<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.2722.2800" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If most philosophical arguments are not neatly encapsulated in simple schema and both modus ponens and modus tollens are simple schema then it is difficult to see how your remarks about modus tollens and modus tollens can have any relevance to discussion of most philosophical arguments. But according to you the first conjunct of the antecedent is true and certainly the second is also.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>When you reject a premise I would think you are talking about soundness. You are saying a premise is false so that the argument while valid was not sound.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So if I have a strong intuition that God or whomever will save me or whatever, then I can jump out of an airplane without a parachute believing that I will land safely unharmed. Now of course someone could. But it seems unpragmatic in the sense of not very practical as a rule of behavior. Also, I fail to see how such intuitions trump ordinary arguments based upon physical characteristics of bodies and laws of gravity etc. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If all the pragmatist means is that people may not accept perfectly good arguments if they conflict with strongly held intuitions that is certainly true but there is no trump,the person with the intuition loses and may end up dead  </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>as in our example of the person jumping out of the airplane.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Making changes by assuming you will be weightless or drift down like a bird, or will land on a huge cushion or whatever will make your beliefs consistent but consistently goofy as well. This is not to deny that goofy things happen but surely that is not a good basis for  belief..</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>CHeers, Ken Hanly</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A href="mailto:jkschw@hotmail.com" title=jkschw@hotmail.com>Justin Schwartz</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A href="mailto:lbo-talk@lists.panix.com" title=lbo-talk@lists.panix.com>lbo-talk@lists.panix.com</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, July 21, 2001 10:37 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Ethical foundations of the left</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <P>No. My point is just that you can run an argumrent either way. If you don't like the conclusion, and it's valid, you can reject a premise. Most arguments in philosophy of any importance are not neatly encapsulated in a simple schema, and, if you don't like the conclusioon, and don;t see a premise you can attack, you can reject on the basis of some arguable invalidity,e,g,, find a false dichotomy somewhere presupposed. </P> <P>Anyway, this is nitpicking on the side. The main thing is the pragmatic truism that you can hold any belief true (or false) if you arew illingto make enough changes elsewhere. That's why Posner's right that philosophical arguments don't trump strong intuitions. --jks<BR><BR></P></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV>>From: "Ken Hanly" <KHANLY@MB.SYMPATICO.CA> <DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com <DIV></DIV>>To: <LBO-TALK@LISTS.PANIX.COM> <DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Ethical foundations of the left <DIV></DIV>>Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 13:43:36 -0500 <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>I dont understand. Both modus ponens and modus tollens are valid. There is no question of testing their validity except aa an exercise for students in constructing truth tables. Are you talking about soundness? <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>Cheers, Ken Hanly <DIV></DIV>> I agree with P that in general, a strong intuition trumps an apparantly strong argument for a counterinituitive conclusion. It's a pragmatist platitude taht one man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens, that if an argument has an unpalatable conclusion, we might do well to reassess the truth of the premises and test the validity of the reasoning. This is also Rawls' view. It is the basic idea that the notion of reflective equilibrium i supposed to capture. <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>> --jks <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <DIV></DIV>> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV></DIV><BR clear=all> <HR> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <A href="http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag_itl_EN.asp">http://explorer.msn.com</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>