tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post5227179817963133395..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: "Using as"Alexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-69175208669251665382013-05-13T20:20:06.067-05:002013-05-13T20:20:06.067-05:00Alex:
"And by the same token, if you've ...Alex:<br /><br />"And by the same token, if you've done martial arts, you shouldn't bring arms and legs to school?"<br /><br />Don't even mention it. It is best not to give some people ideas. Some things are getting there. Take for example this:<br /><br />" In December 2010, freshman Andrew Mikel II was kicked out of Spotsylvania High School for the remainder of the school year under a charge that the “spitwad” incident constituted “violent criminal conduct” and possession of a weapon. School officials also referred the matter to local law enforcement for criminal prosecution."<br /><br />Here is the article:<br /><br />https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/Press%20Release/us_supreme_court_refuses_to_hear_case_of_14_year_old_honor_student_expelled/<br /><br />Back in my time in school, the teacher would just use the paddle, period.<br /><br />Or this:<br /><br />"Other cases include school officials expelling a 6-year-old girl for bringing a plastic toy gun to school, issuing a disciplinary warning to a 5-year-old boy who brought a toy gun built out of Legos to class, and expelling a fifth-grade girl who had a “paper” gun with her in class. “These incidents, while appalling,” notes Whitehead, “are the byproducts of an age that values security over freedom, where police have relatively limitless powers to search individuals and homes by virtue of their badge, and where the Constitution is increasingly treated as a historic relic rather than a bulwark against government abuses.” Whitehead concluded his remarks by noting that if adopted, SB 1058 will be a positive first step in pushing back against the tyranny of zero tolerance policies in the nation’s schools by excluding childish behavior from punishment while also targeting malicious intention as the crucial factor in determining appropriate discipline."<br /><br />Full article here:<br /><br />https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/Press%20Release/in_testimony_before_maryland_senate_rutherford_institute_cites_need_for_leg/<br /><br />Back in my day when I was that age the teacher either ignored it or confiscated the item.<br /><br />Or how about a 5 year old with a plastic soap bubble gun:<br /><br />'. . ."I'll shoot you, you shoot me, and we'll all play together," the kindergartner says.<br /><br />The next day, that remark -- which was made innocently, according to the lawyer for the girl's family, who related the story -- landed the young central Pennsylvanian child in the principal's office.<br /><br />Soon after, she was sent home after being issued a 10-day suspension for a "terroristic threat,". . . '<br /><br />Full article:<br /><br />http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/21/us/pennsylvania-girl-suspended<br /><br />We all know 5 year olds can be little terrors. But terrorists?<br /><br />I did come across this obituary:<br /><br />http://www.woodwardenglish.com/death-of-common-sense-obituary/<br /><br />He will be missed by all of us who knew him.Dagmara Lizlovshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14744785407281199347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-15189074125967756282013-05-10T13:11:52.045-05:002013-05-10T13:11:52.045-05:00What reason do we have to think that "... pos...What reason do we have to think that "... possibly has steel rods as parts" is an intensional formula but "... is believed by Tom to be real" is not an intensional formula? It looks like they may work the same way: "Tom believes that P" = "P is believed by Tom" ascribes a monadic property (being believed by Tom) to P, and "Possibly, P" = "P is possible" also ascribes a monadic property (being possible) to P.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06251565524682589544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-30457377966729979432013-05-10T13:10:55.174-05:002013-05-10T13:10:55.174-05:00Dagmara:
And by the same token, if you've don...Dagmara:<br /><br />And by the same token, if you've done martial arts, you shouldn't bring arms and legs to school?Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-64275923704254093742013-05-10T12:27:09.192-05:002013-05-10T12:27:09.192-05:00You can do the same thing I do with rigid designat...You can do the same thing I do with rigid designators with bound variables.<br /><br />From:<br />(x)(y)(IsTheseProngs(x) and IsTheseFingers(y) → x=y)<br />we should be able to derive:<br />(x)(y)(IsTheseProngs(x) and IsTheseFingers(y) → (F(x) iff F(y)))<br />for any intensional (but maybe not hyperintensional) formula F.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-9966398959664157452013-05-10T12:12:58.856-05:002013-05-10T12:12:58.856-05:00Dr. Pruss,
That response depends upon the availab...Dr. Pruss,<br /><br />That response depends upon the availability of rigid designators "Sam" and "Jim" such that (for instance) some entity Sam is not mereologically continent across possible worlds. I'm not sure what strong reason we have to think that there are any rigid designators of that kind. The alternate view --- that nearly all noun terms are descriptivist --- seems viable. So if we have good reason to believe in artifacts, and we don't have strong reason to disbelieve the sort of descriptivist view just mentioned, doesn't that leave the "fingers = prongs" alternative as a plausible view?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06251565524682589544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-56800811699659421532013-05-09T19:50:51.613-05:002013-05-09T19:50:51.613-05:00Here's a few precautions with those rubber ban...Here's a few precautions with those rubber bands.<br /><br />1. Don't snap yourself with them. Ouch, that can really, really hurt.<br /><br />2. Keep them pointed in a safe direction at all times. This is mandatory for all shooting items.<br /><br />3. Realize that many schools consider rubber bands used as impromptu sling shots and also spit balls to be in the same class of weapons as assault rifles with high capacity magazines and do not distinguish between the two.<br /><br />4. Above all don't take the rubber band slingshot to school. You will be guilty of a totally unforgivable crime for which you can never be punished enough - violating the zero tolerance weapons policy.<br /><br />5. Now if you want to really do something that will get you into trouble, Instructables has these tips:<br /><br />http://www.instructables.com/id/Office-Weapons/<br /><br />MacGyver or A-Team anyone?Dagmara Lizlovshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14744785407281199347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-62341154917432725772013-05-09T11:21:44.325-05:002013-05-09T11:21:44.325-05:00One can substitute rigid designators for one anoth...One can substitute rigid designators for one another in modal contexts.<br /><br />Well, let Sam be the prongs and Jim the fingers. Then Sam = Jim. So, if Sam possibly has these steel rods as parts, so does Jim.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-6121934143836219402013-05-07T22:16:13.205-05:002013-05-07T22:16:13.205-05:00Clear argument! Here's an objection. It seems ...Clear argument! Here's an objection. It seems like the Leibniz's Law argument against identifying the prongs with the fingers goes something like this:<br /><br />(1) The prongs are such that possibly, they have steel rods as parts.<br />(2) The fingers are not such that possibly, they have steel rods as parts.<br />(3) For any x and y, if x = y and possibly Fx, then possibly Fy.<br />(4) Therefore, the prongs are not the fingers.<br /><br />I have two concerns with this argument: <br /><br />First, (3) isn't obviously true. "Possibly ..." might be a context like "believes that ...". In that case, Leibniz's Law doesn't get us to (3), for the same reason that "John believes that Santa Claus is real" doesn't get us to "John believes that Kris Kringle is real" --- even given the premise that Kris Kringle = Santa Claus.<br /><br />Second, to get the inference to (4), we need (1) and (2) to have the form "X is such that, possibly, FX". But maybe its logical form is really: "For some unique x, Gx and possibly, for some unique x, Gx and Fx". I.e., perhaps what we're really saying is: "There is something which uniquely has the property of being the prongs and possibly, there is something which uniquely has the property being the prongs and it has steel rods as parts." If that's the logical form of (1) --- and it seems to me that plausibly it is --- then we don't get a valid inference from (1) and (2) to (4).<br /><br />I don't see that we have strong reason to believe that both of these suggestions fail. So that should leave the "the prongs = the fingers" option as a live possibility.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06251565524682589544noreply@blogger.com