MS 628-640 (1909) - Meaning

1491 thumb


This page is not transcribed, please help transcribe this page

1492 thumb


This page is not transcribed, please help transcribe this page

1493 thumb


Meaning 2 The aim of reasoning is to find out, from the consideration of matters and things already known, something else that we had not before known.

Consequently, reasoning is good if it be calculated to give a true conclusion from true premises; but otherwise it is bad. Thus, the question is purely one of fact and not of thinking or of any disposition to think in one way rather than another. Let A stand for the antecedently as summed state of things asserted in the collective premiss, and C for the consequent state of things assented in the conclusion to be consequent upon A. Then, the whole question is whether or not, to the extent the reasoning supposes, [whether it {carat: "professes to"} be necessary reasoning, or probably, or advantageous in the long run,] it be true that A is realized in fact, C will be realized in fact, too. If so, the inference is valid; if not, it is invalid fallacious. It is not, in the least, the goal

Last edit about 2 months ago by JS
1494 thumb


Meaning 3 question, whether the reasoning persuades or convinces the mind; whether when the premises are once accepted, we feel inclined, however irresistibly, to accept the conclusion; as some German logicians of high renown maintain that it is. [If the reader asks me how I can convince him of the correctness of {carat: "this"} any position, I reply that I have no need of convincing him, since his own firm conviction already coincides with mine, whether he be he aware of it, or not. You doubtless remember an experience common to every high-school boy. I cannot be so sure about the girls, never having been a high-school girl myself. Some One of your com rades brought you a piece of algebraic work, and asked you if it was correct. You examined it and said it was. Your school-fellow said it would be such a terrible thing for him if it were wrong, that he begged you to [P......] it through once more and very carefully you did so, and pronounced it perfectly satisfactory. He asked you to write on the paper a solemn oath that {carat: "the reasoning"} was free from the least flow, you did so. Then

Last edit about 2 months ago by JS
1495 thumb


Meaning 4 fact and not a question of thinking. Set A be the {carat: "factualization?"}premises of the conclusion then Then he showed you that one thing clearly implies in its conclusion was that 2=3. Therupon, you remember, you blushed and admitted that through the reasoning entirely satisfied your mind, and you could see no {carat: "find no"} [f...] flaw in it, yet it could not be sound; and that I know is just what you would confess in analogous eased to-day. I know it, because I know you to be so perfectly candid and free from any guile or [] false pretension. Now if you reply that an argument's leading from true premises to a false conclu sion, though it is sure sign of its being unsatisfactory, is not what the fallacious character consists in, I shall infer that you are either a Lawyer or a catholic priest or some other character occupy some other position outside the pale of {carat: modern} sciences, which has accustomed habituated you to satisfying the minds of others and, when, as far as possible, your own too with distinctions like these and I shall ask you be obliged to ask you whether you conceive that this

Last edit about 2 months ago by JS
Records 1 – 5 of 232