Day 2: Universal and Existential Modifiers.
OK, the topic name sounds scary, but it's not that bad, I promise. We'll cover the vocab, and then the application.
A "Universal Modifier" is basically was we use to note a statement about all instances of something. A simple way to put it is that Universal Modifiers come in the form of "In all cases of ____." Like If I said all humans are mammals, that's a universal statement. Likewise, if I said no humans are reptiles, that is also universal. How, because it's still breaking down to "In all cases of [something being a human], it is not also a reptile."
A "Existential Modifier" is what we use to note a statement that is not about all instances. It breaks down to "In at least one case of _____." Examples: There are people that are fat, and there are people that are not fat. Two existential statements.
Now here's where it comes in more handy: the counter to any universal statement is an existential statement, and vice versa. If you're playing "Never have I ever," you experience this directly. The claim could be, for instance "never have I ever eaten a gumball." To counter that claim, you just need to show that the person claiming it had eaten a gumball at least once. The opposite is true as well. The claim that "I walked on water" can be countered with "no one walks on water." It can also be countered with "no you haven't," which is also a universal. That one breaks down to "In all cases of [me possibly walking on water], I have not walked on water."
There is one generally applicable kind of universal statement that can be proven, those that are impossible to be false. Often this is stuff that's true by definition, like my universal statements about humans. By definition, a human is a bipedal mammal of the species name "homo sapien." Therefore, by definition, anything that fits that definition is a mammal. It's impossible for it not to be true. The same works for "all squares are rectangles," since, by definition, any square also meets the requirements of the definition of rectangle, but it also happens to have four equal sides. I point this out so you don't get confused when people are able to prove some universals, but remember that generally those that can be proven are proven through reason alone, rather than needing to seek physical evidence of it. Or just forget this paragraph, I fully admit it's confusing, and I apologize for that.
Now, if you remember yesterday's post, about the burden of proof, these come in especially handy. See, you can't prove a universal, but you can disprove one. You can't disprove an existential, but you can prove one. That will help you figure out who had the burden of proof: who's claim can be proven. If someone claims "I've been robbed!" the counter is obviously "no you haven't." Now, the person who claimed that they'd been robbed just need to prove that they, in fact, have been robbed once, so the burden of proof is on them.
However, in reality and law things get messier. See, by countering the claim of "I have been robbed" with "no you haven't," you've also implied "you have lied in this case." That's a very specific existential, and in considering how it might affect court of law or even the court of public opinion, things get murky. It's possible that the person can't *prove* that they've been robbed, but they have evidence to support it (missing valuables, injuries, having traveled through an area that experiences a high rate of violent crime, etc.). In your counter, you then have to provide evidence to support your assertion that they have lied. Since you can't disprove that they've ever been robbed, you can try to find evidence that disproves some of the details, (video footage of the alleged time and location, an alibi for the accused, etc.). What I've just described is a very simplified version of how a criminal trial works, with the prosecution being the person alleging that "I have been robbed" and the defense being the person alleging "no you haven't"; or vise versa if the alleged crime is filing a false police report rather than robbery.
So, the way this particular tip/trick helps is that by learning to identify whether a claim is universal or existential, whether it's about all of something or at least one of something, you can better understand what claims people are trying to prove, and what claims they're not, because they can't. That alone won't necessarily help you get closer to the truth, but it will help you learn how to assess the evidence being presented. And also, please remember, even though in logic we know we can't prove universal statements, often people will ignore logic and insist you can. Please don't fall for it. "Proving a negative" is a form of proving a universal, so don't let people insist that you have to prove something never happened, or something can't happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment