Introduction to Paradoxes Philosophy 20229 rts Greek philosopher - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

introduction to paradoxes philosophy 20229 r t s
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Introduction to Paradoxes Philosophy 20229 rts Greek philosopher - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Introduction to Paradoxes Philosophy 20229 rts Greek philosopher (470-399 BC) Referred to himself as a gadfly" Socrates, I certainly used to hear, even before meeting you, that you never did anything else than


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Introduction to Paradoxes Philosophy 20229

slide-2
SLIDE 2

❙♦❝r❛t❡s

Greek philosopher (470-399 BC) Referred to himself as a “gadfly" “Socrates, I certainly used to hear, even before meeting you, that you never did anything else than exist in a state of perplexity yourself and put others in a state of perplexity. And now you seem to be bewitching me and drugging me and simply subduing me with incantations, so that I come to be full of perplexity." –Meno In addition to taking down the learned and powerful, Socrates main opposition was to the sophists.

slide-3
SLIDE 3

❙♦♣❤✐sts

Teachers in ancient Greece, specializing in philosophy and rhetoric Specialized in teaching the ability to influence one’s fellow citizens in political gatherings through rhetorical persuasion They are strongly associated with the pursuit of winning arguments and looking smart, rather than the pursuit of truth.

slide-4
SLIDE 4

P❛r❛❞♦①❡s

A paradox is an argument designed to frustrate people Our job in this class is to figure out what is going on with the various paradoxes so that we can determine which are helping us see fundamental and important truths about reality, and which are mere rhetoric (and no one agrees about which are which)

slide-5
SLIDE 5

❉❡✜♥✐♥❣ ❛ P❛r❛❞♦①

“An apparently unacceptable conclusion derived by apparently acceptable reasoning from apparently acceptable premises." –R. M. Sainsbury

slide-6
SLIDE 6

❆r❣✉♠❡♥ts

You may recall from your intro class that an argument is a series

  • f statements, one of which is called the conclusion and the
  • thers of which are called the premises.

Analyzing arguments is easier if we put them into explicit premise-conclusion form. 40 years ago, we had Pong, two rectangles and a dot...That is what games were. Now, 40 years later, we have photorealistic 3D sim- ulations with millions of people playing simultaneously, and it’s getting better every year. And soon we’ll have virtual reality, aug- mented reality. If you assume any rate of improvement at all, the games will become indistinguishable from reality. It would seem to follow that the odds that we are living in base reality is one in billions.

slide-7
SLIDE 7

▼❛❦✐♥❣ ❆r❣✉♠❡♥ts ❊①♣❧✐❝✐t

40 years ago, we had Pong, two rectangles and a dot...That is what games were. Now, 40 years later, we have photorealistic 3D sim- ulations with millions of people playing simultaneously, and it’s getting better every year. And soon we’ll have virtual reality, aug- mented reality. If you assume any rate of improvement at all, the games will become indistinguishable from reality. It would seem to follow that the odds that we are living in base reality is one in billions.

✭✶✮ Video games improve at a very fast rate. ✭✷✮ If video games continue to improve at a very fast rate, the

games will be indistinguishable from reality.

✭❈✮ Therfore, the odds are very strong that we are in a

simulation. Is this a good argument?

slide-8
SLIDE 8

▼❛❦✐♥❣ ❆r❣✉♠❡♥ts ❊①♣❧✐❝✐t

✭✶✮ Video games improve at a very fast rate. ✭✷✮ If video games continue to improve at a very fast rate, the

games will be indistinguishable from reality.

✭❈✮ Therfore, the odds are very strong that we are in a

simulation. Is this a good argument? There are several things one could mean by this: Is it a fair representation of the original non-premise-conclusion form argument? Are the premises true? Yes+Valid=Sound Do the premises imply the conclusion? Yes=Valid

slide-9
SLIDE 9

❱❛❧✐❞✐t②

✭✶✮ Video games improve at a very fast rate. ✭✷✮ If video games continue to improve at a very fast rate, the

games will be indistinguishable from reality.

✭❈✮ Therfore, the odds are very strong that we are in a

simulation. An argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Thus, this argument is invalid as written. Showing a way for the premises to be true and the conclusion false shows an argument to be invalid; valid (for

  • ur purposes) just means there is no way to do that.

When an argument is invalid, we often want to try to find ways to make it valid.

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Validity

✭✶✮ Video games improve at a very fast rate. ✭✷✮ ■❢ ✈✐❞❡♦ ❣❛♠❡s ✐♠♣r♦✈❡ ❛t ❛ ✈❡r② ❢❛st r❛t❡✱ t❤❡♥ t❤❡② ✇✐❧❧ ❝♦♥t✐♥✉❡ t♦ ✐♠♣r♦✈❡ ❛t ❛ ✈❡r② ❢❛st r❛t❡ ✭✸✮ ❱✐❞❡♦ ❣❛♠❡s ✇✐❧❧ ❝♦♥t✐♥✉❡ t♦ ✐♠♣r♦✈❡ ❛t ❛ ✈❡r② ❢❛st r❛t❡ ✭✶✱ ✷✮ ✭✹✮ If video games continue to improve at a very fast rate, the games will be

indistinguishable from reality.

✭✺✮ ❱✐❞❡♦ ❣❛♠❡s ✇✐❧❧ ❜❡ ✐♥❞✐st✐♥❣✉✐s❤❛❜❧❡ ❢r♦♠ r❡❛❧✐t② ✭✸✱ ✹✮ ✭✻✮ ■❢ ✈✐❞❡♦ ❣❛♠❡s ✇✐❧❧ ❜❡ ✐♥❞✐st✐♥❣✉✐s❤❛❜❧❡ ❢r♦♠ r❡❛❧✐t②✱ t❤❡♥ t❤❡r❡ ✇✐❧❧ ❜❡ ❝♦♥s❝✐♦✉s ♣❡♦♣❧❡ ✐♥ ✈✐❞❡♦ ❣❛♠❡s ✭✼✮ ❚❤❡ ♥✉♠❜❡r ♦❢ ♣❡♦♣❧❡ ✐♥ ✈✐❞❡♦ ❣❛♠❡s ✇✐❧❧ ✈❛st❧② ♦✉t♥✉♠❜❡r t❤❡ ♥✉♠❜❡r ♦❢ ♣❡♦♣❧❡ ♥♦t ✐♥ ✈✐❞❡♦ ❣❛♠❡s ✭✽✮ ❚❤❡r❡❢♦r❡✱ t❤❡ ♥✉♠❜❡r ♦❢ ❝♦♥s❝✐♦✉s ♣❡♦♣❧❡ ✐♥ ✈✐❞❡♦ ❣❛♠❡s ✇✐❧❧ ✈❛st❧② ♦✉t♥✉♠❜❡r t❤❡ ♥✉♠❜❡r ♦❢ ♣❡♦♣❧❡ ♥♦t ✐♥ ✈✐❞❡♦ ❣❛♠❡s ✭✺✱ ✻✱ ✼✮ ✭✾✮ ❲❡ ❤❛✈❡ ❡q✉❛❧ ♦❞❞s ♦❢ ❜❡✐♥❣ ❛♥② ❝♦♥s❝✐♦✉s ♣❡rs♦♥✳ ✭✶✵✮ ❱✐❞❡♦ ❣❛♠❡s ❛r❡ s✐♠✉❧❛t✐♦♥s ✭❈✮ Therefore, the odds are very strong that we are in a simulation.

slide-11
SLIDE 11

❱❛❧✐❞✐t②

We often want to try to simplify and clarify when possible, so consider this version of the argument:

✭✶✮ Simulations are able to replicate human consciousness ✭✷✮ The number of conscious creatures in simulations is much

higher than the number of conscious creatures not in simulations

✭✸✮ I have an equal chance of being any conscious creature ✭❈✮ Therefore, there is a high probability that I am in a

simulation.Valid Sound?

slide-12
SLIDE 12

❲❤❛t ✐s ❛ P❛r❛❞♦①❄

A paradox is an apparently unacceptable conclusion derived by apparently acceptable reasoning from apparently acceptable premises. Returning to our definitions of paradoxes, this means a paradox is an argument which is apparently valid in which the premises are apparently true and the conclusion is apparently false−which is impossible. For any given argument, one can either deny a premise, deny that it is valid, or accept the conclusion. Analyzing paradoxes this semester will involve two steps:

✭✶✮ Determining what is being argued for, what it is being

argued from, and how the argument is supposed to work

✭✷✮ Figuring out the best option between rejecting a premise,

rejecting validity, or accepting the conclusion. As you will see, the latter often involves developing complex theories regarding the concepts in the paradox.

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Proof that 1=2 a = ✵ ✭✶✮ a = b ✭✷✮ a✷ = ab (✷) ✭✸✮ a✷ −b✷ = ab −b✷ (✸) ✭✹✮ (a+b)(a−b) = b(a−b) (✹) ✭✺✮ (a+b) = b (✺) ✭✻✮ (b +b) = b (✷,✻) ✭✼✮ ✷b = b (✼) ✭✽✮ ✷ = ✶ (✽)■ ✭✾✮ In a lot of arguments (like this one), some premises are mini-conclusions following from previous premises. Like the final conclusion, you can only reject them if you either reject the premise(s) they are derived from, or if you reject the reasoning by which they were derived. Call the mini-conclusions ❞❡r✐✈❡❞

♣r❡♠✐s❡s

Call the others ✐♥❞❡♣❞❡♥❞❡♥t ♣r❡♠✐s❡s.

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Proof that 1=2 a = ✵ ✭✶✵✮ a = b ✭✶✶✮ a✷ = ab (✷) ✭✶✷✮ a✷ −b✷ = ab −b✷ (✸) ✭✶✸✮ (a+b)(a−b) = b(a−b) (✹) ✭✶✹✮ (a+b) = b (✺) ✭✶✺✮ (b +b) = b (✷,✻) ✭✶✻✮ ✷b = b (✼) ✭✶✼✮ ✷ = ✶ (✽)■ ✭✶✽✮ Obviously the conclusion of this argument is false. Whenever the conclusion of an argument is false, it means that ❡✐t❤❡r

t❤❡r❡ ✐s ❛ ❢❛❧s❡ ✐♥❞❡♣❡❞❡♥❞❡♥t ♣r❡♠✐s❡ ♦r ❛♥ ✐♥✈❛❧✐❞ ❧♦❣✐❝❛❧ st❡♣✳

There does not seem to be any problem with introducing two variables, saying they are equal, and saying that they are not 0, so the problem must be with the validity.

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Often paradoxes do not come to us in organized premise-conclusion form. Simpson’s paradox:

Homer is trying to figure out whether or not he should take Drug H for baldness. Here are the statistics he is faced with (with the percentages being the percent of people in that group who regrew hair):

Men under 40 Men 40 and over Men

Drug H 40% 20% 38% Placebo 50% 25% 27% How could these numbers happen, and what should Homer do?

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Simpson’s paradox:

Men under 40 Men 40 and over Men

Drug H 40% 20% 38% Placebo 50% 25% 27%

If groups A, B, and C are such that everything in C is in either A or B, and everything in either A or B is in C, and A and B do not have any of the same things in their groups, then we say A and B Partition C

✭✶✮ If X is more successful than Y over group C, and A

and B partition C, then X must be more successful than Y over either A or B or both.

✭✷✮ Drug H is more successful than a placebo at growing

hair in men.

✭✸✮ Men can be partitioned into men under 40 and men

40 and over.

✭✹✮ Drug H is less successful than a placebo at growing

hair in men under 40 and men 40 and over

✭❈✮ Drug H is both more and less successful than a

placebo at growing hair in either men under 40 or men 40 and over.

slide-17
SLIDE 17

❙✐♠♣s♦♥✬s P❛r❛❞♦①

Simpson’s paradox is actually a somewhat common statistical occurrence It gained notoriety in the 1970’s when it was noted that UC Berkley grad school accepted a significantly larger percentage of male applicants than female applicants; upon looking into this further, they discovered that most departments accepted a higher percentage of female applicants than male applicants The explanation of this was that female applicants were applying in much larger numbers to the more competitive departments, while males were applying in much larger numbers to the less competitive departments.

slide-18
SLIDE 18

❙✐♠♣s♦♥✬s P❛r❛❞♦①

Consider a baseball example: 1995 1996 Combined Derek Jeter .250 .314 .310 David Justice .253 .321 .270 Now consider if we add in the hits and at-bats: 1995 1996 Combined Derek Jeter 12/48 .250 183/582 .314 195/630 .310 David Justice 104/411 .253 45/140 .321 149/551 .270 Thus, it seems that the correct answer to the paradox is to reject premise (1) of the above argument−things can be true of every partition and not of the whole, and things can be true of the whole and not of any partition. How then should Homer make a decision?