The Appeal to Closure

IQ2 Debate: Don’t Trust The Promise Of Artificial Intelligence
March 10, 2016
92nd Street Y

< 52:19

Logical Fallacies > The Appeal to Closure
some points will indeed remain unsettled, perhaps forever.


The Continuum of Understanding

By Matthew.viel – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0,

The Continuum of Understanding
Information is also not the end of the continuum of understanding. Just as data can be transformed into meaningful information, so can information be transformed into knowledge and, further, into wisdom.
By Nathan Shedroff

Data -> Information -> Knowledge -> Wisdom

The Continuum of Understanding
Information Interaction Design: Unified Field Theory of Design
Producers, consumers, context, data, information, knowledge, wisdom

Conversational acts > Conversational maxims

Paul_GriceConversational acts > Conversational maxims:

  • QUANTITY: Don’t say too much or too little
    • QUALITY: Don’t say what you don’t believe or what you have no reason to believe
    • RELEVANCE: Be relevant
      • MANNER:
        – Be brief
        – Be orderly
        – Avoid obscurity
        – Avoid ambiguity

Paul Grice

Think Again
Duke University
Coursera, September 2014


indirect speech acts
cited by:
Jenifer. June 28, 2020.

Forbes, August 14, 2014

It is rare for discourse just to serve only one function

It is rare for discourse just to serve only one function; even in a scientific treatise, discursive (logical) clarity is required, but, at the same time, ease of expression often demands some presentation of attitude or feeling—otherwise the work might be dull.

in: Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic > Common Forms and Functions of Language
Lander University
Greenwood, SC

Sorites Paradox

Sorites Paradox
Dec 6, 2011

The sorites paradox is the name given to a class of paradoxical arguments, also known as little-by-little arguments, which arise as a result of the indeterminacy surrounding limits of application of the predicates involved.
For example, the concept of a heap appears to lack sharp boundaries and, as a consequence of the subsequent indeterminacy surrounding the extension of the predicate ‘is a heap’, no one grain of wheat can be identified as making the difference between being a heap and not being a heap. Given then that one grain of wheat does not make a heap, it would seem to follow that two do not, thus three do not, and so on. In the end it would appear that no amount of wheat can make a heap.
We are faced with paradox since from apparently true premises by seemingly uncontroversial reasoning we arrive at an apparently false conclusion.

This phenomenon at the heart of the paradox is now recognised as the phenomenon of vagueness. Though initially identified with the indeterminacy surrounding limits of application of a predicate along some dimension, vagueness can be seen to be a feature of syntactic categories other than predicates.
Names, adjectives, adverbs and so on are all susceptible to paradoxical sorites reasoning in a derivative sense.


concept used by:
Logic: Language and Information 1
The University of Melbourne



In mathematical logic, satisfiability and validity are elementary concepts of semantics.
A formula is satisfiable if it is possible to find an interpretation (model) that makes the formula true.
A formula is valid if all interpretations make the formula true.

The opposites of these concepts are unsatisfiability and invalidity, that is, a formula is unsatisfiable if none of the interpretations make the formula true, and invalid if some such interpretation makes the formula false.
These four concepts are related to each other in a manner exactly analogous to Aristotle’s square of opposition.

concept used by:
Logic: Language and Information 1
The University of Melbourne

De Morgan’s laws

De Morgan’s laws’s_laws

In propositional logic and boolean algebra, De Morgan’s laws are a pair of transformation rules that are both valid rules of inference.
The rules allow the expression of conjunctions and disjunctions purely in terms of each other via negation.

The rules can be expressed in English as:
The negation of a conjunction is the disjunction of the negations.
The negation of a disjunction is the conjunction of the negations.

or informally as:
“not (A and B)” is the same as “(not A) or (not B)”
and also,
“not (A or B)” is the same as “(not A) and (not B)”

The rules can be expressed in formal language with two propositions P and Q as:

Text Searching

De Morgan’s laws commonly apply to text searching using Boolean operators AND, OR, and NOT.
Consider a set of documents containing the words “cars” or “trucks”.
De Morgan’s laws hold that these two searches will return the same set of documents:
Search A: NOT (cars OR trucks)
Search B: (NOT cars) AND (NOT trucks)