Causal Reasoning vs Conditional Reasoning vs Other Reasoning

mt10087

Long question! Thought it would be helpful to keep everything organized in one place to hear the thoughts of folks as the questions below all seem to have a common thread and could help the next person.

1) How is an argument proven without conditional or causal reasoning?

Not all works of art represent something, but some do, and their doing so is relevant to our aesthetic experience of them; representation is therefore an aesthetically relevant property. Whether a work of art possesses this property is dependent upon context. Yet there are no clear criteria for determining whether context-dependent properties are present in an object, so there cannot be any clear criteria for determining whether an object qualifies as art.

2) How do you determine if statements are causal or conditional if a stimulus contains both indicators? After that, how are they diagrammed?

There is no genuinely altruistic behavior. Everyone needs to have sufficient amount of self-esteem, which crucially depends on believing oneself to be useful and needed. Behavior that appears to be altruistic can be understood as being motivated by the desire to reinforce that belief, a clearly self-interested motivation.

As a political system, democracy does not promote political freedom. There are historical examples of democracies that ultimately resulted in some of the most oppressive societies. Likewise, there have been enlightened despotisms and oligarchies that have provided a remarkable level of political freedom to their subjects.

Climate and geology determine where human industry can be established. Drastic shifts in climate always result in migrations, and migrations bring about the intermingling of ideas necessary for rapid advances in civilization.

joycool9567

For q1
I do think this is a conditional reasoning .

NOT all artistic works represent something but some do.

This means some artworks represent something while others dont represent anything

So
AW somr Represent something
AW some RS not

Because Aw represent something and representing so is relevant to our experience it is aesthetically relevant property
the author establishes the premise

AW some RS -> ARP

He further goes on and says that this Arp is dependent upon context so

AW some RS -> ARP -> context

He then says we cant determine whether something has context dependent properties there fore we cant detetmine whether any object is art .

What he is trying to say is because the last necessary condition .. context ...cannot be proven to be there or not we cannot determine whether something is art

Following the condtional chain we cant determine context is there then we cant know ARP is there we dont know whether art represent something.

Of course it is unclear whether there is no criteria for determining somethings would immediately mean negation of necessary condition but I think it is safe to say you can negate it. If there is no criteria to determine only necessary condition , as the reasoning goes, we cant determine whether sufficient is there .

For instance suppose the only way to determine whether something is an apple is to identify it is red.

I do not have any method or criteria to classify something that is not red from red.

Then i cannot relaibly say anything is apple.

For one this reasoning is logically fallacious.

1. Just because ARP depends on context it does not mean context is the only n.c for ARP.

What if ARP also depends on Idk... for instance their drawing style or something. If I can determine drawing style I may be able to determine whether it is ARP or not

1. More fundamentally however the conclusion cannot be drawn at all.

The entire chain of reasoning established applies only for some art work that represent something. So even if it were true the author cant claim anything about all artworks.

For other artworks that represent nothing we dont have any idea. What if these artworks have no relevance to context? Then just because we cant determine their context that doesnt mean we cant determine it is artwork.

For instance there may be one artwork that represents nothing and it depends on whether it appeals to our emotion. Then if we can determine whether something is emotionally appealing or not we can determine that it is in fact an artwork.

I dont know if this answers your question and not sure if I am right either but I do think this is a conditional logic.

mt10087

Thanks! It can take a long time to identify the perfect example to a question, and it is one of the reasons why I hesitate putting out examples to questions. I don't want the example to divert attention away from answering the original question but for it to bring some clarity to an area of confusion.

I understand how it may be proven through conditional reasoning. But are there other methods to determine the validity of this type of question where the conditional reasoning may not be reliable (or even obscured) or may not even exists, especially during the time constraints of the test?

mt10087

Btw, your ability to process and tackle the question is amazing.