Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  material implication
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
In the article I deal with some paradoxes and errors caused by improper usage of logical and philosophical terms appearing in the arguments for existence of God and other philosophical issues. I point at first some paradoxes coming from improper usage of propositional calculus as an instrument for analysis of a natural language. This language is actually not using simple sentences but rather propositional functions, their logical connections, and some replacements for variables in them. We still have to deal with so called paradox of material implication. The second paragraph provides formal and metatheoretical critics of Charles Sanders Peirce’s theory of deduction, induction and abduction. I argue that what Peirce and his followers call abduction is actually deduction or some reasoning unable to describe in terms of the logic used by them. Both syllogistic and inferential theory of abduction generate some paradoxes and contradictions. In the last paragraph also some paradoxes and contradictions resulting from the theory of causation by Jan Łukasiewicz are presented. The central issue of the article is erroneous usage of the implication: in logical paraphrases of a natural language, in description of the scientific reasoning, and in description of causality. However, my objective is not to solve all problems mentioned above but rather to open a discussion over them.
PL
Badanie postaw członków społeczeństwa za pomocą ankiety wymaga stawiania jasnych i jednoznacznych pytań. Ten warunek jednak nie zawsze jest spełniony, co uniemożliwia prawidłową interpretację wyników. W badaniach ankietowych Ireneusza Krzemińskiego znalazły się pytania dotyczące mordu w Jedwabnem, na które co trzeci ankietowany nie potrafił jednoznacznie odpowiedzieć. Badacze interpretują ten wynik jako rezultat nieznajomości faktów („prawdy o Jedwabnem”). Autor przekonuje, że jest to raczej kwestia źle sformułowanych pytań. Analizuje szczególny przypadek tzw. błędu wielu pytań w jednym – stwierdzenie o postaci implikacji (okresu warunkowego), z którym nie sposób się jednoznacznie zgodzić albo nie zgodzić, a zgadzając się albo nie zgadzając, można mieć na myśli zupełnie różne rzeczy. Zamiast ubolewać nad moralną i umysłową kondycją Polaków, należałoby najpierw lepiej sformułować pytania i ponownie zinterpretować wyniki ankiety – tak brzmi główna konkluzja artykułu.
EN
Examining the attitudes of members of society by means of a survey requires asking clear and unambiguous questions. This condition, however, is not always met, which prevents the correct interpretation of the results. Ireneusz Krzemiński’s surveys included questions about the murder in Jedwabne, which every third respondent could not answer unambiguously. Researchers interpret this result as a result of ignorance of the facts (“the truth about Jedwabne”). The author argues that this is rather a matter of poorly formulated questions. He analyzes a special case of so-called the error of many questions in one (complex question, double-barreled question) – a statement about the form of implication (conditional), with which it is impossible to explicitly disagree or disagree, and by agreeing or disagreeing you can mean completely different things. Instead of regretting the moral and mental condition of Poles, it would be better to first formulate questions properly and interpret the results of the survey again – that is the main conclusion of the article.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.