Re: Torkel Franzén is dead

George Dance wrote:
MoeBlee wrote:
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:

I took into account the context, and none of your discussion of the
context mitigates that your paraphrase of Franzen is inaccurate.

[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.

So? Franzen did not say that there are people who are usually logical
in informal contexts but who are incapable of learning formal logic,
rather only that they do not have a talent for formal logic.

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.

Yes 'can cause'. Not 'will cause'. Sometimes people make mistakes in
informal logic and sometimes people don't. And Franzen did not say that
such mistakes are irremediable so as to deny that certain people
competent in informal logic, but without talent for formal logic, can
learn formal logic if they make special efforts to do so.

(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

And you left out the OTHER senses of the word that MORE fit what
Franzen was saying. Those senses include such things as 'talent' or
'proclivity', etc. YOU choose to take Franzen to mean 'aptitude' in the
sense of mere 'ability', but (speaking of context), the context of his
remarks much more suggests that he is speaking of talent rather than
mere ability. That is, when you are faced with understanding what the
man wrote, you choose to take him in the LEAST reasonable sense, which
is a sense that he could hardly support, rather than take him in a
reasonable sense. It is not reasonable to think that there are many
people who can reason informally but who cannot learn formal logic even
if they devote enough concentration upon it; but it is reasonable to
observe that there are people who reason quite well informally but who
do not have a talent for formal logic. If one were SINCERELY interested
in what Franzen meant, then one would opt for the reasonable sense as
opposed to trying to convict him for an unreasonable sense.

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.

"THE definition"? You just LEFT OUT some usual (NOT special) senses in
the defintion. And you did that to saddle Franzen with an UNreasonable
sense so that you could go on to make a caricature of his views with
highly provocative rubric such as "sub-mathematical human". IF you are
SINCERE about discussing Franzen's views, then you wouldn't be trying
to knock them down with such cheap strawman tactic.

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?

That is the exact OPPOSITE of what I just said. I don't have an
aptitude, in the sense of a talent, but I could learn if I devoted
sufficient concentration to the subject. Not only do you choose to take
Franzen in the most unreasonable sense, but even here you choose not to
even think about what I wrote but rather to take me to being saying
ridiculous things that you would see I am not saying if you just read
fairly what I actually wrote.

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?

Of course not. But it's a question premised in your choice to take both
Franzen and my own comments in an unreasonable sense even though a
quite reasonable sense is right in front of you.

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.

'Concentrate' obviously means 'special concentration' when I mentioned
it, not just some minimal amount of concentration. Franzen said that
there are people who reason well informally but who do not have an
aptitude for formal logic. In that context, a reasonable sense of
'aptitude' is 'talent' rather than 'ability that cannot be acquired
even with sufficient effort to acquire it'. It's very simple: I don't
have a talent for fixing cars, but if I made a special effort, I could
learn to fix cars. And it is reasonable to think (at least based on any
quotes you've given so far) that what Franzen was saying was that some
people who reason well informally don't have a talent for formal logic
but not to argue that there are not many of these people who could
learn formal logic if they devoted special effort to do so.

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.)

It would be better that you quote him in your post rather than our
having to rely on following your post numbering system to go back and
forth to check your paraphrase against what he actually said.

Please quote what you think includes him meaning, "knowing the subject
will not prevent [...] EVEN IN THOSE WHO KNEW THE SUBJECT" [emphasis
added]

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.

Now you're either trying to be funny or you are succeeding at being
disingenuous. That you want to provide a noun for people who usually
reason well informally but who don't have an aptitude for formal logic
does not require you to adopt about as inflammatory term as you can
come up with.

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.

I'm not horrified by the term. Words themselves don't horrify me.
Rather, the term has horrible connotations. There are horrible things
that are suggested by "sub ___ human" (fill in the blank at will). And
all you do by devising such a term in connection with Franzen is evoke
such things in association with him and thus also to greatly distract
from a reasonable discussion of what he said.

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.

How disingenuous of you. As if there is such great URGENCY to devise a
special term for a certain part of this conversation so that it is not
YOUR place to at least devise a term that is reasonable and does not
evoke horrible connotations in association with Franzen but rather that
I must devise a term for you as you otherwise declare your full
intention to saddle Franzen with an inflammatory word of your, not
Franzen's, invention.

MoeBlee

.

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: Apt-Get or Aptitude
    ... aptitude are the lack of "source" functionality and my inability to spell ... The best reason, to me, to change, is the CUI. ... recommends and suggests for each package. ... To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: aptitude keeps trying to replace my vim-gtk and ftpd
    ... > For some reason aptitude constently tried to replace my ... > I don't have any pinning setup. ... There _might_ be some good reason for the way aptitude doese things ... bizarre behaviour. ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: aptitude --mind-your-own-business option?
    ... will be fine until the next time I decide to try aptitude. ... and apt-get has always seemed to work well enough. ... problem during major upgrades may/seems to be a reason, ... To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: Is Fed just a big server?
    ... the Fedfans are blaming the reason he lost on his serve. ... all the talent in the world would never be enough to make him a great ... You're referring to matches that Fed lost after he had already won 10 ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)