noam's post (april 26), thread on gaza withdrawal:
Uri,
I went back to the source to see how we got to where we got. I figured either I completely misunderstand you or you completely misunderstand me.
Your original argument is:
"premise 1: if a state is fighting a defensive war, there won't be a large number of soldiers refusing to serve, or agreeing to serve only selectively.
premise 2: israel is fighting a war
premise 3: many israeli soldiers are practicing refusal or selective refusal
conclusion: israel's war isn't defensive."
I think I can represent it thus logically:
a = Israel is fighting a defensive war.
b = Many Israel soldiers are refuseniks.
1. a -> ~b
2. a (even though you don't mention "defensive" here, I assume this is what you meant)
3. b
conclusion: ~a
This argument is an inconsistent and invalid argument. You conclude the opposite of premise 2. If you withdraw your second premise, that "Israel is fighting a defensive war is true", the remaining argument becomes consistent and valid.
Which is precisely what you did when you posted the reply:
"premise 1: if X then not Y
premise 2: Y
conclusion: not X "
This is a consistent and valid argument.
But then I pointed out 2 things:
1. Logic proves consistency and not truth. You still must rely on the actual "real world" truth values of the various statements. That is, you are still limited by belief. How many refuseniks is many? What is and what isn't a defensive war?
2. Neither Aristotelian nor Fregian logic assume that there is any relationship between any given set of statements. Further, the argument you give is indirect because it's modus tollens. Your initial claim that "if a state is fighting a defensive war, there won't be a large number of soldiers refusing to serve, or agreeing to serve only selectively" is questionable. If there is indeed a relationship between those two statements, then what follows is a common sensical argument based upon logical validity (assuming the revised form with only two premises). In short, it's a question of belief whether there is any relationship between those two statements and not a question of validity. Which brings us back to the questions: How many refuseniks is many? What is and what isn't a defensive war? And I add to this the new question of relationship: Even if there are many refuseniks, why does it follow that it's not a defensive war? It's another question of belief.
I now add a couple more points:
3. I couldn't recall if modus tollens and modus ponens are logicaly interchangeable using logical proofs. I guess they aren't if you say they aren't (and it does make sense). I'll check the formal proofs when I have some time. I suppose that was a source of some confusion. But it definitely was not a major point. The point was, and it still stands, that they reflect the same truth table. Namely, they both derive from the truth table for implication: x->y. That truth table, which as you know shows all the possible permutations for implication, is problematic for quite a few reasons, some of which have to do with the assumptions logic systems make about the world (namely, relevance and a few other issues). If you want, we can go into that discussion on your new tribe. I'm not sure this is the proper forum.
4. I also pointed out "It's just as easy to make Uri's claim as to claim the converse and the inverse:
1. If it's not a defensive war, lots of people will refuse.
2. If it is a defensive war, lots of people won't refuse. "
To which you responded:
"i wouldn't accept your 1 (the converse of my premise 1) as a premise - there's too much historical evidence against it, i think. my premise 1 is more promising, i think. if it's not true, could you find counterexamples?"
An example of premise 1: The US joined WWII only after it had been attacked at Pearl Harbor. Many people refused to enter the war beforehand. The US only joined when it felt that it was being attacked, when it felt that it was entering a defensive war.
But then you added:
"i.e. could you point to a war that was uncontroversially defensive, and yet had significant levels of refusal?"
To which I now respond:
But that's exactly my point. There is no such thing as an "uncontroversially defensive" war. I am not saying that there are no defensive wars. I am saying that the "defensive" part of the war is always controversial. Even in what are generally accepted to be defensive wars, always rises the question: "Who provoked whom first?"
The Palestinian answer, as Hassan has accurately demonstrated, is that by establishing the State of Israel, Israel has provided the only justification needed for its destruction.
So who provokes whom?
Noam
Uri,
I went back to the source to see how we got to where we got. I figured either I completely misunderstand you or you completely misunderstand me.
Your original argument is:
"premise 1: if a state is fighting a defensive war, there won't be a large number of soldiers refusing to serve, or agreeing to serve only selectively.
premise 2: israel is fighting a war
premise 3: many israeli soldiers are practicing refusal or selective refusal
conclusion: israel's war isn't defensive."
I think I can represent it thus logically:
a = Israel is fighting a defensive war.
b = Many Israel soldiers are refuseniks.
1. a -> ~b
2. a (even though you don't mention "defensive" here, I assume this is what you meant)
3. b
conclusion: ~a
This argument is an inconsistent and invalid argument. You conclude the opposite of premise 2. If you withdraw your second premise, that "Israel is fighting a defensive war is true", the remaining argument becomes consistent and valid.
Which is precisely what you did when you posted the reply:
"premise 1: if X then not Y
premise 2: Y
conclusion: not X "
This is a consistent and valid argument.
But then I pointed out 2 things:
1. Logic proves consistency and not truth. You still must rely on the actual "real world" truth values of the various statements. That is, you are still limited by belief. How many refuseniks is many? What is and what isn't a defensive war?
2. Neither Aristotelian nor Fregian logic assume that there is any relationship between any given set of statements. Further, the argument you give is indirect because it's modus tollens. Your initial claim that "if a state is fighting a defensive war, there won't be a large number of soldiers refusing to serve, or agreeing to serve only selectively" is questionable. If there is indeed a relationship between those two statements, then what follows is a common sensical argument based upon logical validity (assuming the revised form with only two premises). In short, it's a question of belief whether there is any relationship between those two statements and not a question of validity. Which brings us back to the questions: How many refuseniks is many? What is and what isn't a defensive war? And I add to this the new question of relationship: Even if there are many refuseniks, why does it follow that it's not a defensive war? It's another question of belief.
I now add a couple more points:
3. I couldn't recall if modus tollens and modus ponens are logicaly interchangeable using logical proofs. I guess they aren't if you say they aren't (and it does make sense). I'll check the formal proofs when I have some time. I suppose that was a source of some confusion. But it definitely was not a major point. The point was, and it still stands, that they reflect the same truth table. Namely, they both derive from the truth table for implication: x->y. That truth table, which as you know shows all the possible permutations for implication, is problematic for quite a few reasons, some of which have to do with the assumptions logic systems make about the world (namely, relevance and a few other issues). If you want, we can go into that discussion on your new tribe. I'm not sure this is the proper forum.
4. I also pointed out "It's just as easy to make Uri's claim as to claim the converse and the inverse:
1. If it's not a defensive war, lots of people will refuse.
2. If it is a defensive war, lots of people won't refuse. "
To which you responded:
"i wouldn't accept your 1 (the converse of my premise 1) as a premise - there's too much historical evidence against it, i think. my premise 1 is more promising, i think. if it's not true, could you find counterexamples?"
An example of premise 1: The US joined WWII only after it had been attacked at Pearl Harbor. Many people refused to enter the war beforehand. The US only joined when it felt that it was being attacked, when it felt that it was entering a defensive war.
But then you added:
"i.e. could you point to a war that was uncontroversially defensive, and yet had significant levels of refusal?"
To which I now respond:
But that's exactly my point. There is no such thing as an "uncontroversially defensive" war. I am not saying that there are no defensive wars. I am saying that the "defensive" part of the war is always controversial. Even in what are generally accepted to be defensive wars, always rises the question: "Who provoked whom first?"
The Palestinian answer, as Hassan has accurately demonstrated, is that by establishing the State of Israel, Israel has provided the only justification needed for its destruction.
So who provokes whom?
Noam
posted by:
|
Cleveland
|
-
Re: tollens & ponens (carry-over from mideast conflict tribe)
Sun, May 9, 2004 - 8:18 AMuri's response to noam:
okay, i think i see how we're miscommunicating. my premise 2 is strictly speaking not necessary. i guess i put it there to establish a discourse referent for the definite possessive "israel's war" in the conclusion. you're assuming that premise true is a, but that's not how i intend it. we both agree that if premise 2 is withdrawn, the argument is valid. (but i say that the argument is still valid if "israel is fighting a defensive war" is a premise. the set of premises is inconsistent, but the argument is still valid - you can derive anything from a contradiction.)
"Logic proves consistency and not truth."
it also shows entailment relations, which is why i originally posted it.
"2. Neither Aristotelian nor Fregian logic assume that there is any relationship between any given set of statements. Further, the argument you give is indirect because it's modus tollens. Your initial claim that "if a state is fighting a defensive war, there won't be a large number of soldiers refusing to serve, or agreeing to serve only selectively" is questionable. If there is indeed a relationship between those two statements, then what follows is a common sensical argument based upon logical validity (assuming the revised form with only two premises). In short, it's a question of belief whether there is any relationship between those two statements and not a question of validity. Which brings us back to the questions: How many refuseniks is many? What is and what isn't a defensive war? And I add to this the new question of relationship: Even if there are many refuseniks, why does it follow that it's not a defensive war? It's another question of belief."
not sure what you're saying here. if you mean that the propositions in my argument are contingent and not logical truths, then of course i agree with you. is that what you're saying? i didn't post the formal argument to demonstrate any tautologies, i posted it to clarify the informal argument i was making.
"4. I also pointed out "It's just as easy to make Uri's claim as to claim the converse and the inverse:
1. If it's not a defensive war, lots of people will refuse.
2. If it is a defensive war, lots of people won't refuse. "
To which you responded:
"i wouldn't accept your 1 (the converse of my premise 1) as a premise - there's too much historical evidence against it, i think. my premise 1 is more promising, i think. if it's not true, could you find counterexamples?"
An example of premise 1: The US joined WWII only after it had been attacked at Pearl Harbor. Many people refused to enter the war beforehand. The US only joined when it felt that it was being attacked, when it felt that it was entering a defensive war."
but this isn't a counterexample to my premise 1. what you need is a historical example of a defensive war in which many in the population under attack refused to fight. i remain skeptical of the generality of your premise 1. a single example won't do it, since it's a universal or generic statement.
noam:
"But then you (uri) added:
"i.e. could you point to a war that was uncontroversially defensive, and yet had significant levels of refusal?"
To which I now respond:
But that's exactly my point. There is no such thing as an "uncontroversially defensive" war. I am not saying that there are no defensive wars. I am saying that the "defensive" part of the war is always controversial."
for "uncontroversially", it will do if it's an example we both agree on. i know that the nazis claimed that their various invasions of neighboring countries were defensive, but i'm pretty sure neither of us would accept that, and we probably would agree that the countries they invaded were fighting defensive wars when they fought back. so the issue is: in this set of defensive fights that we agree on, are there any cases where many refused to fight?
"Even in what are generally accepted to be defensive wars, always rises the question: "Who provoked whom first?"
The Palestinian answer, as Hassan has accurately demonstrated, is that by establishing the State of Israel, Israel has provided the only justification needed for its destruction.
So who provokes whom?"
not a formal logic topic, but let's deal with it here. i would say that zionists (long before the state existed) first provoked the palestinians by driving many of them off the land that they lived on, and by declaring intent to set up a jewish state on palestinian land and drive out the whole population. -
-
Re: tollens & ponens (carry-over from mideast conflict tribe)
Thu, October 7, 2004 - 9:33 PMMan, trying to apply formal logic to things like that is like trying to figure out how to stop pop-up ads with Quantum Chromodynamics.
-
Re: tollens & ponens (carry-over from mideast conflict tribe)
Wed, February 2, 2005 - 11:27 AMOld thread, but i wanted to point out a very pertinent counterexample:
the battalion of defecting Soviet Soldiers who fought under General Vlasov in WWII, against the Soviet Union. There is no arguing that, from the Soviet standpoint, the war was anything but a defensive one. However, people were dissatisfied with the USSR enough to fight against it, even though it was their homeland. Neither were these soldiers strictly considered POW's under the brutal Nazis. They declared themselves politically independant.
the case between Israel and Palestine seems to fall under the broad category of civil war in the African mold, actually, if you consider that the original borders were drawn by a colonial power. Since one side is favored more in a certain geopolitical context, it seems to take the flavor of a first/third world conflict, but these are not the roots of the conflict.
-
