Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Here is Kurt Schlichter's latest column.

Philosophy takes its rise from common experience and from truths in principle accessible to anyone. Theology, on the other hand, has its starting point in truths that God has revealed about Himself. What distinguishes theology from faith, according to Thomas, is that theology is a more or less sophisticated reflection on believed truths that brings to bear on them whatever we know from other sources. This is the sense of the traditional view that philosophy is the handmaid of theology. Philosophy, that is, all natural knowledge, is used by the theologian in his attempts to understand what he believes.

(Ralph McInerny, Ethica Thomistica: The Moral Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, rev. ed. [Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1997], 117)

Travels (1983).

Here.

Here.

President Trump's suggestion to arm school teachers overlooks the fact that most people would be afraid to engage in a gun battle with an armed intruder on a killing spree. Witness the armed school security guard who stayed outside as the Florida shooting unfolded. To appreciate that fundamental truth, perhaps Mr. Trump should recall his own "bone spur" deferments in Vietnam.

–– Franklin Wyse, Tillamook

Here are highlights from Stage 5 of the Abu Dhabi Tour.

I'm reviewing a logic text for an academic publisher. The author strains to explain the concept of validity, using awkward terms like "hypothetical truth" and "actual truth." It's really not that hard. Validity may be explained as follows:

A valid argument is one in which the truth of the premises is incompatible with the falsity of the conclusion.

Three things follow from this definition:

1. If a particular valid argument has true premises, then it cannot, and hence does not, have a false conclusion.
2. If a particular valid argument has a false conclusion, then it cannot, and hence does not, have true premises.
3. If a particular argument has true premises and a false conclusion, then it cannot be, and hence is not, valid.

Validity is a relation between the premises and the conclusion of an argument. Soundness, by contrast, is a (compound) property of an argument. An argument is sound if and only if (1) it is valid and (2) its premises are true. A given argument may lack both of these properties. That is, it may be invalid and have one or more false premises. There is no word for this special argument other than "unsound." All we can say is that the argument is unsound twice over, or in two different ways, or that it is doubly unsound.

If you're constructing an argument, try to make it sound, for it will then have a true conclusion. (Do you see why?) If you're criticizing an argument, try to show that it is doubly unsound. There are no sweeter words in the English language than, "At least one of your premises is false; but even if all of your premises were true, your conclusion wouldn't follow from them." I tell my students to be relentless in their criticisms. There is no such thing as "piling on" when it comes to argumentation. We expect a prosecutor to bring all available charges against a given defendant. A critic should bring all available charges against a given argument. If one of your charges turns out to be false, you may fall back on the other or others. It's always good to have a fall-back position.

Merit-based immigration reform will benefit American workers and relieve the strain imposed by our current system on Federal resources. More: https://t.co/2NhTGAh7uV pic.twitter.com/lY0iOt0FCI

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) February 25, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js