Life, the Universe, and Everything

A Course Blog for GET1029/GEK1067

Month: October 2020 (page 3 of 4)

Contradiction and Inconsistency (or, the problem with the Logical Problem of Evil)

This is an expansion on the last segment of W08 and the stuff from earlier in the lecture that leads up to it. Since it concerns what many philosophers of religion now perceive to be the critical weakness of the LPOE–prompting them to move to an inductive/evidential rather than a strictly logical formulation of the Problem–it bears a bit of re-emphasizing. (Warning: this is a longish post. I originally wrote it to help students from a previous year who said that they found the material hard to follow. This might not apply to you in this semester. But since I wrote it, might as well.)

Continue reading

Answers to the two Logical Exercises in W08

Click through to see…

Continue reading

A Weird Point About Logic

More bonus, optional material. The question is this–What happens when you have an “unnecessary” premise in a deductive argument? The answer is–for deductively valid arguments–nothing!

Continue reading

A Couple of Points about Logic

Making explicit things that are already implied by “A Short Lesson on Arguments and Logic”; totally optional. Click through to see…

Continue reading

Podcast Episode #05

About the infinite regress. We actually recorded quite a bit more, but the remaining material will likely make up two additional episodes, if I find time to do the editing…

Quiz 06 Hints

  • General advice

make sure to be absolutely clear about the difference between a sufficient and a necessary condition from “A Short Lesson”, and the ways that can be used to express those conditions (e.g., “if…then…” vs. “only if…”, etc.)

  • Question 1

Please do read “X implies Y” as saying “X is a sufficient condition for Y”. I’ve included a clarificatory note. Big hint: Please revise what it means for something to be a necessary condition for something else. Another big hint–this is actually meant to be a simpler question than many of you seem to be taking it. Everything you need is already in the question itself!

  • Question 3

Small clarificatory note added for Dave’s statement. When we say that “given P, Q, R, it can still be X”, we are basically saying that {P, Q, R} does not rule out X.

Quiz 05 Debrief

Not bad at all! The median is now 6. A few surprises (to us) though. Click through to see.

Continue reading

The Illusion of Free Will

W07 Q/A

Here goes. I have also published several (longish) posts relating to the topic–they were created in response to recurring student queries from previous batches. So do browse them if you have a chance. These include–a taxonomy of the main positions in the so-called “free will and determinism debate”, a post distinguishing causal determinism from two other ideas (foreknowledge, and fatalism) that are often confused with it, and a recap of the Strawson-Hurley debate. I also added a few questions (marked with #) that came from previous years.

Continue reading

Susan Hurley vs. Galen Strawson on Moral Responsibility (Long Post)

This post comes in two parts, plus an appendix. Part 1 is mainly a revision of what’s already in the lecture, talking through Strawson’s Basic Argument and the “Hurley Response” to make sure that you are up to speed. Part 2 goes beyond and is meant for those with deeper interest. The Appendix explains why I structured the Hurley response the way I did. Ok, here goes.

Continue reading

Older posts Newer posts
Skip to toolbar