Good news. Philosophy cafe has been reborn. The new format works. Participants are given a short primer on the dynamics of argument, then let loose on the question for the night. I step in only when discussion stymies or goes haywire. Here is a summary of the evening's answer. (The point of asking a question is to answer it, not to generate endless other questions.)
Technology is defined as telecommunication media eg. telephone, Internet, morse code, telegram, Skype.
Affect is defined as change, both for the better and for the worse.
Quality is defined as the way a relationship works eg. degree of honesty, time invested.
Relationship is defined as non-business human relationship, with an emotional stake.
Technology removes the need for face-to-face interaction. This has positive effect eg. allowing people half a world apart to keep in easy contact. This also has negative effect eg. office neighbours communicate via Messenger. The answer to our question is yes.
Technology is a distraction. Positive effect eg. incoming message interrupts a quarrel. Negative effect: the same interrupts a conversation. The answer is yes.
Technology is an obsession or compulsion. Clearly a negative effect. The answer is yes.
This is not an inevitable answer. The answer can also be no.
Technology will not affect the quality of a relationship if the persons concerned consciously decide to hold priorities that supercede technology eg. by switching off all communication devices while enjoying a candlelight dinner.
Technology will not affect the quality of a relationship if the persons concerned are unaware of the technology eg. if we observe a primitive tribe only via satellite.
Answer: Technology can be absent or ignored, in which cases it does not affect the quality of a relationship. Otherwise, it can have positive and negative effects.
Note to readers: This answer appears to be obvious when so clearly stated. But did you know this answer when you read just the heading to this post?
Enthusiastic first-time participants requested another session in a week's time. So the next philosophy cafe session is on Wednesday, 25/3/9, 8-10pm at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road. All are welcome.
Friday, 20 March 2009
Monday, 16 March 2009
Philosophy cafe reborn
I have been conducting philosophy cafe sessions for the past five years at Gone Fishing Cafe. Over these five years, I have been trying to refine my format for conducting these discussions. Just as I was settling on a workable format, Gone Fishing Cafe underwent a change of management.
Today, I am glad to announce that I have managed to obtain permission from the new management of the cafe to continue conducting my philosophy cafe sessions at the venue. The cafe has had a change of name. It is now called Nook. Here are the logistical details.
Venue: Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road.
Time: Every third Wednesday of the month, from 8-10pm (next session: 18 March 2009)
Charges: Free admission. Individual expenses on food and drink.
Topic: To be decided by participants. All are welcome (no prerequisite).
Interested readers can refer to "Philosophy cafe reports" to read summaries of previous sessions. Hope to see you there.
Today, I am glad to announce that I have managed to obtain permission from the new management of the cafe to continue conducting my philosophy cafe sessions at the venue. The cafe has had a change of name. It is now called Nook. Here are the logistical details.
Venue: Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road.
Time: Every third Wednesday of the month, from 8-10pm (next session: 18 March 2009)
Charges: Free admission. Individual expenses on food and drink.
Topic: To be decided by participants. All are welcome (no prerequisite).
Interested readers can refer to "Philosophy cafe reports" to read summaries of previous sessions. Hope to see you there.
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Bank boss bonuses?
Source: Today, 16/2/9, p.B1
Headline: The big bonus debate
Quote1:
From Britain to the US and France, political leaders are clamping down on the bankers' bonus culture, which has been singled out as a cause of the financial crisis. ... However, taking too tough a line with banks could have unintended consequences for taxpayers, according to academics and insiders, who say the risks include banks losing their best staff and their share prices falling even lower to the dismay of the taxpayer ultimately.
Comment1:
Here is the objectors' argument:
Premiss1: If (cap bonus), then (lose best staff)
Premiss2: If (lose best staff), then (share price fall)
Premiss3: If (share price fall), then (taxpayer dismay)
Premiss4: Reject (taxpayer dismay)
Conclusion: Hence, reject (cap bonus)
This is a Modus Tollens rollback. It is a valid argument structure. The only way this argument can fail is if any premiss is false.
Quote2:
Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd ... dismissed such fears. ... "The current job market should deter employees from leaving, and if they do, there are many qualified replacements."
Comment2:
"The current ... from leaving" rebuts Premiss1, by asserting that a cap is not sufficient to result in "lose best staff". There is another factor at play, namely "current job market". "If they do ... replacements" rebuts Premiss2, by asserting that lost staff will be replaced by qualified people, and hence that share prices will not fall due to reduction in qualified staff. These two rebuttals block the objectors' argument.
Headline: The big bonus debate
Quote1:
From Britain to the US and France, political leaders are clamping down on the bankers' bonus culture, which has been singled out as a cause of the financial crisis. ... However, taking too tough a line with banks could have unintended consequences for taxpayers, according to academics and insiders, who say the risks include banks losing their best staff and their share prices falling even lower to the dismay of the taxpayer ultimately.
Comment1:
Here is the objectors' argument:
Premiss1: If (cap bonus), then (lose best staff)
Premiss2: If (lose best staff), then (share price fall)
Premiss3: If (share price fall), then (taxpayer dismay)
Premiss4: Reject (taxpayer dismay)
Conclusion: Hence, reject (cap bonus)
This is a Modus Tollens rollback. It is a valid argument structure. The only way this argument can fail is if any premiss is false.
Quote2:
Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd ... dismissed such fears. ... "The current job market should deter employees from leaving, and if they do, there are many qualified replacements."
Comment2:
"The current ... from leaving" rebuts Premiss1, by asserting that a cap is not sufficient to result in "lose best staff". There is another factor at play, namely "current job market". "If they do ... replacements" rebuts Premiss2, by asserting that lost staff will be replaced by qualified people, and hence that share prices will not fall due to reduction in qualified staff. These two rebuttals block the objectors' argument.
Property bottoming out in 2010?
Source: My Paper, 10/2/9, p.A8
Headline: Property bottoming out in 2010?
Quote1:
Mr Phil Anderson, who calls himself a renegade economist, ... confidently calls a property market bottom next year. ...
Comment1:
The conclusion is set out: Property bottom in 2010. What is the supporting argument?
Quote2:
Mr Anderson bases his prediction on an 18-year cycle which he says has manifested itself in the US since 1800.
Comment2:
The supporting argument is an 18-year cycle in the US. What is the supporting argument for the 18-year cycle?
Quote3:
Since then, there had been peaks in land sales or real estate speculation in 1818, 1836, 1854, 1888, 1908, 1926 and 1944. The peaks were followed by downturns or depressions, typically lasting four years. World War II disrupted the pattern. But the cycle resumed in 1955. The real estate market in the US again peaked in 1989 and bottomed in 1991. And 18 years later, in 2006-7, it hit another high. According to Mr Anderson, the market is now into the third year of downturn, so by next year it should bottom.
Comment3:
The supporting argument is inductive: a series of peaks at 18-year intervals, followed by four year downturns. An inductive argument says that if the past is X, the future will also be X. But look at the years. The intervals 1854-88 and 1888-1908 were not 18-year intervals. We have no information on the downturns.
Quote4:
The next boom, peaking around 2024, will be huge because hundreds of millions of Chinese will enter the market for the first time, he said.
Comment4:
The inductively observed pattern occurs in the US. No reason is given for extending it to China in 2024, nor is such an extension intuitively true.
Quote5:
Mr Anderson is confident the cycle will repeat itself as long as land is tradeable and in private hands.
Comment5:
"Land is tradeable and in private hands" leads intuitively to market ups and downs; but not to 18-year cycles. That needs additional argument.
Headline: Property bottoming out in 2010?
Quote1:
Mr Phil Anderson, who calls himself a renegade economist, ... confidently calls a property market bottom next year. ...
Comment1:
The conclusion is set out: Property bottom in 2010. What is the supporting argument?
Quote2:
Mr Anderson bases his prediction on an 18-year cycle which he says has manifested itself in the US since 1800.
Comment2:
The supporting argument is an 18-year cycle in the US. What is the supporting argument for the 18-year cycle?
Quote3:
Since then, there had been peaks in land sales or real estate speculation in 1818, 1836, 1854, 1888, 1908, 1926 and 1944. The peaks were followed by downturns or depressions, typically lasting four years. World War II disrupted the pattern. But the cycle resumed in 1955. The real estate market in the US again peaked in 1989 and bottomed in 1991. And 18 years later, in 2006-7, it hit another high. According to Mr Anderson, the market is now into the third year of downturn, so by next year it should bottom.
Comment3:
The supporting argument is inductive: a series of peaks at 18-year intervals, followed by four year downturns. An inductive argument says that if the past is X, the future will also be X. But look at the years. The intervals 1854-88 and 1888-1908 were not 18-year intervals. We have no information on the downturns.
Quote4:
The next boom, peaking around 2024, will be huge because hundreds of millions of Chinese will enter the market for the first time, he said.
Comment4:
The inductively observed pattern occurs in the US. No reason is given for extending it to China in 2024, nor is such an extension intuitively true.
Quote5:
Mr Anderson is confident the cycle will repeat itself as long as land is tradeable and in private hands.
Comment5:
"Land is tradeable and in private hands" leads intuitively to market ups and downs; but not to 18-year cycles. That needs additional argument.
Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Japan's biggest scam
Source: The Straits Times, 6/2/9, p.A10
Headline: Man accused of Japan's biggest scam arrested
Quote:
TOKYO: For a man accused of engineering one of Japan's biggest scams, Kazutsugi Nami looked calm and collected when police arrested him yesterday morning. ... Despite being hounded by the media in the past week amid speculation of this impending arrest, ... he appeared on television almost every day, protesting his innocence. ... "It is not a scam because we have a business plan," he said repeatedly.
Comment:
Mr Kazutsugi Nami's argument, when formally stated, says:
Premiss1: If (business plan), then (not scam)
Premiss2: Business plan
Conclusion: Hence, not scam
This argument has the valid Modus Ponens argument form. Premiss1 cannot be accepted as true. Having a business plan is not a sufficient condition for an enterprise to be not a scam. Indeed, the business plan could be precisely to con gullible people into parting with their money. The argument fails.
Headline: Man accused of Japan's biggest scam arrested
Quote:
TOKYO: For a man accused of engineering one of Japan's biggest scams, Kazutsugi Nami looked calm and collected when police arrested him yesterday morning. ... Despite being hounded by the media in the past week amid speculation of this impending arrest, ... he appeared on television almost every day, protesting his innocence. ... "It is not a scam because we have a business plan," he said repeatedly.
Comment:
Mr Kazutsugi Nami's argument, when formally stated, says:
Premiss1: If (business plan), then (not scam)
Premiss2: Business plan
Conclusion: Hence, not scam
This argument has the valid Modus Ponens argument form. Premiss1 cannot be accepted as true. Having a business plan is not a sufficient condition for an enterprise to be not a scam. Indeed, the business plan could be precisely to con gullible people into parting with their money. The argument fails.
Wednesday, 14 January 2009
When to re-assign work or cut pay?
Source: Today, 13/1/9, p.16 (letters)
Headline: Still good at 62
Author: By Rick Lim Say Kiong
Quote1:
Employers should also consider productivity as a factor when it comes to negotiating re-employment terms and conditions, especially in job scope and pay.
Comment1:
This states the writer's position.
Quote2:
Why shouldn't a 62-year-old employee continue in his job with the same pay if he has been and will be productive in his current job?
Comment2:
This is another statement of the same position, as applied to a 62-year-old employee. The statement's being presented as a question is a literary device known as a rhetorical question. There is an inherent risk in using this device: a reader may not recognise that it is intended to be a statement and not a question. It is best not to use rhetorical questions. Just make the statement.
Quote3:
The moment an older worker reaches the age of 62, is he suddenly undependable, weak and inefficient in his work? If not, why is it deemed necessary for him to be allocated to another job scope to suit his "capabilities" or for him to take a pay cut?
Comment3:
Here, we have more than a rhetorical question fronting for a statement; we have two rhetorical questions fronting for an argument:
Premiss1: If and only if (undependable, weak & inefficient), then (change job scope or cut pay)
Premiss2: Not-(undependable, weak & inefficient)[at 62]
Conclusion: Hence, not-(change job scope or cut pay)[at 62]
Premiss1 states a biconditional relation; where both terms are simultaneously true or false. Premiss2 states that the first term (undependable, weak & inefficient) is not true. The conclusion completes the argument by stating that we should not (change job scope or cut pay).
This argument form is valid, meaning that the premisses do entail the conclusion. Premiss2 is intuitively true: in general, one does not suddenly become (undependable, weak & inefficient) upon reaching age 62. That leaves Premiss1. Is Premiss1 true? Is (undependable, weak & inefficient) the only reason for (change job scope or cut pay)?
Quote4:
Many employers are keen to use the statutory retirement age [62] as a reason to cut pay or even to demean employees to the point of resignation.
Comment4:
This says that some employers think (age 62) is another reason for (cut pay). Resignation is a new point, not mentioned in the argument.
Quote5:
But in a market where experienced, dedicated and still-productive workers are difficult to come by, losing a long-serving employee is not of any benefit to the company.
Comment5:
This addresses the new point of "demean employees to the point of resignation", which is a point not mentioned in the argument.
END
Headline: Still good at 62
Author: By Rick Lim Say Kiong
Quote1:
Employers should also consider productivity as a factor when it comes to negotiating re-employment terms and conditions, especially in job scope and pay.
Comment1:
This states the writer's position.
Quote2:
Why shouldn't a 62-year-old employee continue in his job with the same pay if he has been and will be productive in his current job?
Comment2:
This is another statement of the same position, as applied to a 62-year-old employee. The statement's being presented as a question is a literary device known as a rhetorical question. There is an inherent risk in using this device: a reader may not recognise that it is intended to be a statement and not a question. It is best not to use rhetorical questions. Just make the statement.
Quote3:
The moment an older worker reaches the age of 62, is he suddenly undependable, weak and inefficient in his work? If not, why is it deemed necessary for him to be allocated to another job scope to suit his "capabilities" or for him to take a pay cut?
Comment3:
Here, we have more than a rhetorical question fronting for a statement; we have two rhetorical questions fronting for an argument:
Premiss1: If and only if (undependable, weak & inefficient), then (change job scope or cut pay)
Premiss2: Not-(undependable, weak & inefficient)[at 62]
Conclusion: Hence, not-(change job scope or cut pay)[at 62]
Premiss1 states a biconditional relation; where both terms are simultaneously true or false. Premiss2 states that the first term (undependable, weak & inefficient) is not true. The conclusion completes the argument by stating that we should not (change job scope or cut pay).
This argument form is valid, meaning that the premisses do entail the conclusion. Premiss2 is intuitively true: in general, one does not suddenly become (undependable, weak & inefficient) upon reaching age 62. That leaves Premiss1. Is Premiss1 true? Is (undependable, weak & inefficient) the only reason for (change job scope or cut pay)?
Quote4:
Many employers are keen to use the statutory retirement age [62] as a reason to cut pay or even to demean employees to the point of resignation.
Comment4:
This says that some employers think (age 62) is another reason for (cut pay). Resignation is a new point, not mentioned in the argument.
Quote5:
But in a market where experienced, dedicated and still-productive workers are difficult to come by, losing a long-serving employee is not of any benefit to the company.
Comment5:
This addresses the new point of "demean employees to the point of resignation", which is a point not mentioned in the argument.
END
The Shinjuku dilemma
Source: The Straits Times, 10/1/9, p.E22
Headline: No China date for Jackie film
Quote1:
HONGKONG: Emperor Motion Pictures has announced the Asian release dates for Jackie Chan's new film [The Shinjuku Incident] -- except in China, where its subject matter may have raised flags for the country's censors. ... In an interview with China's Nanfang Daily, the film's co-producer, Henry Fong, said he and [Director Derek] Yee had given up the mainland market.
Comment1:
Conclusion: Not-(mainland market)
What's the argument that leads to this conclusion?
Quote2:
Fong was quoted as saying: "If we make big changes at the mainland censors' requests, then the movie won't be interesting. If we don't make changes, it won't be passed."
Comment2:
We have a dilemma: two options, each with unpleasant consequences.
1. If (big changes), then (movie not interesting)
2. If (no change), then (movie won't be passed)
They consider the strategy of "going between the horns", that is, of discovering a third option.
Quote3:
"If we change it to two versions, one for the mainland, one for Hongkong, then we will be breaking the rules." The film is a Hongkong-China co-production. Producers are known to release one version of a movie for China and another version for Hongkong. But the practice is not permitted for Hongkong-Chinese co-productions. -- AP.
Comment3:
Here is Option 3:
3. If (two versions), then (break rules)
This third option is not viable.
We return to the original two options. they choose the less of two evils: movie won't be passed. This means the movie will not be released in the mainland market.
Hence, the conclusion: Not-(mainland market).
END
Headline: No China date for Jackie film
Quote1:
HONGKONG: Emperor Motion Pictures has announced the Asian release dates for Jackie Chan's new film [The Shinjuku Incident] -- except in China, where its subject matter may have raised flags for the country's censors. ... In an interview with China's Nanfang Daily, the film's co-producer, Henry Fong, said he and [Director Derek] Yee had given up the mainland market.
Comment1:
Conclusion: Not-(mainland market)
What's the argument that leads to this conclusion?
Quote2:
Fong was quoted as saying: "If we make big changes at the mainland censors' requests, then the movie won't be interesting. If we don't make changes, it won't be passed."
Comment2:
We have a dilemma: two options, each with unpleasant consequences.
1. If (big changes), then (movie not interesting)
2. If (no change), then (movie won't be passed)
They consider the strategy of "going between the horns", that is, of discovering a third option.
Quote3:
"If we change it to two versions, one for the mainland, one for Hongkong, then we will be breaking the rules." The film is a Hongkong-China co-production. Producers are known to release one version of a movie for China and another version for Hongkong. But the practice is not permitted for Hongkong-Chinese co-productions. -- AP.
Comment3:
Here is Option 3:
3. If (two versions), then (break rules)
This third option is not viable.
We return to the original two options. they choose the less of two evils: movie won't be passed. This means the movie will not be released in the mainland market.
Hence, the conclusion: Not-(mainland market).
END
On the Satyam scandal
Source: My Paper, 9/1/9, p.A10
Headline: Satyam scandal will feed fears
Quote1:
The [Satyam] scandal underscores the risks of investing in a market with insufficient regulatory oversight and protections.
Comment1:
The word "insufficient" guarantees that some calamity will occur -- by definition. This feature in logic is known as a tautology, or a petitio.
Quote2:
Said Mr Geoffrey Coll, co-head of law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf's India practice group: "When you are dealing with riskier regulatory environments like India or other emerging markets, there are real risks that the companies are being held to lower standards by their own internal regulators than companies in the West." -- Reuters.
Comment2:
"Riskier regulatory environments" by definition means "real risks [of] ... lower standards". No new information is provided. This is another tautology or petitio.
END
Headline: Satyam scandal will feed fears
Quote1:
The [Satyam] scandal underscores the risks of investing in a market with insufficient regulatory oversight and protections.
Comment1:
The word "insufficient" guarantees that some calamity will occur -- by definition. This feature in logic is known as a tautology, or a petitio.
Quote2:
Said Mr Geoffrey Coll, co-head of law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf's India practice group: "When you are dealing with riskier regulatory environments like India or other emerging markets, there are real risks that the companies are being held to lower standards by their own internal regulators than companies in the West." -- Reuters.
Comment2:
"Riskier regulatory environments" by definition means "real risks [of] ... lower standards". No new information is provided. This is another tautology or petitio.
END
Wednesday, 24 December 2008
What should be the aim of education?
This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 17 December 2008.
We have two newcomers, so I open with a preamble:
"Welcome to philosophy cafe. This is an event where participants engage in the rational and rigorous pursuit of truth and right. This is unlike ordinary discussions, where people jump to the first answer they can think of; and unlike academic philosophy discussions, where people refuse to come to any answer at all. Our discussions are aimed at arriving at answers, and we achieve rationality and rigour by adhering to a simple algorithm that I've created -- and call Automated Thought Machine."
A popular vote decides the evening's topic: "What should be the aim of education?"
Three answers are proposed:
1. To liberally open the individual's mind.
2. To prepare people for society (a simulation for actual life).
3. To subjugate the masses into one world order.
We activate Automated Thought Machine.
Ask question.
What should be the aim of education?
State position.
To liberally open the individual's mind.
Provide reasons.
Liberal mindedness is a good (thing).
Do reasons imply conclusion (position)?
Yes.
Are reasons true?
It is a good (thing) for the individual, but not always good for society.
We decide to narrow the reason to: Liberal mindedness is a good (thing) for the individual.
Provide reasons.
Liberal mindedness is a good (thing) for the individual.
Do reasons imply conclusion?
Yes.
Are reasons true?
We decide we cannot answer this unless we define "good". We define "good" as "maximum happiness". So, our reason becomes: Liberal mindedness is a maximum happiness for the individual.
Provide reasons.
Liberal mindedness is a maximum happiness for the individual.
Do reasons imply conclusion?
Yes.
Are reasons true?
A counterexample is offered. Introduction of endorphins into the body (eg. via consuming dark chocolate) can cause a greater happiness than that caused by liberal mindedness. So, the answer to this question is "no".
We try to save the argument by confining the term "happiness" to Aristotelian eudaimonia -- a uniquely human happiness achieved through the exercise of reason. This obviates endorphins as a counterexample, since it is incapable of causing eudaimonia.
The reason now is: Liberal mindedness is a maximum eudaimonia for the individual.
Provide reasons.
Liberal mindedness is a maximum eudaimonia for the individual.
Do reasons imply conclusion?
Yes.
Are reasons true?
Yes.
Accept position.
The argument has passed both tests of a good argument. We accept the argument.
The aim of education should be to liberally open the individual's mind, because liberal mindedness is a maximum eudaimonia for the individual.
We have an answer (it is not impossible for education to have several aims) to the evening's question.
We have no time to consider the other two proposed answers. Discussion ends. It has been a good session.
Readers interested to engage in philosophical discussions are cordially invited to attend Singapore's first and only philosophy cafe, which I host every third Wednesday of the month at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. Admission is free, and all are welcome (prior knowledge of philosophy is not required). The next philosophy cafe session is on 21 January 2009. [If Gone Fishing Cafe happens to be closed, look for the bearded Chinese guy at the nearby Al Ameen Restaurant.]
We have two newcomers, so I open with a preamble:
"Welcome to philosophy cafe. This is an event where participants engage in the rational and rigorous pursuit of truth and right. This is unlike ordinary discussions, where people jump to the first answer they can think of; and unlike academic philosophy discussions, where people refuse to come to any answer at all. Our discussions are aimed at arriving at answers, and we achieve rationality and rigour by adhering to a simple algorithm that I've created -- and call Automated Thought Machine."
A popular vote decides the evening's topic: "What should be the aim of education?"
Three answers are proposed:
1. To liberally open the individual's mind.
2. To prepare people for society (a simulation for actual life).
3. To subjugate the masses into one world order.
We activate Automated Thought Machine.
Ask question.
What should be the aim of education?
State position.
To liberally open the individual's mind.
Provide reasons.
Liberal mindedness is a good (thing).
Do reasons imply conclusion (position)?
Yes.
Are reasons true?
It is a good (thing) for the individual, but not always good for society.
We decide to narrow the reason to: Liberal mindedness is a good (thing) for the individual.
Provide reasons.
Liberal mindedness is a good (thing) for the individual.
Do reasons imply conclusion?
Yes.
Are reasons true?
We decide we cannot answer this unless we define "good". We define "good" as "maximum happiness". So, our reason becomes: Liberal mindedness is a maximum happiness for the individual.
Provide reasons.
Liberal mindedness is a maximum happiness for the individual.
Do reasons imply conclusion?
Yes.
Are reasons true?
A counterexample is offered. Introduction of endorphins into the body (eg. via consuming dark chocolate) can cause a greater happiness than that caused by liberal mindedness. So, the answer to this question is "no".
We try to save the argument by confining the term "happiness" to Aristotelian eudaimonia -- a uniquely human happiness achieved through the exercise of reason. This obviates endorphins as a counterexample, since it is incapable of causing eudaimonia.
The reason now is: Liberal mindedness is a maximum eudaimonia for the individual.
Provide reasons.
Liberal mindedness is a maximum eudaimonia for the individual.
Do reasons imply conclusion?
Yes.
Are reasons true?
Yes.
Accept position.
The argument has passed both tests of a good argument. We accept the argument.
The aim of education should be to liberally open the individual's mind, because liberal mindedness is a maximum eudaimonia for the individual.
We have an answer (it is not impossible for education to have several aims) to the evening's question.
We have no time to consider the other two proposed answers. Discussion ends. It has been a good session.
Readers interested to engage in philosophical discussions are cordially invited to attend Singapore's first and only philosophy cafe, which I host every third Wednesday of the month at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. Admission is free, and all are welcome (prior knowledge of philosophy is not required). The next philosophy cafe session is on 21 January 2009. [If Gone Fishing Cafe happens to be closed, look for the bearded Chinese guy at the nearby Al Ameen Restaurant.]
Tuesday, 16 December 2008
Will Tokyo's new package work?
Source: The Straits Times, 13/12/8, p.A5
Headline: Tokyo unveils new help package
Quote1:
TOKYO: Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso yesterday announced a new stimulus package to shore up his country's economy. ... The additional package ... "may help slow the pace of a worsening economy but it doesn't have enough power to buoy the economy," said Mr Mamoru Yamazaki, chief Japan economist at RBS Securities Japan in Tokyo.
Comment1:
Mr Yamazaki has made an assertion, but offers no argument (at least none is reported) to support it. We are told one credential, that he is chief economist at RBS Securities Japan. That's all we have to go on. Is that enough?
Quote2:
"This is a desperate attempt by Mr Aso to recover support," said Mr Minoru Morita, an independent political analyst and author of a book on Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party. "He's falling deeper into a quagmire by announcing various measures that aren't backed up by budgets." -- AP, Bloomberg.
Comment2a:
The charge of "desperate attempt" offers a psychological cause or political motive behind Mr Aso's announcement of a new stimulus package. It does not amount to saying the package will be ineffective. It is logically possible for a desperate attempt to nonetheless be effective.
Comment2b:
We are told two credentials: "independent political analyst" and "author of a book on Japan's ruling LDP". Are they enough?
Comment2c:
An enthymeme (partial argument) is offered. We complete the argument, providing the hidden parts in square brackets.
Premiss1: [If (measures not backed up by budgets), then (fall deeper into quagmire)]
Premiss2: Measures not backed up by budgets
Conclusion: Hence, fall deeper into quagmire
The argument has the form Modus Ponens (If P then Q, P, hence Q), which is valid. We accept Premiss2 as a statement of fact. The remaining test is whether Premiss1 is true. Intuitively, it is not. The fact of a measure not being backed up by budgets does not seem sufficient on its own to guarantee an economy falling deeper into quagmire. Since the argument fails this final test, we must reject the argument.
Headline: Tokyo unveils new help package
Quote1:
TOKYO: Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso yesterday announced a new stimulus package to shore up his country's economy. ... The additional package ... "may help slow the pace of a worsening economy but it doesn't have enough power to buoy the economy," said Mr Mamoru Yamazaki, chief Japan economist at RBS Securities Japan in Tokyo.
Comment1:
Mr Yamazaki has made an assertion, but offers no argument (at least none is reported) to support it. We are told one credential, that he is chief economist at RBS Securities Japan. That's all we have to go on. Is that enough?
Quote2:
"This is a desperate attempt by Mr Aso to recover support," said Mr Minoru Morita, an independent political analyst and author of a book on Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party. "He's falling deeper into a quagmire by announcing various measures that aren't backed up by budgets." -- AP, Bloomberg.
Comment2a:
The charge of "desperate attempt" offers a psychological cause or political motive behind Mr Aso's announcement of a new stimulus package. It does not amount to saying the package will be ineffective. It is logically possible for a desperate attempt to nonetheless be effective.
Comment2b:
We are told two credentials: "independent political analyst" and "author of a book on Japan's ruling LDP". Are they enough?
Comment2c:
An enthymeme (partial argument) is offered. We complete the argument, providing the hidden parts in square brackets.
Premiss1: [If (measures not backed up by budgets), then (fall deeper into quagmire)]
Premiss2: Measures not backed up by budgets
Conclusion: Hence, fall deeper into quagmire
The argument has the form Modus Ponens (If P then Q, P, hence Q), which is valid. We accept Premiss2 as a statement of fact. The remaining test is whether Premiss1 is true. Intuitively, it is not. The fact of a measure not being backed up by budgets does not seem sufficient on its own to guarantee an economy falling deeper into quagmire. Since the argument fails this final test, we must reject the argument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)