# The Presup Challenge

**The Presup Challenge:**

Define a formal logic, complete with syntax, semantics, a deductive system, and a meta-theory. Then we can talk about whether it’s absolute or not.

**UPDATE: The Beginner Presup Challenge**

Complete this logic practice quiz:

Which of the following are well-formed formulas:

1. ¬¬P

2. (¬P ↔Q ⊃ R)

3. (Q v (P ↔R))

4. (P **∧** Q ∧ R)

5. (P ∨ Q)

Construct truth tables for the following:

1. ¬

2. ↔

3. ⊃

4. C

5. ∨

6. ⊻

Conduct a Moorean Shift on the following:

(P ∨ Q) ⊃R

R

∴ (P ∨ Q)

Advertisements

So, the “presup challenge” is to skip past the basic foundations of logic, accessible to every rational human, and check if they have read the same books you have (i.e western studies) Can’t get to splitting hairs until the foundation is firm. If the foundation is faulty, no point to noodle around here.

The presup challenge just

isthe basic foundations of logic. Just like philosophy of science is the basic foundation of science. It’s just that the “basic foundations” aren’t simple, they’re incredibly complex. To see what I mean, open up the Principia Mathematica by Russell and Whitehead, turn to page 378, and look at the proof that 1+1=2.So the ‘beginner challenge’ looks to me like straight out of a first year undergraduate logic textbook. And the original ‘challenge’ out of a more advanced logic textbook! The former could be answered using Wikipedia, and the latter by learning some more serious logic!

What, then, is the aim of the ‘presup challenge’ other than to display what you yourself have read?

…and the latter by learning some more serious logic!Exactly! Sye et. al just don’t know logic. Education is the cure.

What, then, is the aim of the ‘presup challenge’ other than to display what you yourself have read?To get presups to read as well.

But I was confused as to why you felt the need to post a load of impressive-looking and bewildering logical symbols to make this point. How is this a ‘challenge’, and who is it for? If this blog isn’t aimed at professional philosophers and others with a firm grasp of formal logic, then why introduce such blatant use of syntax if not to display what you yourself may know?

But I was confused as to why you felt the need to post a load of impressive-looking and bewildering logical symbols to make this point.For the same reason I would do so if we were talking about calculus. This is what logic

is.If this blog isn’t aimed at professional philosophers and others with a firm grasp of formal logicIt’s not. But if the topic is logic, I’m going to talk about logic, not some vague thing that hints at logic (like Sye does).

then why introduce such blatant use of syntax if not to display what you yourself may know?Because logic without syntax is like English without morphemes. Meaningless.

Well if the impression you want to give is somebody who has read / been taught a load of logic, then very well. But anyone can learn a load of logic. To me, using logical symbols to look impressive and to serve no explanatory function for your readership is unimpressive – this is why I am failing to see to whom this post is addressed, if not for those already proficient in logic.

If I’m talking about set theory, I’m going to use symbols like ∀, ∃, and ∈. If I’m talking about calculus, I’m going to use symbols like ∫ and Δ. Does this mean I’m trying to look impressive? Of course not, it’s just what you have to do if you want to talk about it.

this is why I am failing to see to whom this post is addressed, if not for those already proficient in logic.It’s addressed to presuppositionalists.

Right, okay. I see where you’re getting at now.