I’m implicitly agreeing with luke’s post (thanks to my own experiences with academic philosophy) and taking parts of it as premises. A pseudo-formalized version of the claim in my post might go something like:
(me) Being learned is sufficient for appearing good but not for making better decisions
(lukeprog) Being good improves your decision-making/ability to resolve philosophical issues
(lukeprog) Most universities focus on producing philosophers that are learned but not good
(general definition) Something “is signalling” (is primarily for signalling) when it is oriented towards improving appearances rather than actual abilities/quantities.
(from 3, implied step) Most philosophy programs focus on producing people who appear good rather than who are good.
(from 1, 4, 5) Most philosophy programs are signalling
I upvoted you, since I didn’t really think it was an unwarranted remark, but I suspect that others thought that your criticism was low-level, seeing the fact that I was basing some of what I said on Luke’s post to be obvious. Also, keep in mind that I don’t actually need to prove those premises to show that my conclusion follows from them or is implied by them; an argument can be valid without having true premises.
Also, keep in mind that I don’t actually need to prove those premises to show that my conclusion follows from them or is implied by them; an argument can be valid without having true premises.
RIght, but my point was that your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises (though it is evidenced by them). The reason is that 5 does not follow from 1, 2, and 3, and so the argument is invalid. It could be, for instance, that philosophy programs focus on producing learned rather than good philosophers because they are incapable of producing good philosophers over and above learned ones (suppose we grant my premise that there is no such thing as a good philosopher, for example).
I’m not actually contesting the truth of your premises or your conclusion.
Hmm, I’m getting some downvotes here and I’m having a hard time interpreting them. Is what I’ve said false about the logic of katydee’s claim?
I’m implicitly agreeing with luke’s post (thanks to my own experiences with academic philosophy) and taking parts of it as premises. A pseudo-formalized version of the claim in my post might go something like:
(me) Being learned is sufficient for appearing good but not for making better decisions
(lukeprog) Being good improves your decision-making/ability to resolve philosophical issues
(lukeprog) Most universities focus on producing philosophers that are learned but not good
(general definition) Something “is signalling” (is primarily for signalling) when it is oriented towards improving appearances rather than actual abilities/quantities.
(from 3, implied step) Most philosophy programs focus on producing people who appear good rather than who are good.
(from 1, 4, 5) Most philosophy programs are signalling
I upvoted you, since I didn’t really think it was an unwarranted remark, but I suspect that others thought that your criticism was low-level, seeing the fact that I was basing some of what I said on Luke’s post to be obvious. Also, keep in mind that I don’t actually need to prove those premises to show that my conclusion follows from them or is implied by them; an argument can be valid without having true premises.
RIght, but my point was that your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises (though it is evidenced by them). The reason is that 5 does not follow from 1, 2, and 3, and so the argument is invalid. It could be, for instance, that philosophy programs focus on producing learned rather than good philosophers because they are incapable of producing good philosophers over and above learned ones (suppose we grant my premise that there is no such thing as a good philosopher, for example).
I’m not actually contesting the truth of your premises or your conclusion.