Archive for September, 2011

Paul Tomassi – Logic

Priest, Graham – Logic, A Very Short Introduction

Copi introduction to logic

Amitai Shenhav, David G. Rand, and Joshua D. Greene – Divine Intuition Cognitive Style Influences Belief in God

A very interesting study. Be sure to also check out Greene’s website wich has a lot of useful material.

Also, thanks to Gene Expression for letting me no about this study.

Edited to add

Here is the paper with the trick questions.

Shane Frederick – Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making

I red these today and needed an easy way to share them. Enjoy.

Christopher Eppig, Corey L. Fincher and Randy Thornhill – Parasite prevalence and the worldwide distribution of cognitive ability

Christopher Hassall, Thomas N. Sherratt – Statistical inference and spatial patterns in correlates of IQ

Donald I. Templer, Hiroko Arikawa – Temperature, skin color, per capita income, and IQ An international perspective

Richard Lynn, John Harvey, Helmuth Nyborg – Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations

A frend requested this one. I found one on the web som time ago, but it was large (17 mb) and the text had not been thru an ORC. Now both things hav been don.

Peter Singer – Pratical Ethics 2nd edition fixed

I am taking a metafysics class1 and last lectur’s topic was time travel. That is an issu i sort of like but i dislike the way people discuss it, in general. Ther is a widespred lack of clarity and lack of training in the relevant logics (that is, modal logics: alethic logic and temporal logic). A fine example of that is the first essay below.

John M. E. Mctaggart – Time Is Not Real

David Lewis The Paradoxes Of Time Travel

The followup essay (2nd abov) is certainly better than the first but not quite clear enof to my taste. I do generally agree with Lewis tho. I advice people interested in the subject to lern alethic logic (S5) and read the following materials. Chapter 8.

And for those who like fiction about time travel and wants to see som fiction with time travel that seems to be non-contradictory.

Robert A. Heinlein – Time enough for love_ the lives of Lazarus Long

Robert A. Heinlein – All You Zombies


1Well, tecnically, i signed up for it but never turned up so far. I blame the timing. They put it at 0900, and even on the same day as another class (filosofical logic) altho not the same time. But it still implys that if i want to attend both lectures, then i hav to spend a lot of time on the university in one day. But i disfeel like spending that much time, unless ther is alcohol involved. :)

Somone requested this.

George Lakoff – Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things

”Any attempt to deduce F propositions from M propositions

would perpetrate the fallacy of negating the antecedent, one of two

forms jokingly known as modus morons, The Way of the Moron.” (JENNY TEICHMAN – The Intellectual Capacity of David Stove)


I am taking a critical thinking class, and a book is available for that class. I’ll put it here as well, in case somone wants it.

Chris Swoyer – Critical Reasoning A User’s Manual

Alternative link (Mediafire)

I am taking an advanced logic class this semester. Som of the reading material has been posted in our internal system. I’ll post it here so that others may get good use of it as well. The text in question is John Nolt’s Logics chp. 11-12. I remade the pdfs so that they ar smaller and most of the text is copyable making for easyer quoting. Enjoy

John Nolt – Logics, chp 11-12

Edit – A comment to the stuff (danish)

Dær står i Nolt kap. 12, at:

”We have said so far that the accessibility relation for all forms of alethic

possibility is reflexive. For physical possibility, I have argued that it is transitive as

well. And for logical possibility it seems also to be symmetric. Thus the accessibil-

ity relation for logical possibility is apparently reflexive, transitive, and symmetric.

It can be proved, though we shall not do so here, that these three characteristics

together define the logic S5, which is characterized by Leibnizian semantic… That

is, making the accessibility relation reflexive, transitive, and symmetric has the

same effect on the logic as making each world possible relative to each.” p. 343

mæn min entuisjon sagde maj strakes, at dette var forkert, altså, at de er forkert at

R1. For any world, that world relates to itself. (Reflexsive)

R2. For any world w1 and for any world w2, if w1 relates to w2, then w2 relates to w1. (Symmetry)

R3. For any world w1, for any world w2, and for any world w3, if w1 relates to w2, and w2 relates to w3, then w1 relates to w3. (Transitive)

er ækvivalænt mæd

R4. For any world w1 and for any world w2, w1 relates to w2. (Omni-relevans)

Mæn de er ganske rægtigt, at ves man prøver at køre diverse beviser igænnem, så kan man godt bevise fx (◊A→☐◊A) vha. en modæl som er reflexsive, symmetrical og transitive (jaj valgte 1r1, 2r2).

Mæn stadig er dær någet galt. Di forskællige verdener er helt isolerede, modsat vad di er i givet R4. Jaj googlede de, og andre har osse bemærket de:

”Requiring the accessibility relation to be reflexive, transitive and symmetric is to require that it be an equivalence relation. This isn’t the same as saying that every world is accessible from every other. But it is to say that the class of worlds is split up into classes within which every world is accessible from every other; and there is no access between these classes. S5, the system that results, is in many ways the most intuitive of the modal systems, and is the closest to the naive ideas with which we started.”