Bisnis Tanpa Iuran Bulanan

Super Excellent Network Bersama Meraih Kebebasan Finansial Yang Sebenarnya

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Phylosophy of Communication

A. WHAT IS LOGIC? The logic is to think step by step process. That is, if we think to be logical; think "step by step", which requires steps to be followed by a specific order. The word "order" (order) implies that there are certain affinities between the different steps that we follow the thinking process. 

Logic is defined generally as "the science of law thought". This definition from this definition of a good philosopher Kant equates with the architect who built the system (building conceptual) according to previously established discourse. The structure of "architectonic" reason itself provides a set of patterns that have been arranged according to the philosopher Kant should be used as a tool for presenting their philosophical ideas in a more orderly. Thus, through the logic on which we recognize the best of an idea and arrangement of its parts, which Kant considered as a prerequisite for understanding a system of philosophy. Logic is divided into two types, namely: first, completely ignoring all the hidden meaning (mythological), while the second type focuses almost entirely on the disclosure of such meanings as bright-bright. 

Katabiasanya words carry meaning if it has been combined with other words. Proposition is a term typically used in logic to show meaningful sentence that expresses the relationship between two or more words. We must know the law-the law, by studying its laws will help us to think and say with the truth. Logical person would not say the wrong things. However, Lita do not think that just because something is said is logical, perhaps we would be surprised to discover that in fact the logic is not concerned with the truth of the words we use, but only about its truth value. This type of fallacy in this logic is not called an error (falsehood), but the error (fallacy). 

Fallacy is a fallacy of composition argument we use to draw conclusions based on evidence. Fallacy most important thing to learn is closely related to something called the problem of referring to himself. The term refers to self-refer to any proposition which refers to the proposition iu itself. For example, if the word "this" in "this sentence is true" refers to the sentence itself (ie the phrase in quotes), we are not difficult to understand how this could be true. But if we change the sentence slightly, to read "this sentence is false", then the big problem arises when we consider the word "this" refers to the sentence. In fact, if we accept that the proposition that the proposition is false, then (according to the demands of the sentence) must be false assertion that the sentence is wrong. In other words, if it is true, then it's wrong, and if it is wrong then it's true. This resulted in something which is sometimes called a "vicious cycle" that is an endless cycle implications of the base which made it impossible for the determination of the meaning of these propositions. The students usually notice that different cultures (sometimes different people in the same culture) have diverse views about the issues they tersebut.lantas menimpulkan "there are no definitive answers". Yet such inferences are misleading, because it failed the test refers to himself. 

Fallacy can be corrected in two ways: first, we can admit that the proposition in question is an exception to the rule. Here, we basically accept the presence of myth. In other words we can say: "The only definite answer to this question is no definitive answer (except for this one)". Both "there are too many definitive answers." This corresponds to the kind of evidence typically found in student papers is to consider arguments that have been the precursor to compare some definitive answer, the question apaun rival. Some common error that we have to consider when writing papers is among other things: arguing ad hoc (from a single example), ad antiquitatem (from tradition), ad novutatem (the novelty), ad baculum (by harnessing the power), or ad hominem (from by exploiting the opponent's personal weaknesses or other parties who receive the same conclusion); by shifting "the responsibility of proof"; to deceive; attacking "opponents of view of the weak version, which is easily proven guilty"; "raises questions" with mengaggap right thing you want to prove and much more. 

The logicians sometimes understood to say the logic is more concerned with the formal truth of the truth of the material. Material truth proposition is the fact that the typical external causes proposition is true or false. So, if we want to demonstrate the truth of the material statements "Kapur wrote this white" then the best way is just by holding it, so others could see that something you hold white. Instead of formal truth of a proposition is an expression of general internal. "Internal" is meant that without the exit of the proposition itself, we can determine the value of formal truth. For example: we take a complex proposition "if the chalk is white, then this is not a blue chalk". In this case, we can say that without seeing the chalk at all, we are knowing that if the first proposition is true, then the second proposition is also true. Truly formal proposition does not depend on the specific meaning of words used in the proposition that because we know the truth value of each share. Some logicians is the ideal destination mengenbangkan complete symbolic logic that can function somewhat ironic, as a language without words. For example, the proposition "if ..., then ..." can be expressed by substituting "chalk" with "a". "Completely white" with "w", not with "-", blue with "-w" (not white). So the proposition "if a dalah w, then a is -"-w "is always a prposisi true, whatever words we use symbols to replace it.
B. TWO KINDS OF LOGIC Berrbeda truth value proposition with the truth of the actual material. This refers to the proposition that the truth or error will be owned in all the circumstances. So, we can find the truth value without knowing the actual content at all, provided we know the type of proposition. One way to do it is to set up something called the "table of truth" proposition. 

The first step in menyususn truth table is the proposition in question reduces to a simple logical form. In this form we can replace "you read Bacan suggestion" with p and "you will succeed dipengujian end" with q, which gives us the proposition "if p then q, this can be expressed entirely in symbols as" p-> q " . The second step is to replace each variable with all possible combinations, namely "B" (right) and "S" (wrong), and against any combination to determine whether the proposition is true or false result. 

Value value p-> q-pvq truth truth B B B B S S S B B S S B S B B S S S B B B B S B

TRUTH TABLE TWO (Source: Stephen Palmquis, 2002:129) In logic there are two differences, namely the analysis and synthesis. Both can be applied to the three core distinction, the distinction between the methods of argumentation, the types of propositions, and other types of logic. 

The distinction between the analytical method arguments and synthetic is usually better known as the distinction between deduction and induction. Deduction is an argument that begins with the placement of two or more propositions called premises. Then, the conclusion drawn is presupposed premises comply with it. That's the basic pattern of deduction in three steps namely syllogisms. For example: All men are mortal Socrates is a man Socrates is mortal 

One good way to test whether the designations in something deduction contains error or not is to change the propositions themselves into a corresponding series of logical symbols. Usually known for its universal implications. the words were typically converted into symbols as follows: All m is f S is m S is f 

The terms of analysis and synthesis as the label argument distinction between deductive and inductive, at least as old as Euclid. In his Elements, Euclid explained clearly that these two methods should not be understood as mutually exclusive, but complementary. The method shows the accuracy of geometrical theorems by first using the method ergumentasi analytical (deductive), and then support the conclusion by reasoning synthesis (deductive). Following his direction, we can describe the "directions" opposite yag followed by the two methods as arrows that indicate the roads opposite. 

The terms of analysis and synthesis has been used by philosophers in many different ways. For a long time, which is generally accepted way to demonstrate the use of two methods of argumentation is the way the use of terms a la Euclid. However, Kant developed a new way about the use of these terms, which indicates the existence of two different types of propositions. Menutur kant, a proposition is analytic if the subject contained "outside" the predicate. So, for example (proposition) "Black" color "is analytic, because the concept of" black "has been included as one of the concept of" color ". Accordingly, (proposition) "chalk white" is a synthesis, because we will not know if this is the chalk, when the only thing visible was told it was white. Using two examples, we can describe the initial description of Kant on the differences with the tools that appear in the form of two maps drawn.
a. "Black is the color of" b. "Chalk is white writing" Proposition Analytical and Synthesis
C. ANALYTIC LOGIC AND LOGIC SYNTHESIS Finding the basic laws of logic synthesis do not have to be a difficult task; analytical and synthesis of logic always works the opposite way, so that should do is determine the opponents of the law "A ≠-A" well-known from Aristotle. There are two ways to do this. We can change the "≠" to "=" or change "-A" to "A". This way, we gave birth to the two following laws: "A =-A" or "A ≠ A '. 

From the above laws, we call the new law yan gpertama it as the law of contradiction, because it shows the contradictory forms of congenital followed by anything that serves by way of synthesis. The second new law is actually a lawanndari an analytical rather boring, which is usually called the law of identity. 

While the analytical logic offer us clarity of vision (ie, breadth of knowledge), logic synthesis offer us the clarity of insight (ie, depth of understanding). When used properly, both types of logic itutidak necessarily competing, but should be considered complementary, as deduction and induction that can be used effectively as an argument methods complement each other. Biased analytical logic used to generate knowledge at any time when we describe sesuat that occurred within the boundaries transcendental. But when we use words to give the things that lie beyond this boundary, analytical logic not only lost its explanation, but also can plunge us into a misleading inference. 

Analytic and synthetic logic gives us two complementary perspectives: by using the first, Lita actively enforce a strict division of conceptual in nature; by using a second, we passively accept the intuitive unity of nature. Because unity is not biased expressed literally in words, logic synthesis can only be discussed with him as a parasite on analytical logic, which is based on analytical denial laws. 

Difference Between Analytical and Synthetic Analytic and synthetic is a term to distinguish a word. The words are recognized automatically just by knowing the meaning of the term. Eg "doctors who treat patients." Known as Analytical statement. Being a statement that requires knowledge from the outside in addition to knowledge of the meaning of the word itself is said to be a synthetic statement. Starting from the philosophers Frege he wanted to incorporate knowledge of mathematical and other a priori knowledge as an analytic statement. 

Analytic statements are some examples: 1. 1 +1 = 2 2. Unmarried single men 3. The highest mountain is higher than other mountains. Some examples from Synthetic statements are: 1. The sky was blue. 2. Budi is the man who sucks 3. The dog was vicious 4. Giraffes have four legs 

So in the case of synthetic outer world we must know in order to know that knowledge. Synthetic contrast in thinking it is not necessary. If we understand the words used in the analytical statement then we can determine whether or not. 

The philosopher WVO Quine criticized on this conception. According to Quine the division of this kind does not exist. The argument of guilt from the belief that holism about belief. According Holism all our beliefs are interrelated such as nets. 

Traditionally beliefs about logic and mathematics are there and can not be changed. Nothing can replace the observation that beliefs about these things. Trust is already irreversible. Quine does not think so. He said the trust could still be changed. The condition we also have to undergo drastic abrupt in many places in the web of our beliefs. If that changes, then the position of trust in terms of mathematics and logic are no longer fixed.

CONCLUSION Awareness of the value proposition the truth of various types can lead us away from the stupidity of the use of arguments that seek to prove something is wrong with memprasyaratkan p. Because the whole proposition is true without regard to the formal truth or falsity of q, we can use this kind of argument to "prove" the truth of something that is actually wrong.

REFERENCES + 252Fsynthetic distinction Sham, Nina W. 2010. Philosophy As the Roots of Communication Science. New York: Media Rekatama symbiosis.

No comments:

Post a Comment