled a
Submathematical, but I don't want to use a term if you're horrified by
it.

There is nothing gained in evaluating Franzen's
views by tainting them with such horrible connotations; I suggest that
Dance let Franzen's remarks speak for themselves and that Dance not
burden Franzen with rubrics that Franzen did not himself propose.

So find a rubric that Franzen used. The only one I could find was
'logic students', which I find unsuitable because it is misleading; it
leads to the absurdity that Franzen didn't think it was good for
students to know what they were learning.

Until you can suggest a more a suitable term, 'Submathematical' will
have to do.

.

Relevant Pages

  • =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Torkel_Franz=E9n_is_dead?=
    ... people reason well in non-mathematical contexts." ... people to make 'absurd assertions' - presumably even after they know ... don't have an APTITUDE for symbolic logic. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: ????Dragon Lady???
    ... Just one reason. ... Who absurd, you absurd. ... Yeah it was about as immediate as your recovery from a ... Forces soldier, a Reuters News agent asked the soldier what he ...
    (alt.support.chronic-pain)
  • Re: In the Bible...........
    ... Therefore, you can't apply reason alone, you need some ... inherently contradictory, therefore I reject them. ... you can't disprove its assumptions by posing it. ... necessarily absurd, you do not need to prove that it must not be absurd. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: OT: FOAK. How do I buy some shares?
    ... black-and-white view of the world it is absurd to maintain that ... speeding and arson are morally or legally equivilent. ... For various reason, ...
    (uk.rec.motorcycles)
  • Re: Anyone ever used this service? Free prizes for playing WoW?
    ... or that clearly are "absurd" in their ... evaluation of a service? ... and a lot of extra time on your hands. ... amusing enough to keep poking you in a "dance, monkey, dance!" ...
    (alt.games.warcraft)