Recent orders
Deductive validity according to Lewis Carroll
Deductive validity according to Lewis Carroll
Question (a)
Deductive validity refers to the fact that the premises provided upon which conclusions are being made are strong and can only lead towards one conclusion, if the premises are taken to be true. In fact, the solidity of a deductive argument significantly depends on the validity of the premises, if the premises are not valid, most likely the conclusion made from the premise is not valid as well. Key to constructing a deductively valid argument is the ability to include universal syllogism, predicate instantiation, as well as an affirmation of the antecedent. Euclid’s argument does meet the three conditions described above. The assertion that what equal the same are equal serves to establish universal syllogism, the second premise leads to predicate instantiation, as it equates the two sides of as triangle to the “same”, before reaffirming the antecedent, which is done by restating the initial premise, and relating it to the fact that the two sides are both equal to the same, essentially making them equal. Euclid’s statement is therefore deductively valid as it meets the necessary conditions, with acceptance of the two premises as true the only requirement for the conclusion to be accepted. It would not be logical to accept the first two statements as true and reject the conclusion.
Question (b)
The tortoise is unwilling to accept the conclusion because it does not fully believe in the two premises provided by Euclid’s assertion. In fact, it is perhaps plausible to claim that the tortoise does not believe in the logical truth of Euclid’s premises, which essentially means that he does not operate within the logical constants that the two premises provide. This further means that the tortoise is therefore, in a position to create other possible conclusions that are not within the logical constants provided by the two premise statements. In essence, the tortoise is not operating within the boundaries of logic, as he admits that he is willing to accept the assertions and aspersions made by the two premises but not the conclusion. As as such, it is possible to argue that the tortoise is not willing to accept not just the conclusions provided by Euclid, but also the use of logical argument. By not being bound by a need to abide by logical thought, the tortoise is not likely to agree with the logical constants applied in the argument, as well as the logical consequences normally necessary for a conclusion to be made in cases of logical arguments.
Question (c)
Lewis Carroll attempts to highlight the futility of attempting to engage in a logical argument with an entity that does not believe in operating with the logical constants usually applied in logical argument. The manner with which the tortoise continually convinces Achilles to keep on writing new premises with each attempt to convince him is proof of the fact that the tortoise was not really willing to engage in logical argument, specifically to recognize the concept of logical consequences. Furthermore, at the initial stage when the tortoise tells Achilles at the beginning of their argument, that he shall need all the leaves of the notebook, which at the beginning is almost empty. This is clear proof that the mind of the tortoise is essentially made up, and there is nothing really that Achilles can do, to convince the tortoise of the fact that by accepting the two premises, he is already reaffirming belief in the logical argument put forth by Euclid. The fact that even after reaching 1001 attempts, the tortoise still sees them proceeding with no change in opinion, is perhaps the clearest display of a lack of faith and belief in the mantra of logical argument.
Question (d)
The story of Achilles and the Tortoise casts doubt on the rational acceptability of deductive logic, because the tortoise while accepting that the first two premises are true, proceeds to reject the conclusion arising from it is a clear indication that it does not believe in the concept of logical consequence. Secondly, the tortoise’s insistence on Achille’s writing whatever premise they arrive at is most likely to demonstrated to Achille’s the futility of his attempts at convincing him using logical argument or reasons. The argument essentially served to remind all of the most important part of any argument. First, there is a huge need to establish the ground rules of argument. Without this, putting up a convincing argument, particularly using logical reasoning, can be very difficult. In essence, one comes to the realization that providing a clear connection between the premises offered and the conclusion arrived at is very important. as without proper explanation, proving proof for logical arguments and reaffirmation of the claims can only be done by appealing to the individuals belief in the process that is logical argument. This in particular, is the greatest problem faced by Achilles, as he has no tangible evidence he could use to substantiate claims within the conclusion. At the same time, being able to convince an individual through a logical argument, requires that one is conversant with the deductive logical approach, which can same plenty of time.
Reference
Carroll, L. (1895) What the Tortoise said toAchilles.
Deductive Memo
Deductive Memo
Author’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Deductive Memo
To: Charles Duane Baker, Massachusetts Governor
From: Kinn Elliot, Legislative Strategist for the Vapor Technology Association (VTA)
Date: November 22, 2019.
Re: Lifting the Temporary Vaping Ban
Greetings
This memo is created to summarize the facts that guide the recommendations of Vapor Technology Association to the Massachusetts Governor’s office regarding lifting the four-month ban the Governor instituted on September 24, 2019, on responsibly manufactured vaping products. The fundamental conviction is that these recommendations are consistent with circumventing many legal battles surrounding the ban.
The Governor’s declaration of public health emergency towards combating the epidemic of vaping-related lung injuries and the subsequent Governor’s temporary ban on vaping in Massachusetts are hereby acknowledged with the utmost respect. However, following critical evaluation and in-depth reevaluation of the current situation, we at Vapor Technology Association feel that the ban could only be a partial win for the Governor as it will only prompt more needless legal battles. Our critical analysis culminated in the identification of several facts and factors that will only plague and exacerbate the political and legal atmosphere in Massachusetts.
The first and foremost fact is that the temporary ban is controversial and precarious because it is biased in the way in which nicotine-vaping products are categorized. While we acknowledge FDA’S warning against the use of tetrahydrocannabinol-containing products, we also observe that the agency strongly emphasizes that the vaping products that pose dangers to public health are the tetrahydrocannabinol-containing products purchased on the streets because they are irresponsibility manufactured and unregulated (Hernandez, 2019; O’Connor, 2012). So, when launching this crackdown, responsibly manufactured commercial vaping products that contain only nicotine and not tetrahydrocannabinol should have been exempted as they adhere to the standards provided regarding regulating the amount of nicotine. By failing to acknowledge the existence of responsible and standards-driven manufacturers of nicotine-flavored vaping products, this ban is simply an executive overreach that will drag the Governor into more legal battles without a doubt.
The second fact is that the ban will not be a long-term solution to the vaping crisis because it is flawed. One of its flaws, identified by Judge Donald Wilkins, is the failure to address whether the public health emergency exists only for adult users of vaping products or for both adult and young users. Critically, the ban is based chiefly on the epidemic of lung injuries among young users of nicotine-vaping products (Garrison, 2019; Raymond, 2019). Indeed, this fault was the basis upon which Judge Wilkins recommended the resubmission of the order covering nicotine products as an emergency directive. Another flaw of this ban is that it does serve the interests of the public per se. This is because it will stimulate many ex-smokers of tobacco who had switched to e-cigarettes to return to heavy smoking of cigars, a fact that Siegel, a Boston University professor of community health sciences, confirms (Garrison, 2019). By creating circumstances that force ex-smokers to return to their smoking behaviors, this ban will trigger more public health concerns, thereby culminating in many potential lawsuits.
The third fact is that this ban is a dreadful recipe for legal battles because it will facilitate the creation of new black markets that sell unregulated and subpar vaping products in Massachusetts. We are wary that when responsibly manufactured flavored vaping products are completely swept out, nicotine users will not just quit. Siegel corroborates our concern by maintaining that the Governor’s ban will stimulate the formation of black markets that sell unregulated vaping products (Garrison, 2019). For this reason, some nicotine users and ex-smokers will turn to cigarette smoking while a significant majority will resort to seeking unregulated vaping-product black markets. They will do so to continue sourcing flavored e-cigars, which are a preference for many adults and youths as Satel (2019) submits. What this means is that the political move of banning responsibly manufactured vaping products will only brace the use of dubious and bootleg vaping products, leading to unprecedented legal problems. It is worth recalling that black markets do not only exacerbate the challenges of legal product regulation but also complicate policy-centered efforts to combat crises (Maloney & Hernandez, 2019).
Based on these three facts, it is evidence that the ban will more likely exacerbate the vaping crisis than mitigate it. Eventually, the exacerbation of the crisis will yield more lawsuits and legal battles than legitimate solutions. Therefore, our recommendation and appeal to the Massachusetts Governor are that he changes his mind and lift this ban towards avoiding such further legal battles. The Governor needs to know that the relative safety of e-cigarettes has been documented across other states in the United States. He also needs to appreciate the research-based confirmation that responsibly produced vaping products have played an irrefutable role in lessening the adult smoking rate to 14%, along with curtailing the youth smoking prevalence (Prochaska & Benowitz, 2019; Rhoades et al., 2019; Satel, 2019). While the ethos of banning vaping is the relative risk involved, research outcomes confirm the benefits of smoking harm reduction through vaping. So, the Governor is entreated to lift this ban and look for better alternatives to dealing with the epidemic of vaping-related lung injuries because targeting responsible producers of regulated vaping products will only stimulate needless legal battles.
Respectfully
Kinn Elliot.
References
O’Connor, R. J. (2012). Non-cigarette tobacco products: what have we learnt and where are we headed?. Tobacco control, 21(2), 181-190.
Prochaska, J. J., & Benowitz, N. L. (2019). Current advances in research in treatment and recovery: Nicotine addiction. Science advances, 5(10), eaay9763.
Rhoades, D. A., Comiford, A. L., Dvorak, J. D., Ding, K., Hopkins, M., Spicer, P., … & Doescher, M. P. (2019). Vaping patterns, nicotine dependence and reasons for vaping among American Indian dual users of cigarettes and electronic cigarettes. BMC public health, 19(1), 1211.
Hernandez, S. (October 04, 2019). The US Government Is Now Warning People Not To Use Any Vaping Products With THC. Buzz Feed News. Retrieved November 22, 2019, from https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/no-vaping-thc-warning-fda.
Maloney, J., & Hernandez, D. (October 06, 2019). Vaping’s black market complicates efforts to combat crises. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved November 22, 2019, from https://www.wsj.com/articles/vapings-black-market-complicates-efforts-to-combat-crises-11570354204.
Raymond, N. (October 21, 2019). Massachusetts vaping sales ban can stand but needs fixes: Judge. Thompson Reuters. Retrieved November 22, 2019, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-vaping-massachusetts/massachusetts-vaping-sales-ban-can-stand-but-needs-fixes-judge-idUSKBN1X01SL.
Garrison, J. (October 21, 2019). Massachusetts vaping ban can stand for now, but state must fix flaws in a week, judge says. USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC. Retrieved November 22, 2019, from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/21/judge-rules-massachusetts-vaping-ban-can-stand-if-issues-addressed/4051203002/.
Satel, S. (October 23, 2019). The vaping overreaction. The Atlantic. Retrieved November 22, 2019, from https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/danger-vaping-bans/600451/.
No representation of allocentric space has been found in the brain
No representation of allocentric space has been found in the brain
Critically evaluate this statement.
The question of how animals and humans navigate is a fundamental research problem upon which there has been much experimentation and debate, and so it is necessary to refine the title to a specific point. As Tolman (1948) established that rats can solve spatial problems too complex for a purely stimulus-response system to solve, and that therefore some kind of neural map is necessary for navigation, this essay will basically address the question of whether the brain forms an allocentric (which is independent of the organism) or an egocentric (based on the organism’s own perception of the surroundings) view of the environment. For the purpose of simplicity this essay will concern itself with only the brain of a rat.
This essay will thus discuss the evolution of relevant behaviourist and neurophysiological theories, the most important being O’Keefe (1991); Muller, Kubie, Bostock, Taube and Quirk (1991); and Rolls (1991).
The behaviourist theories proposed that a reward or aversive object/event will motivate a rat to move towards or away from the location along a reward gradient, and this has been shown to be the case with rats in a maze situation (O’Keefe, 1983). Indeed, this situation does not require the rat to have a concept of absolute space; it may depend on associations between cues and responses which are provided by the maze structure itself. However, O’Keefe & Nadel (1978) identified spatial behaviours which they argued would require the existence of an allocentric map: detection of changes within the environment; navigation to the goal from a different starting location; and perhaps most importantly detour behaviour, which required the adaptation of novel behaviour to find the goal after the usual route had been blocked in some way.
Further support was added by Collett et al (1986). They trained gerbils to find seeds located at a central point between two landmarks, and upon moving these landmarks further apart rather than searching at a point equidistant, which would suggest an egocentric view of the environment, they searched at the same distance from each of the landmarks. This would suggest that they had formed a map or reference framework of the environment that was based on cues from this environment. Wilkie & Palfrey (1987) and Zipser (1986) argued that this framework could still be animal-centred, in that it forms an egocentric matrix of the environment and then transforms this as it moves around in the environment, or as the environment itself changes.
Morris (1981) was able to show in that a hippocampal lesion affects a rat’s ability to learn to return to a safe position in a milk maze, it became clear that a neurophysiological approach to the question may be useful.
O’Keefe (1991) suggested that “place cells” in the pyramidal CA1 and CA3 regions, which fire when the rat is in a particular location in the environment, defies the behaviourist argument: the place coding fires at a constant rate (albeit in different locations in CA1 and CA3 regions) independent of the location of the goal, and this firing rate does not change when the goal itself is moved, which suggests that the mapping is not motivational. However, this place coding continues after landmark cues are removed, which suggests that they could be tuned to locations due to the rat’s egocentric concept of the environment, rather than an allocentric map influenced by the environment. Indeed Taube et al (1990) suggested that these place cells were in fact perceptual cells in the post-subiculum tuned to a “local view”: what the rat sees at a particular place where it must make a critical decision about which way to turn to reach a location, because the cell firing was also dependent on the direction the rat was looking in the environment. One limitation of this view is that this directional specificity was much less common in an open unstructured environment.
Muller et al (1991) challenged both the allocentric map and local view models. They found that as well as “place cells” there was apparent in the brain “region cells” which were active in broad and importantly functional regions of the environment. Not only did this suggest that the hippocampal map was distorted in some way, but it also challenges the local view theory in that there would be lots of different “views” from just one region’s firing. This seems to suggest, however, that the hippocampal map does indeed represent a more functional property related to behaviour; for example, a region defined as a wall would coincide with a reason to stop searching in that location for food.
Rolls (1991) examined the functional anatomy of the CA3 cells and suggests an auto-associative matrix memory system. The CA3 system is highly interconnected and there is a relatively high probability (about 3.9%) that a neurone will connect with a neighbouring cell, and the cells respond to a stimulus only from a certain location and then fire others which could then provide an overall map of the environment. This is useful as the a snapshot of a scene will allow retrieval all the relevant locations of objects within the environment, allowing completion in recall. This anatomy also allows Hebbian learning, that is, strongly activated cells will form stronger links with other cells. This means that as the rat learns about its environment different synaptic weights can be attached to different objects or locations.
Rolls (1991) used further anatomical details to suggest how this system could provide an allocentric or egocentric concept of the environment. He hypothesised that as place-coded neurones on the upper layers of the antorhinal cortex are the route of entry of information into the system the CA3 pyramidal cells could make possible calculations of vectors to the location of objects, this is a neurophysiological basis for how animals might represent and navigate in their egocentric environment using the hippocampal region of the brain. Rolls (1991) also suggested that as the subiculum region also receives inputs from brain regions associated with incentives e.g. the amygdala and anterior thalamus, this is a good candidate for the structure responsible for performing goal and aversive movement vectors. This gives credence to behavioural factors involved in map formation, and implies that as this behavioural is goal-oriented, it may also be egocentric.
Muller et al (1991) go on to conclude that there is a map in the hippocampus, but it is topological rather than metric. They suggest that there is at first a only a behavioural basis for the formation of a neural map, and then a spatial map arises only because rats learn that they do certain things in certain places; thus there are then both behavioural and spatial causes for map formation, and their use is dependent on the circumstance. This suggests that the map is at first egocentric, and then as rats have more time to experience their environment an allocentric map is formed with motivational aspects included.
Muller et al (1991) also suggest that the theory of place cells as an egocentric map is unreliable because of the issue of locomotion. They suggested that the firing of place cells would be in some way connected to the movement of the rat, yet the same place cells fire when the rat is moved around the environment by hand or in a special cylinder carrier. Furthermore, place cells will fire in the specific field, independently of how the rat reached this location. To me this strongly suggests that the place cells are triggered by environmental cues rather than by the movement vectors of the rat, because the rat can no longer be using an egocentric map to calculate movement vectors in order to find its way around, and it must be using an allocentric representation of the environment. However, it is still possible that, as Muller et al (1991) suggest, this allocentric representation was formed after goal-oriented behaviour had formed an egocentric map.
In answer to the main question it seems possible to conclude that there is some strong evidence for an allocentric representation of the environment in rats. Although the neurophysiological examination given by Rolls (1991) strongly suggests that there is a strong motivational aspect to the formation of a spatial map, which suggests that it is egocentric map, there can be a number of different interpretations. Muller et al’s (1991) conclusion that there is a behavioural and allocentric spatial map operating seems to be reasonable. Intuitively it makes sense that an organism’s first representation of its environment would be based on its motivations since they are most important to its survival, but it also seems reasonable that once this map has been formed a general spatial map would be formed, especially as the location of goals in the environment is likely to change, and so the organism must be adaptable to allow it to use its allocentric map to find the new location of the goal. This is backed by O’Keefe & Nadel’s (1978) finding of detour behaviour, and also by O’Keefe (1991) in that place cell firing is not related to distance to goal. It would be interesting to see if a study could show that there is indeed a change between a motivational map and a general spatial map, as a rat becomes more accustomed to its environment.
References
Collett, T.S., Cartwright, B.A. & Smith, B.A. (1986)Landmark learning and visuo-spatial memories in gerbils. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 158, 835-51.
Morris, R.C. (1981) Spatial localization does not depend on the presence of local cues. Learning and motivation, 12, 239-60.
Muller, R.U., Kubie, J.L., Bostock, E.M., Taube, J.S. and Quirk, G.J. (1991) Spatial firing correlates of neurones in the hippocampus of freely moving rats. In J.Paillard (Ed) Brain and Space: OUP.
O’Keefe, J. (1983) Spatial memory within and without the hippocampal system. In Neurobiology of the hippocampus (ed. W.Seifert), pp. 375-403. Academic Press, London.
O’Keefe, J. (1991) The hippocampus cognitive map and navigational strategies. In J.Paillard (Ed) Brain and Space: OUP.
O’Keefe, J. & Nadel, L. (1978) The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Clarendon, Oxford.
Rolls, E.T. (1991) Functions of the primate hippocampus in spatial processing and memories. In J.Paillard (Ed) Brain and Space: OUP.
Taube, J.S., Muller, R.U., Ranck, J.N.Jr. (1990) Head-direction cells recorded from the post-subiculum in freely moving rats. I. Description and quantitative analysis. Journal of Neuroscience, 10, 420-35.
Tolman, E.C. (1948) Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychology Review, 40, 60-70.
Wilkie, D.M. & Palfrey, R. (1987) A computer simulation model of rats’ place navigation in the Morris water mave. Behavioural Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 19, 400-3.
Zipser, D. (1986) Biologically plausibly models of place recognition and goal location. Parallel distributed processing. Exploration in the microstructure of cognition. Vol. 2. Psychological and biological models (ed. J.L.McClelland, D.E.Rumelhart, and the PDP Research Group), pp.432-70. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.