Thanks! Congrats on the philosophy degree! Yes, we might try to regiment our language and substitute the weaker "some" for nearly every use of "all", but usually "some" refers to "at least one". And, typically, we mean to say something stronger than "at least one bird can fly". We mean to say "all birds of such and such type with such and such characters (excluding X, Y, and Z) can fly". But, since that is exhausting to say, we opt for brevity, hoping our interpreters will be reasonable. In addition, even "some birds can fly" doesn't free you from the fallacy of accident. I don't formulate it in the video but I think the core of the rule involves refuting some statement based on an irrelevant exception to the statement. So, in response to "some birds can fly" someone might say "ah, but that sentence isn't true in a possible world where there are no birds, nor is it true in the future when our sun has exploded wiping out every bird." Here they are applying the sentence "some birds can fly" to a case (accident)
I think if people are just chatting with each other then it can be allowed that a general rule has exceptions, but in a formal sort of communication if there is an exception to the rule, then it means the rule is actually false. I think this is also a way of disproving a rule: its enough to just find one example where the rule does not fit, and the rule can be discarded.
Totally agree. If the situation is such that precision in speech is to be expected, then saying "all Xs are Y" means each and every X (within reason). For example, if I say "every human is mortal", obviously I'm not referring to hypothetical humans.
I think it is part of the problem. There are generally two senses of "every", one is the unrestricted (absolute) sense of it, the other is the restricted (qualified) sense of it. When we utter the former, we admit of no exception. When we utter the latter, there are some exceptions to the rule. Some people might want to prohibit the use of the qualified sense, but then there are very few cases where we could use such a common word since there is almost always an exception to a general proposition/rule. For example, we should always use "some" rather than "all", but this doesn't seem like it would do the job either. If I tell a child, "a sharp knife will cut you if you play with it", I'm not saying "some" or "many" sharp knives will cut you.
“Some” birds can fly, as a Phil grad, I love this channel
Thanks! Congrats on the philosophy degree! Yes, we might try to regiment our language and substitute the weaker "some" for nearly every use of "all", but usually "some" refers to "at least one". And, typically, we mean to say something stronger than "at least one bird can fly". We mean to say "all birds of such and such type with such and such characters (excluding X, Y, and Z) can fly". But, since that is exhausting to say, we opt for brevity, hoping our interpreters will be reasonable.
In addition, even "some birds can fly" doesn't free you from the fallacy of accident. I don't formulate it in the video but I think the core of the rule involves refuting some statement based on an irrelevant exception to the statement. So, in response to "some birds can fly" someone might say "ah, but that sentence isn't true in a possible world where there are no birds, nor is it true in the future when our sun has exploded wiping out every bird." Here they are applying the sentence "some birds can fly" to a case (accident)
I think if people are just chatting with each other then it can be allowed that a general rule has exceptions, but in a formal sort of communication if there is an exception to the rule, then it means the rule is actually false. I think this is also a way of disproving a rule: its enough to just find one example where the rule does not fit, and the rule can be discarded.
Totally agree. If the situation is such that precision in speech is to be expected, then saying "all Xs are Y" means each and every X (within reason). For example, if I say "every human is mortal", obviously I'm not referring to hypothetical humans.
Is there a fallacy for when something happens so little people ignore it as an exception?
Thank you so much for your great 👍lecture
Thanks. Appreciate it!
Nah, some birds can fly. Qualifiers all day baby.
Would you say that "only some sharp knives can cut you"?
@@LogicPhilosophy yes.
@@theosprime8880 Is it an actual sharp knife or a merely possible one?
Super😃
maybe the problem is in the word "every"
I think it is part of the problem. There are generally two senses of "every", one is the unrestricted (absolute) sense of it, the other is the restricted (qualified) sense of it. When we utter the former, we admit of no exception. When we utter the latter, there are some exceptions to the rule. Some people might want to prohibit the use of the qualified sense, but then there are very few cases where we could use such a common word since there is almost always an exception to a general proposition/rule. For example, we should always use "some" rather than "all", but this doesn't seem like it would do the job either. If I tell a child, "a sharp knife will cut you if you play with it", I'm not saying "some" or "many" sharp knives will cut you.