Ontology
Pos
key topics
'
Does God
'
exist ?
•
•
How we view the world
Theory about
Theory about what there what
•
reality . is out ,
can we accept as
reality .
•
Assumptions about nature
of reality
Epistemology
How if God exists ?
' '
•
can we know
How we should
investigate the world
•
Theory about knowledge
•
Deals with the status of knowledge
something belief knowledge?
•
→
is an opinion , . suspicion or is it
Causality
The would know all
ontology that
if applicable laws
of nature well the initial
•
we as as
conditions . we can
perfectly predict what will happen in the future
Determinism of natural
the house
ontology of
'
is sort '
•
science
Assesses phenomenon
event
preceding a
•
3
types of explanation
1 .
Causal
•
By finding and
explaining the cause of a phenomenon ,
we explain the phenomenon
A causal explanation
for a bird
singing
would be
through description of the bird's
•
and muscular
nervous
systems .
2 .
Functional
Explains the existence of something terms of its function
in
•
This be
giraffes having higher chance of survival within a due to
•
can seen in a
given ecosystem
a long neck
3. Intentional
'
W' hat the motivation behind
something
•
is
social
Can
ontology
organizations act by themselves ? Kan een bedrijf de Schuld krijgen alsof- het
•
→ is
persoon .
Social
reality only exists only insofar as we accept it to exist everyday reality
•
in .
Whether we do accept social
reality is dependent on understanding of it
•
our .
,
Positive
Has the ambition
theory to explain the world as it is
•
•
Makes explicit positive expectations towards the world
Has of fit
theory to world direction adapt theory to the world
•
a - -
→
, Normative
Has
theory to be
the ambition
justify the world as it
ought to
•
•
Makes explicit normative expectations towards the world
Has a world to direction of fit → to the world
theory try change
• - -
Logical
Process
Argument
of creating a new statement from one or more existing statements
•
An
argument proceeds from a set of premises to a conclusion by means of logical
•
,
implication via a procedure called logical interference
,
syllogismconclusions
Drawing from two assumed propositions
•
given or
Major All ✗ Y premise :P X conclusion :P Y
•
premise minor is
: is is
,
,
Truth preservation
With true premises lead to true conclusions
logically valid
argument always
•
a .
.
•
If not all premises are true ,
we don't know
if the conclusion is true
Valid
Valid
argument
argument valid
if and
only if it
that
if all
of the true
•
an is is
premises
:
necessary
are
then the
the conclusion is true :
if all
premises are true ,
then the conclusion must be true ;
it is impossible that all the premises are true and the conclusion is
false .
2 forms of logical interference
(
7.
Denying
↳
the tokens
consequence modus )
who Dutch tall +
Stefan not tall
Stefan not Dutch ( B A)
Anyone is is is is
Anyone who A ✗ not B ✗ is not
=
, is ,
is + is
=
2.
Affirming the
consequent ( modus ponens )
↳
If it's
Friday ,
I
go
to the
gym + I went to the
gym today
=
today is
Friday ( If A ,
then B t B =
A)
↳ This is not valid
Denying the antecedent v. s .
the
consequent
Logic isn't valid
might have been other reasons that did not
get high
•
a
,
you
grade
If A. then B
If A ,
then B
+ not valid! + valid!
Not A Not B
= =
Not B Not A
Pos
key topics
'
Does God
'
exist ?
•
•
How we view the world
Theory about
Theory about what there what
•
reality . is out ,
can we accept as
reality .
•
Assumptions about nature
of reality
Epistemology
How if God exists ?
' '
•
can we know
How we should
investigate the world
•
Theory about knowledge
•
Deals with the status of knowledge
something belief knowledge?
•
→
is an opinion , . suspicion or is it
Causality
The would know all
ontology that
if applicable laws
of nature well the initial
•
we as as
conditions . we can
perfectly predict what will happen in the future
Determinism of natural
the house
ontology of
'
is sort '
•
science
Assesses phenomenon
event
preceding a
•
3
types of explanation
1 .
Causal
•
By finding and
explaining the cause of a phenomenon ,
we explain the phenomenon
A causal explanation
for a bird
singing
would be
through description of the bird's
•
and muscular
nervous
systems .
2 .
Functional
Explains the existence of something terms of its function
in
•
This be
giraffes having higher chance of survival within a due to
•
can seen in a
given ecosystem
a long neck
3. Intentional
'
W' hat the motivation behind
something
•
is
social
Can
ontology
organizations act by themselves ? Kan een bedrijf de Schuld krijgen alsof- het
•
→ is
persoon .
Social
reality only exists only insofar as we accept it to exist everyday reality
•
in .
Whether we do accept social
reality is dependent on understanding of it
•
our .
,
Positive
Has the ambition
theory to explain the world as it is
•
•
Makes explicit positive expectations towards the world
Has of fit
theory to world direction adapt theory to the world
•
a - -
→
, Normative
Has
theory to be
the ambition
justify the world as it
ought to
•
•
Makes explicit normative expectations towards the world
Has a world to direction of fit → to the world
theory try change
• - -
Logical
Process
Argument
of creating a new statement from one or more existing statements
•
An
argument proceeds from a set of premises to a conclusion by means of logical
•
,
implication via a procedure called logical interference
,
syllogismconclusions
Drawing from two assumed propositions
•
given or
Major All ✗ Y premise :P X conclusion :P Y
•
premise minor is
: is is
,
,
Truth preservation
With true premises lead to true conclusions
logically valid
argument always
•
a .
.
•
If not all premises are true ,
we don't know
if the conclusion is true
Valid
Valid
argument
argument valid
if and
only if it
that
if all
of the true
•
an is is
premises
:
necessary
are
then the
the conclusion is true :
if all
premises are true ,
then the conclusion must be true ;
it is impossible that all the premises are true and the conclusion is
false .
2 forms of logical interference
(
7.
Denying
↳
the tokens
consequence modus )
who Dutch tall +
Stefan not tall
Stefan not Dutch ( B A)
Anyone is is is is
Anyone who A ✗ not B ✗ is not
=
, is ,
is + is
=
2.
Affirming the
consequent ( modus ponens )
↳
If it's
Friday ,
I
go
to the
gym + I went to the
gym today
=
today is
Friday ( If A ,
then B t B =
A)
↳ This is not valid
Denying the antecedent v. s .
the
consequent
Logic isn't valid
might have been other reasons that did not
get high
•
a
,
you
grade
If A. then B
If A ,
then B
+ not valid! + valid!
Not A Not B
= =
Not B Not A
