{"id":9869,"date":"2012-03-10T16:11:36","date_gmt":"2012-03-10T16:11:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2012\/03\/10\/the-stromboli-puzzle\/"},"modified":"2012-03-10T16:11:36","modified_gmt":"2012-03-10T16:11:36","slug":"the-stromboli-puzzle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2012\/03\/10\/the-stromboli-puzzle\/","title":{"rendered":"The Stromboli Puzzle"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/maverickphilosopher.typepad.com\/.a\/6a010535ce1cf6970c016302afc0b7970d-pi\" style=\"display: inline;\"><img decoding=\"async\" alt=\"Stromboli_0607\" border=\"0\" class=\"asset  asset-image at-xid-6a010535ce1cf6970c016302afc0b7970d\" src=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.typepad.com\/.a\/6a010535ce1cf6970c016302afc0b7970d-800wi\" title=\"Stromboli_0607\" \/><\/a><br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Here is another puzzle London Ed may enjoy.&#0160; Is the following argument valid or invalid:<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">An island volcano exists.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Stromboli is an island volcano.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Ergo<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Stromboli exists.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">The argument appears valid, does it not?&#0160; But&#0160;it can&#39;t be valid if it falls afoul of the dreaded <em>quaternio terminorum<\/em>, or &#39;four-term fallacy.&#39;&#0160; And it looks like it does.&#0160; On the standard Frege-Russell analysis, &#39;exists&#39; in the major is a second-level predicate: it predicates of the concept <em>island volcano<\/em> the property of being instantiated, of having one or more instances.&#0160; &#39;Exists&#39; in the conclusion, however, cannot possibly be taken as a second-level predicate: it cannot possibly be taken to predicate instantiation of&#0160; Stromboli.&#0160; &quot;Exists&#39; in the conclusion is a first-level predicate.&#0160; Since &#39;exists&#39; is used in two different senses, the argument is invalid.&#0160; And yet it certainly appears valid.&#0160; How solve this?<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">(<em>Addendum, Sunday morning<\/em>: this is not a good example for reasons mentioned in the ComBox.&#0160; But my second example does the trick.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">The same problem arise with this argument:<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Stromboli exists.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Stromboli is an island volcano.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Ergo<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">An island volcano exists.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">This looks to be an instance of Existential Generalization.&#0160; How can&#0160;it fail to be valid?&#0160; But how can it be valid given the equivocation on &#39;exists&#39;?&#0160; Please don&#39;t say the the first premise is redundant.&#0160; If Stromboli did not exist, if it were a Meinongian nonexistent object, then <em>Existential<\/em> Generalization could not be performed, given, as Quine says, that &quot;Existence is what existential quantification expresses.&quot;<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is another puzzle London Ed may enjoy.&#0160; Is the following argument valid or invalid: An island volcano exists.Stromboli is an island volcano.ErgoStromboli exists. The argument appears valid, does it not?&#0160; But&#0160;it can&#39;t be valid if it falls afoul of the dreaded quaternio terminorum, or &#39;four-term fallacy.&#39;&#0160; And it looks like it does.&#0160; On the &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2012\/03\/10\/the-stromboli-puzzle\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;The Stromboli Puzzle&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[142,408,108],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9869","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-existence","category-language-philosophy-of","category-logica-docens"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9869","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9869"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9869\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9869"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9869"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9869"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}