Symbolizing

(W v S) & ~ (W & S), W  :. ~S


Have a great rest of the semester all!

Scary Times

Today's Berkshire Eagle held an editorial opinion that I find more than slightly disconcerting.

http://www.berkshireeagle.com/editorials/ci_24367051/our-opinion-law-and-mental-illness

Editorials are opinions, not arguments, yet by using the words argument and assert in the text, the writer tries to convince readers that the reasoning behind their support of a particular piece of legislation is solid.

This issue may be hitting too close to home for me. I have a mental illness that has historically gotten worse with medication, so I choose to be medication non-compliant.

I see this opinion as saying:

Mentally ill persons are prone to violent acts than the rest of the population only when they do not take medication as prescribed. Mentally ill people should not have the right to decide whether, or what, medications they take because they don't know what's best for themselves and society. If a mentally person chooses to not take medication, they must forfeit their right to live in society. We need to restrict the rights of the mentally ill because they might legally or even illegally purchase and use a gun when they are not in their right mind.

Now here's mine:

The Eagle misses that not all mental illnesses cause violent behavior. And sometimes, the drugs that are used to treat mental illness create violent urges. Is it right to take away the rights of a whole population just because of the few especially violent examples? And who, exactly will make the decision about which drugs for which patient? Should the State be able to coerce people into taking chemicals that can destroy their kidneys, livers, or other organs? Even when those people have not shown signs of violent ideations?  

And if one fourth of the people in prison are there because of mental health issues, how many of those were medication compliant? How many were receiving any kind of treatment prior to incarceration? How many are imprisoned for non-violent crimes? And what labels fit the other seventy-five percent of prison population?

Seems to me that this law is an example of paternalism out of control.

Rant over. Probably should have been working on the paper instead.

It Cannot be Thursday

So. The exercises from earlier chapters were much easier this time around. For some of them, it was the 5th time I did the problem. ~sigh~ Though to be honest, I only dug into proving validity with standard form.
I am quite confused (anyone else notice a pattern?) with the "unless p, q" section.  I suppose that next week, that will be as clear as MP, MT, Conj, CS, Disj, DS, DN, Simp, and DM are.

I was gonna type 'em all out, but I need to get to sleep.

What I Learned Today

1) Always bring my school backpack with me when I leave my home, even if I think I will be home before I go to work.
2) I don't know my google ID and password by heart, yet.
3) If I have neither my school bag nor my macbook (which knows my passwords) with me, work will be very dull with plenty of time to study, and even blog.
4) My memory, which once was pretty darn sharp, is shot. I can walk around a corner and lose a great idea.
5) Before I drive out of my driveway, I need to double check that I have that back pack actually in the car.
6) My time management skills need work. Lots of work.

Ouch

Just when I was beginning to feel almost comfortable with symbolizing and standard form...
The section for Wed. completely blew me away.
Why do I have a suspicion that exercises like 5.3 will be on the next quiz?

Study Groups and Brainstorming

It was fun talking about logic and paper topics before class today.

My normal circle of friends does not contain philosophy majors, logicians, or even many fellow college students, so I don't get many chances to use the terms for the "tools of formal logic."

I get to the classroom by 8:30 every morning. If anyone else wanted to get together pre-class, I can make sure I get there earlier. On Weds. and Fri. I don't usually have much going on till 2:30pm, if anyone can suggest a good study space. `Yes, Matt, I heard you mention the library. And I'd only need to carry my ID instead of my MacBook. 

I've decided to drop the other class I was taking this semester, so my Tues. and Thurs. mornings are open as well.

I'm sure one of the technology savvy members of our class could figure out a way we can collaborate that won't be any more difficult than this blogging stuff.

Nothing

I have nothing.
Well, I have a couple of excuses, but even I think they are pretty lame.

In moments like this, I yearn for the days when I could blame all my problems on someone else.

This is my first semester working and studying, and I haven't quite got the hang of it, yet.

If I had more free time, I'd at least withdraw from my other class. The Professor's teaching style doesn't fit my learning style at all. My discomfort there, along with the discomfort of not being able to grasp hold of this Logic, is creating way more stress than I am used to dealing with.

Too bad quitting isn't an option. Making a fool of myself, or failing, are options. Quitting isn't.

Bi-Polar disorder is soooo much fun. In mania, I can't do math (symbolic logic IS math); in depression, I can't write.

On Coursework

{I am only doing this because I wish someone else would.}

3.3 Modus Ponens made so much more sense to me after we "unpacked" almost every exercise in class yesterday. That is, of course, until I redid every exercise.  I'm happy to report that I didn't make as many mistakes in round 2 as I did in round 1, but I still made a few.

I was terribly puzzled by 4.1, though not until I went to check my answers against the answer key. Somehow I'd managed to misplace my bookmark, a helpful, information-packed pamphlet titled, "A Philosophy Toolkit," just before the exercises of chapter 6.1.  So I now have negations, contradictories, and disjunctions swirling around in an already confused brain.

I only missed the double negation in the symbolizing exercises. Only one of my translations into, "a readable English statement," matched Arthur's in the key.

Here are my translations:

2b) Montesquieu is to be believed, even though there is no God, we must still venerate justice.
              B -> ( ~G-> V)

c) Do not believe Montesquieu, venerate justice because there is no God.
             ~B-> (V-> ~G)

d) There is a God, do not believe Montesquieu.
                G & ~ B

e) We must venerate justice and believe Montesquieu, there is no God.
                (V & G) -> ~G

The assignment was for a readable statement, not one that really makes sense, right? Anyway, it was terribly difficult to put this up for review now that I have seen Arthur's answers...

I am still trying to unravel why "No politicians are corrupt." and "All politicians are corrupt." aren't contradictory.
As far as I can tell, the truth of p is incompatible with the truth of q... Perhaps I misunderstand.

FYI: I like to get in the classroom about half an hour before class, so if anyone else wants to chatter about this stuff informally, that is a good time for me.

Argument Sample

"[T]he proliferation of SUVs has created huge problems (C). Their safe image is an illusion. They roll over too easily (p1), killing and injuring occupants at an alarming rate (p2), and they are dangerous to other road users (p3 /sub C) , inflicting catastrophic damage to cars that they hit (p4) and posing a lethal threat to pedestrians (p5). Their “green” image is also a mirage, because they contribute far more than cars to smog and global warming (p6). Their gas-guzzling designs increase American dependence on imported oil at a time when anti-American sentiment is prevalent in the Middle East (p7)."

Keith Bradsher, High and Mighty: SUVs-The World’s Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way

Found in: Lunsford, Andrea. Ruszkiewicz, John. Walters, Keith. Everything's an Argument with readings. 2004. Bedford/St. Martin’s. Boston New York.  Pg 27-28

Standard form:

SUVs roll over too easily.

SUV roll overs kill and injure at an alarming rate.

SUVs are dangerous to other road users.

SUVs inflict catastrophic damage to cars they hit.

SUVs pose a lethal threat to pedestrians.

SUV's contribute far more than cars to smog and global warming.

Their gas-guzzling designs increase American dependence on imported oil.

The proliferation of SUVs has created huge problems.

Grudgingly

So. I've stumbled in and created this blog. I have no clue what I am doing, and I'm bound to make loads of mistakes.
Sounds like I'm in yet another class full of people who process information in a way that is foreign to me. I look forward to getting better acquainted with all of you.