Top News, Articles, and Interviews in Philosophy

I am wondering about a logical situation in which one starts with a desired

Philosophy News image
Read another response about Logic Logic Share I am wondering about a logical situation in which one starts with a desired conclusion and then works backward to discern solid premises from which to construct said conclusion. The particular conclusion I have in mind is "each one of us should always be open to the possibility that we might have made a mistake." One set of inarguable premises might be "all people make mistakes at one time or another" and "I am a person." For some people, however, that is not sufficient: implicitly, they always seem to say "while I agree in theory that I might make a mistake, I will never actually admit to a mistake in any specific situation." and so I am looking for another set of premises. These one actually is based on strong empirical evidence as cited by Kahneman in Thinking Fast and Slow: "It is more likely that another person will notice when I make a mistake than it would be for me to notice it." Then I get stuck. It seems I need another premise alongside this one to finish my syllogism. Any thoughts from the panel would be helpful. Thanks!

Continue reading . . .

News source: AskPhilosophers Questions

blog comments powered by Disqus