How to Think: Introduction to Logic, Lecture 3 with David Gordon - Mises Academy
1 like619 views
The document discusses the tension between liberalism and democracy, citing Richard Posner's arguments about judicial review and elite judges, while addressing logical fallacies and the law of identity. It presents critiques of claims regarding causation in relation to events and human actions, and analyzes market dynamics and their influence on societal issues like the obesity epidemic. Additionally, it examines the defense of property appropriation and the inherent assumptions regarding rights to unowned property.
![“The basic defense, [of appropriating
unowned property by claiming it] however,
is quite general and straightforward. It is
that if a prospective owner can in fact
perform it, taking possession of a thing is
a feasible act of his that is admissible if it
is not a tort (in this case not trespass) and
violates no right; but this is the case by
definition, by the thing being identified as
‘unowned’.”
Anthony de Jasay, Against Politics, Routledge, 1997,
p. 173](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/howtothink3-130626141950-phpapp01/85/How-to-Think-Introduction-to-Logic-Lecture-3-with-David-Gordon-Mises-Academy-15-320.jpg)
![“The basic defense, [of appropriating
unowned property by claiming it]
however, is quite general and
straightforward. It is that if a
prospective owner can in fact perform
it, taking possession of a thing is a
feasible act of his that is admissible if it
is not a tort (in this case not trespass)
and violates no right; but this is the
case by definition, by the thing being
identified as ‘unowned’ ”
This begs the question: it assumes
that there are no rights to unowned
property.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/howtothink3-130626141950-phpapp01/85/How-to-Think-Introduction-to-Logic-Lecture-3-with-David-Gordon-Mises-Academy-16-320.jpg)
How to Think: Introduction to Logic, Lecture 3 with David Gordon - Mises Academy
- 1. The Laws of Thought LESSON 3
- 2. "Liberalism is in tension with democracy. Democracy is a means not only of dispersing political power and thus of protecting the private sphere against invasion by the public sphere, but also of enabling people to enforce their dislike of other people's self-regarding behavior" Richard Posner, Overcoming Law, (Harvard, 1995), p.25. ● This is an ignoratio elenchi. Posner says there are problems with democracy. But even if he is right, this doesn’t respond to the point about elitist judges. ● Why does Posner start talking about democracy? He assumes that without judicial review, all decisions would be made by majority rule. ● Joyce calls this a “false cause” fallacy. Richard Posner responds the objection to judicial review that it permits elitist judges to impose their values on the rest of us in this way: Review
- 3. An I Proposition. Some S is P, does not rule out All S is P, the corresponding A proposition. It leaves this open. An A Proposition implies the corresponding I proposition. “All S is P” implies “Some S is P” ● This isn’t true in mathematical logic. Examples: “All men are mortal” implies: “Some men are mortal”. “Some men are mortal” leaves open: “All men are mortal’ ● In ordinary language, we often don’t say “some” if we can say “all”. I wouldn’t say, “Some U.S. Presidents were older than 35” if they all are. But this is isn’t a requirement of logic. Review
- 5. “If A, then B” “If A, then not-B.” This does not violate the law of contradiction. Can you see why not?
- 6. The law of contradiction says that something that exists cannot have contradictory properties. ● A hypothetical proposition does not say that anything exists.” ● If A, then B” and “If A, then not B.” are not contradictory unless we assert that A exists.
- 7. ● “If you deny the law of contradiction, then you also have to affirm it” Only if someone says, “the law of contradiction is never true.” If someone says, “There is at least one true contradiction”, this refutation does not work. Is This Correct?
- 9. As far as metaphysical reality is concerned (omitting human actions from consideration, for the moment), there are no 'facts which happen to be but could have been otherwise'... Since things are what they are, since everything that exists possesses a specific identity, nothing in reality can occur causelessly or by chance. The nature of an entity determines what it can do and, in any given set of circumstances, dictates what it will do." (The Ayn Rand Lexicon, 333.) Apart from human actions, however, Rand believed that every event was determined in the sense that, at any given moment, only one outcome was possible — nothing that happens could have happened otherwise. Leonard Peikoff uses the example of a helium-filled balloon to clarify the issue: if, under the same set of circumstances, it were possible for a balloon to act in more than one way — if it could rise or fall — then the law of identity would be violated. "Such incompatible outcomes would have to derive from incompatible (contradictory) aspects of the entity's nature. But there are no contradictory aspects. A is A." This is a misapplication of the law of identity. If the helium balloon goes up on one occasion and down on another, these aren’t contradictory properties at the same time. If Peikoff says that incompatible properties would have to derive from incompatible aspects of the balloon’s nature, he is assuming the law of causation. But he is trying to show that this law follows from the law of identity, so he is begging the question.
- 11. ● Contradictory and Contrary Propositions ● An A proposition and an O propositions are contradictories. “All men are mortal” (Universal affirmative) and “Some men are not mortal” (Particular negative) ● An E proposition and an I proposition are contradictories. “No dogs are evil” (Universal negative) and “Some dogs are evil.” (Particular affirmative) ● An A and an E proposition are contraries. “All men are mortal” and “No men are mortal”
- 12. A distributed term applies to the whole extension of the term. An undistributed term does not. In “All men are mortal”, “men” is distributed—all men. “Mortal” is undistributed. We don’t know how many of the mortal beings are men.
- 13. Because cooking takes less time and labor than it used to, the cost of eating has dropped…This is what I mean when I say that free markets have created the obesity epidemic. Advances in food technology have reduced the monetary and time costs of eating, and these technological advances are a result of free market enterprises responding to consumer demand. Some market defenders might dispute me on this matter, pointing out that the obesity epidemic has only taken off in the last several decades, whereas capitalist enterprise has only been around for at least two hundred years. But by this reasoning, we'd be forced to conclude that free markets aren't responsible for HDTVs, or iPods, or aluminum siding, none of which existed at the dawn of time. Peter Ubel, Free Market Madness (Harvard Business Press, 2009), pp. 27-28
- 14. Because cooking takes less time and labor than it used to, the cost of eating has dropped…This is what I mean when I say that free markets have created the obesity epidemic. Advances in food technology have reduced the monetary and time costs of eating, and these technological advances are a result of free market enterprises responding to consumer demand. Some market defenders might dispute me on this matter, pointing out that the obesity epidemic has only taken off in the last several decades, whereas capitalist enterprise has only been around for at least two hundred years. But by this reasoning, we'd be forced to conclude that free markets aren't responsible for HDTVs, or iPods, or aluminum siding, none of which existed at the dawn of time. ● This is an ignoratio elenchi. ● The relevant point is when the advances in food technology occurred, not when free markets began. ● Ubel argues that advances in technology caused the obesity epidemic. If they didn’t, it’s irrelevant whether free markets were responsible for the advances in technology.
- 15. “The basic defense, [of appropriating unowned property by claiming it] however, is quite general and straightforward. It is that if a prospective owner can in fact perform it, taking possession of a thing is a feasible act of his that is admissible if it is not a tort (in this case not trespass) and violates no right; but this is the case by definition, by the thing being identified as ‘unowned’.” Anthony de Jasay, Against Politics, Routledge, 1997, p. 173
- 16. “The basic defense, [of appropriating unowned property by claiming it] however, is quite general and straightforward. It is that if a prospective owner can in fact perform it, taking possession of a thing is a feasible act of his that is admissible if it is not a tort (in this case not trespass) and violates no right; but this is the case by definition, by the thing being identified as ‘unowned’ ” This begs the question: it assumes that there are no rights to unowned property.