Modus tollens
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
(Difference between revisions)
| Revision as of 20:07, 19 August 2011 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Current revision Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Template}} | {{Template}} | ||
| + | In [[classical logic]], '''''modus tollens''''' (or '''''modus tollendo tollens''''') ([[Latin language|Latin]] for "the way that denies by denying") has the following [[argument form]]: | ||
| + | :If ''P'', then ''Q''. | ||
| + | :Not ''Q''. | ||
| + | :Therefore, not ''P''. | ||
| - | The '''dysteleological argument''' or '''argument from poor design''' is an [[argument against the existence of God]], specifically against the existence of a [[creator God]] (in the sense of a God that directly created all species of life). It is based on the following chain of reasoning: | + | == See also == |
| - | + | * [[Non sequitur (logic)]] | |
| - | # An [[omnipotence|omnipotent]], [[omniscience|omniscient]], [[omnibenevolence|omnibenevolent]] creator [[God]] would [[creation myth|create]] [[organism]]s that have optimal [[design]]. | + | *[[Modus Ponens]] |
| - | # Organisms have features that are suboptimal. | + | |
| - | # Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | The [[argument]] is structured as a basic [[Modus tollens]]: if "creation" contains many defects, then design is not a plausible theory for the origin of our existence. It is most commonly used in a weaker way, however: not with the aim of disproving the existence of God, but rather as a [[reductio ad absurdum]] of the well-known [[Teleological argument|argument from design]], which runs as follows: | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | # Living things are too well-designed to have originated by chance. | + | |
| - | # Therefore, life must have been created by an intelligent creator. | + | |
| - | # This creator is God. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | The complete phrase "''argument from poor design''" has rarely been used in the literature, but arguments of this type have appeared many times, sometimes referring to ''poor design'', in other cases to ''suboptimal design'', ''unintelligent design'', or ''[[dysteleology]]''; the last is a term applied by the nineteenth-century biologist [[Ernst Haeckel]] to the implications of organs so rudimentary as to be useless to the life of an organism. Haeckel, in his book ''[[The History of Creation]]'', devoted most of a chapter to the argument, and ended by proposing, perhaps with tongue slightly in cheek, to set up "a theory of the ''unsuitability of parts'' in organisms, as a counter-hypothesis to the old popular doctrine of the ''suitability of parts''". The term ''incompetent design'' has been coined by [[Donald Wise]] of the [[University of Massachusetts]] to describe aspects of nature that are currently flawed in design. The name stems from the acronym I.D. and is used to counter-balance arguments for [[intelligent design]] by a creator that are used by creationists. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | ==See also== | + | |
| - | * [[Atavism]] | + | |
| - | * [[Vestigiality]] | + | |
| - | * [[Maladaptation]] | + | |
| - | * [[Human vestigiality]] | + | |
| - | + | ||
| {{GFDL}} | {{GFDL}} | ||
Current revision
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
In classical logic, modus tollens (or modus tollendo tollens) (Latin for "the way that denies by denying") has the following argument form:
- If P, then Q.
- Not Q.
- Therefore, not P.
[edit]
See also
Unless indicated otherwise, the text in this article is either based on Wikipedia article "Modus tollens" or another language Wikipedia page thereof used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License; or on research by Jahsonic and friends. See Art and Popular Culture's copyright notice.
