What is a Counterexample? (and why philosophers use fictional examples)

  Рет қаралды 39,260

Jeffrey Kaplan

Jeffrey Kaplan

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 53
@stephenpowstinger733
@stephenpowstinger733 2 ай бұрын
It’s so nice of you to provide these philosophical inquiries.
@calorion
@calorion Жыл бұрын
So many people I run into seem to have no sense of hypotheticals or counterexamples. I'm going to show the next one of these this video to see if that helps.
@Reality-Distortion
@Reality-Distortion 2 жыл бұрын
To give my own fantastical example - Ciri from Witcher has gray hair. She's at her oldest (from the events we know of) 22 years old and never had children but she always had gray hair. By that definition, she would become a grandmother if she just started giving out hard candy. And so would anybody in the real world that cosplays as her or just decided to dye their hair as gray.
@janwollert1559
@janwollert1559 Жыл бұрын
So by that logic all 4 Leg animals would be dogs
@ribbonkelly
@ribbonkelly Жыл бұрын
i am 71 yo. i have grey hair and give candy to children. I am not a grandmother, as I have no children.
@SindhiScienceChannel
@SindhiScienceChannel Жыл бұрын
@@ribbonkelly the statement is regarding "being a grandmother". It is not about "not being a grandmother". Therefore, you cannot be considered a counter example of the original statement regarding "being a grandmother".
@nothingchanges014
@nothingchanges014 4 жыл бұрын
What a great video! I would like to know more about other philosophical tools as well
@profjeffreykaplan
@profjeffreykaplan 4 жыл бұрын
Glad you enjoyed the video. Here is a playlist of my other videos about philosophical tools: kzbin.info/aero/PL7YPshZMeLIZ9AP7eatHsaneWav2bcUHq
@Hermanubis1
@Hermanubis1 9 ай бұрын
@@profjeffreykaplan 1 counter example does not disprove a general claim unless the general claim specifies all. Unqualified speech does not mean all.
@Hermanubis1
@Hermanubis1 9 ай бұрын
@@profjeffreykaplan Stereotypes are generally true in the sense that the likelyhood of x person acting in a certain way or the likelyhood of a person from certain evolutionary pasts will have a chance of a certain IQ are predictable in a probabilistic statistical fashion. The likelihood of an african having an IQ above 100 is 1 in 200. But it is 60% likely for asians.
@satyajitsen8698
@satyajitsen8698 Жыл бұрын
Contextualizing fantastical/impossible counterexamples wrt the notions of logical impossibility, metaphysical impossibility, and nomological impossibility would've driven the point home even further, but I guess that would've also added to the complexity of such a simple, easy-to-understand video.
@demiurgen
@demiurgen 3 жыл бұрын
So are counterexamples only capable of proving analytic claims false? How does the analytic/synthetic distinction tie in with this? Thank you for your reply, and in general, thank you very much for your very helpful video series.
@brokenrecord903
@brokenrecord903 Жыл бұрын
Counterexamples are capable of proving any general claim false, no matter if it is synthetic or analytic. A single instance of a black swan would be a counterexample to the synthetic claim that every swan is white in color.
@Surefire99
@Surefire99 Жыл бұрын
A few of the commenters have taken umbrage with allowing fictional examples to be used to disprove things. I will also take umbrage. Literally everything can be disproven if you can make up something to disprove it. It's particularly problematic in politics and business. I've been guilty of using unrealistic hypotheticals that cause me to make less than optimal choices. As I've gotten older, I've gotten better at knowing what the chances of something really happening are. So if fictional examples are allowed, then experience has no benefit for humans.
@SindhiScienceChannel
@SindhiScienceChannel Жыл бұрын
Your statement regarding the counter example of "Knowledge is justified true belief" is flawed. You said that the counter example of "Justified True belief is Knowledge" is equivalent to the counter example of "Knowledge is justified true belief". We know that "A square is a rectangle" cannot be disproven with a counter example. However, "A rectangle is a square" can be disproven with a counter example. Your valuable comments would be highly appreciated in case I have misunderstood your lecture.
@datrucksdavea2080
@datrucksdavea2080 Жыл бұрын
Luv this! It's like having a sledgehammer. Although I don't like to be intellectually dishonest, how do you balance this. But it's a great technique for putting people on their heels! Thanks. Enjoy your lectures.
@n484l3iehugtil
@n484l3iehugtil Жыл бұрын
Coming here from watching other videos where Kaplan has used counterexamples. This video is uncontroversial enough, but with regards to its actual use in philosophy, there's one glaring issue I was hoping would be addressed in this video but isn't: When a counterexample is raised, is the theory refuted, or is it the counterexample that is faulty? It could be that the counterexample does not actually contradict the theory, or it could be that the counterexample simply makes assertions (usually out of intuition) that can be refuted, especially by the theory itself. Example, coming from the video on Hedonism: A supposed counterexample to hedonism is to have two actions A and B such that intuitively, A is more good than B, but by hypothetically assigning a greater pleasure to B than to A, B is more good than A. A hedonist could reply that the counterexample doesn't work because either the intuition is wrong that A is more good than B, or the pleasure assignment is wrong and it is A that should have a greater value than B. idk if hedonism ever goes into more detail about how they measure pleasure (which imo is one of the weak points of hedonism anyway). If only they were more specific, then maybe a counterexample can be effective.
@spindoctor6385
@spindoctor6385 Жыл бұрын
I totally disagree about impossible examples disproving concepts that way. There is no concept at all worth thinking about, beyond basic definitions that is valid if impossible examples disprove them.
@variableization
@variableization 5 ай бұрын
It can lead to some sloppy thinking and incorrect conclusions, especially If we don't fully understand the concept we are working on. The grandmother example is one where we understand the definition of grandmother and there are clearly better counter examples available. When we get to concepts where we don't fully know what we're talking about (almost everything we generally talk about in philosophy) then brining up things that may be impossible can tilt our conclusions.
@manasmahanand732
@manasmahanand732 3 ай бұрын
Impossible examples are imo the essence of what makes philosophy interesting. Actually, I would argue that mathematics is just a more stricter application of philosophy (And a lot of applications of logic, a study under mathematics, is used in philosophy). And mathematics does very often go very deep into the realm of "impossible". Imaginary and complex numbers are one such example. But imaginary and complex numbers are now heavily used in electronics, computer science, and many other things in engineering. Higher dimensional mathematics (that talk about shapes in dimensions in the hundreds) is heavily used in information theory in computer science. Most of vector math is also higher dimensional math. In fact, even Decarte's Meditations went pretty deep into the realm of the impossible. This is what makes these studies interesting, and help us uncover truths and even make brand new discoveries, by simply entertaining thought experiments that are "impossible"
@mazeppa3144
@mazeppa3144 3 жыл бұрын
I am a bit puzzled that you did not mention the very influencial critique on this form of conceptual analysis that relies somewhat on an appeal to intuition, particularly naturalistic arguments. I guess it is fair to say, that this use of counterexamples is at least extremly controversial, even if you dont agree with some approaches of experimental philosophy or strict quinean views, and a lot of philosophers today do not see the value of such an investigation (but they probably would support what F. Jackson called modest conceptual analysis).
@kuldipdhiman
@kuldipdhiman 11 ай бұрын
Excellent. Thanks.
@anthonybonawitz444
@anthonybonawitz444 5 ай бұрын
The counterclaim of the baby works because it's a concept but we know it cannot work but we get away with it because of the terminology.
@islaymmm
@islaymmm Жыл бұрын
People tend to dismiss counterexamples by saying what they're putting forward isn't supposed to be a general claim but only meant to be a typical observation when they're trying to fit each individual case into this "typical observation" that's based on probability... I mean yes if the probability is high enough you can RANDOMLY pick individual cases and your "observation" would be correct about them more often than not, but you can never say this particular case fits the "observation" like most things just because it's typically true...
@1verge1
@1verge1 3 жыл бұрын
I dont understand the reason to use fantastical counter examples when not necessary. Like here, a perfectly logical and real counter example would be that a female can have a baby at 16 yrs old, and that baby has one at 16 yrs old, it happens often. Now you have a 33 yr old grandmother who isnt gray haired or any stereotypes. On the other hand, if one could not find a real counter example and could only come up with a fantasy land one, wouldnt people take them less seriously as a philosopher? Genuinely curious. Watching these videos in order, am not college educated, and highly appreciate you sharing these lectures. Thank you!
@Reality-Distortion
@Reality-Distortion 2 жыл бұрын
Some could treat them less seriously but it's a pretty strawman response that comes from pretentiousness. It's as if fiction couldn't be intellectually challenging and held no substantive value, which I hope doesn't need to be explain why it's very wrong. It's also inconsistent because one of more common philosophy subjects is religion and many people see it as nothing more than fiction too. In a way it's even dangerous to neglect them because science fiction can cover ideas that will come true in our future. Abortion wasn't always a thing but it's debated to this day. Same can be with let's say biologically enhancing our children, which will cause ethical dilemmas about making the choice for them or lack there of. Or even more notable divide between the rich and the poor.
@MsJavaWolf
@MsJavaWolf Жыл бұрын
I think the example shown in this video was not very good. I don't even know if the concept of being a grandmother makes sense outside of a biological understanding. I think fictional arguments make the most sense in cases where we don't have any empirical observations.
@Winasaurus
@Winasaurus Жыл бұрын
Philophy is almost entirely fantasy land conversations with little relevance to the real world and the people in it, so making up an example from a similar fantasy land is hardly grounds for you to be taken any less seriously. Besides, philosophy is intended to be high-level intellectual debate, if you can't entertain a hypothetical or whine about it not being relevant to you, that's a you problem. You've entered a minefield of proof, you can't be mad when someone has a weird method of proof. Also it would make you come off as a real moron to shoot down a hypothetical because it's "fantastical". Partially because debating hypothetically is the same as debating fact, it's not like someone pulling the trigger in a hypothetical makes them less factually a shooter in the hypothetical. As well, you can use intentionally ridiculous hypotheticals to highlight the ridiculousness of the initial claim, which can act as a refutation or get the person to reconsider. To steal an example, defending your property. Someone says that they think is morally acceptable to shoot someone attempting to steal their property, as long as that person is properly warned that that is the potential outcome. While this makes sense in typical examples, someone breaking into your house to steal your possessions, or a carjacking, "property" can be quite vague. If I define it such that this includes all features about their property, then you can present fantastical counterexamples. "So do you think it would be morally acceptable to shoot someone for stealing a single blade of grass?", if I truly believe what I say, then yes, I must believe that to be morally acceptable. Some people would take that to be too ridiculous and fall back from the position, maybe amend it to be lighter, but the point is you used a ridiculous, never-happening example to refute the morality, by using the inherent impossibility to really stretch the hypothetical to it's absolute limits. It's this kind of counterexample that typically ruins most Utilitarian views. If you truly strictly believe that the value of an action is entirely amount of good vs amount of bad or pleasure/pain, then is, for example, kidnapping someone "of good value" if there is a number of kidnappers who all take great pleasure in it, and only 1 victim who does not? If you want to point to family members, then I can still use a fantastical example, what about if they have NO family, NO friends, entirely destitute, then what? Some argue that the act would be overall bad because it would set a bad example for other people and thus outweigh the positives for the kidnappers, but again, more fantastical, what if it was done in a place where noone else ever heard about it, like the person was kidnapped and taken to mars without anyone knowing, then what? It's a method of testing the fundamentals of a concept without having to implement it and find more realistic, but still awful examples cropping up.
@AlephOmega-zy5qs
@AlephOmega-zy5qs Жыл бұрын
It is necessary to present edge cases where the rules of a given philosophy break down and discuss them. Otherwise, we would be studying about how almost every single philosophy works 99% of the time, because almost all of them do. For example, in terms of ethics, Kantian ethics work 99% of the time except for in extremely specific cases where you might need to deceive a murderer to save someone's life, Utilitarianism works 99% of the time except for cases where hard decisions need to be made and it's unclear if the result of the decision will be good or not, Aristotelianism works 99% of the time but can get murky in cases where a virtuous person might be compelled to commit a crime by circumstance, etc. It is for this reason that thought experiments exist and are explored. That is how intellectual discovery usually works. Scientists use extremely specific situations to perform reproducible experiments, and the outcomes are studied to formulate further investigation. The double-slit experiment is something that isn't going to occur naturally but shows that light doesn't behave either exactly like the classical notions of waves or particles, instead having a mix of the two that is now known as "wave-particle duality."
@1verge1
@1verge1 Жыл бұрын
@@AlephOmega-zy5qs Excellent explanation, thank you!
@APhilosopherWhoWantstobeKing
@APhilosopherWhoWantstobeKing Жыл бұрын
Allowing fantastical arguments means that you have given up reason. The principal of reasonableness is abundant in our understanding of our universe. It can not be abandoned.
@spindoctor6385
@spindoctor6385 Жыл бұрын
Any grandma not handing out hard candy is NOT cool.
@krinkle909
@krinkle909 6 ай бұрын
Depends on the culture. Not all cultures think of sugar or suger products as the most delicious.
@fatherduck2635
@fatherduck2635 2 жыл бұрын
Justice for grandmothers!
@gcvrsa
@gcvrsa Жыл бұрын
The "baby giving birth to baby giving birth to baby" is more far-fetched than it really needed to be, but it is closer to possibility than one might imagine. The youngest reliably documented and surviving live birth was by a girl less than 6 years old. Her son died at age 40, but she herself is 89 years old, today. So while it would be an extremely rare set of medical circumstances, it is therefore theoretically possible that someone could be a grandmother at age 12, even before the teen years, bizarre as it is to discover. Even without citing such extreme examples, one could be a grandmother by age 38 with two adult pregnancies and still not have grey hair or an affection for passing out candies.
@Pengalen
@Pengalen Жыл бұрын
WRT Knowledge. I'm not unshakably attached to that definition, but it is generally applicable. I'd like to see the counterexample. Also, a counterexample of the second sort (justified true belief that is somehow not knowledge) doesn't refute that particular claim, it just means there must be an additional component that distinguishes knowledge from other justified, true beliefs. That there may be justified, true belief that is not knowledge does not mean that there is anything called knowledge that is not in the set of justified, true beliefs. I suspect the counterexamples are going to involve a justification that is unrelated to the truth of the matter, and that doesn't count as a justification in my book. Also, Whoopi Goldberg has grey hair, at least the last time I saw video of her. She is most recently on The View, saying stupid things (for which she may have been fired? Not sure). I am skeptical that impossible counterexamples can definitively refute a claim. For example, in the series of babies giving birth, it could be the case that the thing that makes it impossible for babies to give birth could be directly connected to, for example, having grey hair, in which case, your impossible example is, in some sense, just assuming the conclusion that the generality is wrong. Facts have to be consulted. Obviously, they're kind of irrelevant in this case, but hopefully the point is clear.
@krinkle909
@krinkle909 6 ай бұрын
General statements are not without exceptions. At least in sociology, general statements are the norms and counterexamples do not disprove them.
@ryam4632
@ryam4632 Жыл бұрын
7:30 - " the laws of biology, or whatever." This video summarizes well the detached nature of most philosophers's thinking.
@roholdt
@roholdt 2 ай бұрын
soooo good
@derekgarvin6449
@derekgarvin6449 Жыл бұрын
This is why we can't have nice things
@chrisw4562
@chrisw4562 Жыл бұрын
Great lecture ... except for the end. I don't buy it. How can an impossible scenario prove or disprove anything? How about I use that to disprove Newton's laws: I'll make up a story about a mass that keeps moving at constant speed, no matter what forces act on it. There you have it, Newton must be wrong! Oh wait, or is this my counterargument to prove that the claim about using impossible scenarios is wrong? Seriously, I can see how fantastic counterexamples can work for certain abstract claims, which are "fantastic" themselves. But I don't think that they can be applied to real world concepts like grandmotherhood.
@danielguala3141
@danielguala3141 11 ай бұрын
Justified true belief is not knowledge. Ask Edmun Gettier
@aleksandarnedeljkovic8104
@aleksandarnedeljkovic8104 5 ай бұрын
I don't understand this concept thing . If concept is of reality, counterexample has to be at least possible to be counterexample. Like to say humanity needs food to survive and you say there is no such thing as humanity it's all a simuation thus no food needed . Or i know a person that doesn't eat at all and so it goes for humanity .And that's valid counterexample to concept? I disagree , to be counterexample , it must be part of reality or its possibility .
@calorion
@calorion Жыл бұрын
You are very fortunate to have never heard of The View.
@saritsotangkur2438
@saritsotangkur2438 2 жыл бұрын
You can’t use a counter example of justified true belief that is not knowledge to disprove. Knowledge might only be a subset of justified true belief.
@calorion
@calorion Жыл бұрын
That would still mean that knowledge is not justified true belief. That is a *definition* of knowledge, and if it is inaccurate in any way, even by merely being insufficient, then it is wrong.
@Winasaurus
@Winasaurus Жыл бұрын
If knowledge is more than justified true belief, then the statement "Knowledge is justified true belief" is still wrong. The correct statement would be "Knowledge is justified true belief, and some other things".
@derpj7105
@derpj7105 Жыл бұрын
Why would one needs more money if they are sick (laughs in European)
The Behaviorist Theory of Mind
17:15
Jeffrey Kaplan
Рет қаралды 71 М.
What is it Like to be a Bat? - the hard problem of consciousness
30:55
Jeffrey Kaplan
Рет қаралды 538 М.
ЛУЧШИЙ ФОКУС + секрет! #shorts
00:12
Роман Magic
Рет қаралды 39 МЛН
HELP!!!
00:46
Natan por Aí
Рет қаралды 71 МЛН
СКОЛЬКО ПАЛЬЦЕВ ТУТ?
00:16
Masomka
Рет қаралды 3 МЛН
Russell's Paradox - a simple explanation of a profound problem
28:28
Jeffrey Kaplan
Рет қаралды 8 МЛН
Metaphysics and Epistemology
1:14:10
Oxford University Department for Continuing Education
Рет қаралды 289 М.
Plato's Euthyphro - Which comes first: God or Morality?
28:41
Jeffrey Kaplan
Рет қаралды 937 М.
Peter Singer - ordinary people are evil
33:51
Jeffrey Kaplan
Рет қаралды 3,9 МЛН
Functionalism
29:25
Jeffrey Kaplan
Рет қаралды 80 М.
An argument against objective morality that defeats itself
43:29
Jeffrey Kaplan
Рет қаралды 44 М.
Foucault: Power, Knowledge and Post-structuralism
46:13
Michael Sugrue
Рет қаралды 397 М.
How To Be Extraordinary - Friedrich Nietzsche (Existentialism)
26:04
Philosophies for Life
Рет қаралды 1 МЛН
The Profound Meaning of Plato's Allegory of the Cave
16:43
After Skool
Рет қаралды 1,4 МЛН
ЛУЧШИЙ ФОКУС + секрет! #shorts
00:12
Роман Magic
Рет қаралды 39 МЛН