Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed the simulation argument, which suggests that if a civilization becomes capable of creating conscious simulations, it could generate so many simulated beings that a randomly chosen conscious entity would almost certainly be in a simulation.
An inference objection is an objection to an argument based not on any of its stated premises, but rather on the relationship between a premise (or set of premises) and main contention. [ 4 ] [ 5 ] For a given simple argument, if the assumption is made that its premises are correct, fault may be found in the progression from these to the ...
being meaningless (by Moore's own argument), to say that the question is meaningless is to concede analytic equivalency. Thus Moore begs the question in the second premise. He assumes that the question is a meaningful one (i.e. that it is an open question). This begs the question and the open-question argument thus fails.
As of 2020, the commercial website Kialo is the most widely adopted argumentation-based deliberation system with an argument-map interface. [45] On Kialo, users can usually vote on the debate question to express their overall conclusion about the subject, with the average and a bar chart of these votes being included at the top of every debate.
In the case of logic-based argumentation frameworks, an argument is not an abstract entity, but a pair, where the first part is a minimal consistent set of formulae enough to prove the formula for the second part of the argument. Formally, an argument is a pair (,) such that
Computer simulations are constructed to emulate a physical system. Because these are meant to replicate some aspect of a system in detail, they often do not yield an analytic solution. Therefore, methods such as discrete event simulation or finite element solvers are used. A computer model is used
Rules of inference are syntactical transform rules which one can use to infer a conclusion from a premise to create an argument. A set of rules can be used to infer any valid conclusion if it is complete, while never inferring an invalid conclusion, if it is sound.
One of the first objections raised by opponents of the Frankfurt-style cases is the two-horned dilemma. This objection was most notably raised by philosophers such as Widerker, Ginet, and Kane. [7] [8] [9] The two-horned dilemma focuses on the connection between the agent's inclination and the agent's decision. This connection can be either ...