(Part 2) Best philosophy of logic books according to redditors
We found 294 Reddit comments discussing the best philosophy of logic books. We ranked the 125 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
Having just finished first year philosophy, I believe my notes can be of assistance.
My textbook breaks it down in sections of Fallacies, i'll give as brief a rundown as possible of them.
I. Fallacies in Supporting a Claim
> A. Five Fallacies of Relevance
>1. Appeal to Ignorance (Ad Ignorantium) - The fallacy of believing that the fact that something has not been proven wrong is proof that is is true. Example: "Of course I believe in ESP (extra-sensory perception). No one has ever demonstrated that it doesn't exist."
>
>2. Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (Ad Verucundiam) - The fallacy of supporting beliefs or arguments with evidence from an untrustworthy, or "inappropriate" source. Example: This would occur, for example, if you based your financial decisions solely on the recommendations of your hairstylist. My textbook has an interesting anecdote about Aldous Huxley advocating some weird eye exercises named the Bates method. This method was total bullshit, but people bought into it because Mr. Huxley was an inappropriate authority in the field of optometry, but an appropriate authority in the field of literature. That is an appeal to inappropriate authority.
>
>3. Appeal to General Belief (Ad Populum) - The fallacy wherein a claim is assumed to be true simply because a general majority of people believe it to be true. Example: "People have always had gods that they've worshipped, so god must exist."
>
>4. Appeal to Popular Attitudes and Emotions (Also referred to as Ad Populum) - The fallacy of appealing to popular attitudes and emotions, including (but not limited to) prejudices, racial fears, patriotic impulses, and the desire to identify with a special group. Example: "Why was going to war with Iraq right? it was right because america is the greatest country on the planet, that's why."
>
>5. Gambler's Fallacy - This one is tough to explain without an Example: "The law of averages says that a fair coin flip will land on heads 50% of the time, and tails 50% of the time. The last 10 coin flips have been heads, so we're due for tails this next flip. Everybody bet on tails!" This one is basically a mental crutch that keeps us doing something based on a skewed understanding of probability.
>
>> B. Two Fallacies of Inadequate Evidence
>>
>>1. False Cause (Post Hoc) - This fallacy is when one event occurs directly before another, and therefore is assumed to have caused the subsequent event. Example: "The train pulled into the station just before the old man fell down the steps. Trains are assaulting our elderly!"
>>
>>2. Hasty Generalization - This fallacy occurs when an inadequate sample size or set of cases is used to make a generalization about certain people, things, or otherwise broad categories. Example: "A therapist sees 2 clients in one morning. Both clients lie to the therapist. We can therefore conclude that all clients lie to their therapists."
>>> C. Four Fallacies of Illegitimate Assumption
>>>
>>>1. False Dilemma - This fallacy occurs when we are forced to choose between a set of alternatives. It is most easily explained in the simplest form, one with only two alternatives. it consists of giving arguments that present alternatives as exhaustive (meaning there is no other options to be included in the potential alternatives) and exclusive (the alternatives cannot be combined, you must choose one or the other, not some of one, and some of the other). Example: "Either you're with us, or against us. You're obviously not with us, so you're against us."
>>>
>>>2. Loaded Question - This fallacy is when one attempts to get an answer to a question which assumes the truth of an unproven assumption. Example: "Hey Jim, are you still beating your wife?"
>>>
>>>3. Begging the Question (Petito Principii) - This has two types, the first is when the conclusion supports the premise of an argument, best offered with an Example: "James is a murderer because he wrongfully killed someone." The premise (James wrongfully killed someone) logically supports the conclusion (that he is a murderer), but there is not corroborating evidence to the premise. This particular type of fallacy is the one I had the most difficulty with. The second type of this fallacy is also called circular logic and occurs in this typical form, for Example: "A because B, B because C, C because A." This poses a problem because the conclusion supports the premise which supports the conclusion. It's a cascading effect of bad logic.
>>>
>>>4. Slippery Slope - This occurs when one assumes that because there is little to no difference between adjacent points on a continuum, then there must be little to no different between to points spaced even more widely apart. Example: "The speed limit is 50MPH, but 51 MPH is only 1 MPH faster, so that's not an issue, and 52MPH is only 1MPH faster than that, so one or two miles per hour over the speed limit isn't a big deal.... And 75MPH is only 1MPH faster... and 250MPH is only 1MPH faster, so there's really no difference between
50MPH and
250MPH"
II. Fallacies od Criticism and Response
> A. Five Fallacies of Criticism
>
>1. Against the Person (Ad Hominem) - This fallacy is quite simple to understand, and occurs when a person's argument is deemed false due to an attack on the person who made the argument, not an evaluation of the argument. Example: Steve told me that research about crime rates shows a decline in the past 10 years. But Steve's such an asshole, there's no way he's right."
>
>2. *You To (Tu Quoque) - This fallacy is a subset of Against the Person (Ad Hominem) and is pretty simple to explain. If your response to an argument is "You do it too!" then you are committing this fallacy. It's a fancy way of saying "NO U!" is a fallacy.
>
>3. Pooh-pooh - This fallacy is the act of dismissing the argument of another by ridiculing it as unworthy of serious consideration. Example: "Stacy was trying to argue that despite many years of balancing in the workplace, there is still a statistical margin between the payment women receive for performing the same jobs as men. As far as i'm concerned, we don't need to waste time paying attention to her claims. It's just more feminist bullshit."
>
>4. Straw-Man - This fallacy is committed when one side of an argument is over-simplified by the other, often to a sort of caricature, or when the person delivering the argument skirts around the crux of the issue. Specifically, it occurs when someone is either evasive on the subject of the argument, or grossly misrepresents it to the point where it is almost indistinguishable. Some common Examples: "Obama's health care plan wants to create committees to kill your grandparents! Obamacare has Death Panels!" Or, alternatively; "The theory of evolution boils down to the idea that man evolved from apes."
>
>5. Loaded Words - This fallacy is unfortunately one of the most pervasive in modern media. Loaded word fallacies occur when words with specific and well-known connotations are used in what should be logical arguments, or factual accounts. Such words are judgmental in that they implant certain imagery into the reader's head, when there ought to be nothing but pure facts to base on opinion on. Example: Pick up a newspaper, or watch Fox news. These fallacies are often included within the "begging the question" fallacies.
>> B. Two Fallacies of Defense
>>
>>1. Definitional Dodge - This occurs when someone changes the definition of a term that is crucial in a claim to avoid confronting an example that might prove them wrong. For Example: Suppose that Smith claims "All pornography demeans women," and Hopkins responds by asking "What a bout John Cleland's Fanny Hill? It's generally considered pornographic, but it doesn't demean women." Hopkins has offered a case as a counterexample to Smith. If Smith were to state that Fanny Hill does demean women, his argument may very well be a sound one. However is he says something like "Then Fanny Hill is not pornography, because all pornography is demeaning to women," then he is committing a definitional dodge.
>>
>>2. Exceptions that Prove the Rule - This one is actually based on a lack of understanding regarding the definition of a word within a common phrase. "Prove" can mean to either establish as true, or to test, to try out. In the phrase "exception that prove the rule", it is wholly ambiguous in meaning. This saying is often mistaken to mean "an exception that establishes the truth", when it actually means "an exception to a rule is a test of the rule." Example:
>>
>> Wexford: "Women novelists have been nothing more than entertainers, None has been truly outstanding."
>>
>> Chang: "Aren't you forgetting about Jane Austen and Mary Ann Evans?"
>>
>> Wexford: "No, they're just exceptions that prove the rule. We look to women writers for amusement, not literature."
>>
>> If Wexford is prepared to admit that the cases mentioned by Chang are outstanding novelists, then Wexford's claim cannot be true. The
>> counterexamples test it and prove it false.
EDIT:** I'll include this amendment to the previous fallacy that was provided by PickledWhispers. I won't delete my answer, since I have no idea if it actually is false now, since it's almost word-for-word from my textbook. Anyway, here's PickledWhisper's amendment
That's about all I have. For the record, you should try and pick up a copy of Elements of Reasoning, as it was the textbook I used to give you this info. It also covers valid argument forms, some rules for writing, argument analysis, and a bunch of other stuff.
Much of this information is either word-for-word, or paraphrased from the above textbook, and not entirely my own (though some of it is). I really recommend you take a first-year philosophy class if this stuff is of any interest to you. I really enjoyed my first year Philosophy class, and will probably take more of them in the future, even though it's not my major.
I wasn't taught it until recently, when I got into philosophy at uni. The way I've learnt it (and the way most tend to) is through studying logic. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy has a good page on informal logic here.
If you want to learn more about logic itself, I would recommend reading into it with the relevant texbooks, such as Patrick J Hurley's concise introduction to logic or Samuel Guttenplan's The Languages of Logic. I would highly recommend the first, over the second. If you can't buy the books, there's a good series on formal logic here that I've gone through, before.
It can be a hard thing to learn, but it is extremely rewarding. Logic gets you to think with better clarity, deconstruct ideas better and make stronger arguments. Best of luck!
William Lycan's Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction is very helpful and comprehensive as an overview.
As for really famous primary works in the field, you might want to check these out:
Truth and Meaning
Tarski's The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics
Quine's Two Dogma's of Empiricism
Davidson's Truth and Meaning
Pragmatics
Austin's How to Do Things with Words
Grice's Logic and Conversation
Reference
Donellen's Reference and Definite Descriptions
Kripke's Naming and Necessity
Wittgenstein
Primary Lit:
Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations and Tractatus (obviously)
Secondary Lit (I'm only well versed on the secondary lit for the later Wittgenstein, so I'll give you that):
Marie McGinn's Routledge Guide
John McDowell's Wittgenstein on Following a Rule
Meredith Williams' Wittgenstein, Mind, and Meaning
----
Hope that helps!
EDIT: Added a lot
Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" and Sellars's "Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind" might be decent places to start familiarizing yourself with analytic philosophy after the demise (in effect) of logical positivism.
Awesome! My educational background is in Philosophy. I know it's not popular to go around listing fallacies and forms in logic, but understanding them and how they work has been instrumental to my understanding of persuasion (especially of the moral kind). Just reading the first four of five chapters of this logic textbook could help fortify your case for language. I wish you the best of luck!
Edit: Add: For example, one of the most popular fallacies is of course the ad hominem: "Stuart's arguments on climate change are irrelevant because he hates children and is mean to small animals." You can see how this works to undermine the speaker and appeal to the emotions of the reader, making them wonder if indeed such an awful person could really care for the environment.
Here are the links!
Hope it helps!
Books:
Intro Logic book
Ethics anthology
Philo of religion anthology
Introductory Philosophy
Blogs:
Fides et Ratio
Rocket Philosophy
Philosophical Disquisitions
I'd recommend reading the books first. The logic book is a good start, then Philosophical Horizons.
edit:
Random dicking around:
SEP
Take an online course such as Think Again: How to Reason and Argue. The same material is also covered in the book Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic. The online course Fundamentals: Introduction to Critical Thinking is also worth checking out. But what is most important: all of what you learn about critical thinking needs to be practiced on a regular basis.
A cheap physical copy, a used 11th edition, can be had for $30 or so! https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0495601586/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1474483552&sr=1-2&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=hausman+logic+and+philosophy&dpPl=1&dpID=51C3HrrXfuL&ref=plSrch
Thinking With Concepts by John Wilson is a great place to start. Wilson gives you the tools you need to think critically about things around you going forward. For example, a person before reading the book may read A People's History of the United States and simply take everything at face value (or agree with it because it agrees with them). However, if you really apply the critical thinking skills in Wilson's book, you may question some of what Zinn has to say. (Howard Zinn happens to be someone I really admire. I have only used his book as an example.)
After that, for me the books that have made me more intelligent have been philosophy books (they make me see things from a different perspective, they get my mind moving), computer science / math books (an interest of mine), some science books, general non-fiction, and so on.
This book is quite well known and renowned: https://www.amazon.com/Art-Reasoning-Introduction-Critical-Thinking/dp/0393930785
> The thing is, we have limited public safety budgets. My personal opinion is that we should use them to maximize the lives we can save. If data -- not personal anecdotes and opinions -- demonstrates that bikes are killing people at a rate that demands attention, fine. However, as I linked above, there have been no traffic deaths this year caused by cycling. Meanwhile, there are 35+ that have been caused by car drivers.
Him.
>So, death rate is the only factor considered when determining what warrants action? all of the data related to inuuries and MVAs caused by cyclists should be completely ignored?
You.
You couldn't get what you wanted out of him, so you took the course of the conversation to it's logical extreme. He said, maximize the lives you can save. You then turn it out to be "well, since deaths are everything, throw away all the rest of the shit that happens." Cranked it to 100.
Just because you don't know how the appeal to extremes works, doesn't mean you didn't use it.
Then, after I called you out on your foul play, you only said:
>Abudcto ad absurdism doesn't mean what you think it means and doesn't apply to this discussion. Don't try to use terms you don't fully understand.
You did not state why, only that it "somehow didn't", then used your ad hominem to say "you don't belong at this table, boy!"
You think you're right, but you're not. And that's OK. Good luck in the future, and for further reading:
https://www.amazon.com/Logically-Fallacious-Ultimate-Collection-Fallacies/dp/1456607529
> Hahaha, very amusing as I was just thinking the same thought to myself! "I don't think I quite meant that sentence like I stated it, perhaps I need to re-evaluate what I actually mean." It's more like, we've given certain words too much power? I feel the thought in my head, I'm just struggling to articulate it exactly. Because if you asked me "Do words have power" my answer would be "yes." This is a contradiction, seemingly. I suppose what I'm saying is that we give specific words too much energy or power, or perhaps it's even deeper on a language level? Some are trying to change our language into something that I feel is less useful to us? Or that sometimes I feel that our language is being hijacked in order to serve a specific agenda, and force dialogue into certain channels? I shall keep pondering what I actually mean...
Ok, that made sense, and I would agree. Certain words and ideas hold more power than they "should." That's a very interesting, very complex topic. I'm not sure what I mean by should, but for example, screaming terrorist on Sept 12 2011 probably held a different meaning that day, and for many days following. I don't mean that it actually "had a different meaning;" it would be more accurate to call it a different effect.
> Back to that peculiar situation we sometimes find ourselves in, where there are two truth's in opposition to one another. The reason I'm beginning to see isn't that it's necessarily the universe that holds the two truths in opposition, but our own language that defines things rigidly, that makes things seem in opposition to one another, but in reality are part of a greater whole.
Yes. 2x yes.
I've mentioned Wittgenstein a couple times here before, but if you want to make headway on language and its usage, you should try reading his two works Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Philosophical Investigations.
I've been eyeing the Tractatus in my pile of books, but honestly my mind is not yet advanced enough to understand it to the degree I feel it deserves. But maybe you might find it worth the read regarding language and its usage. He was huge on word games - not playing them, well maybe, but I think he had a truly holistic understanding of language.
EDIT: And while we're on the topic of language, since I cannot seem to escape the Being-Becoming duality, I instead attempt to embrace it to the extent that it furthers my understanding of the world.
Let's take the sentence "I don't know that yet." The most important takeaway from that sentence is that it does not read "I don't know that." The expectation of future understanding exists when you include the word, sure, but does expectation of future understanding not exist if you exclude the word 'yet'? The answer must be no, and it's quite easy to prove so, but to leave it at that would be folly. Does not including the word 'yet' have an implication regarding a trajectory of the mind and body? Why did that person not say the word yet? Do they not think understanding may come in the future? The man that says 'yet' is already thinking with energy into the future, and as such, I tentatively argue that the inclusion of the word yet, its mere inclusion, has consequences on whether or not you will achieve whatever came before 'yet'. Alternatively, the man that considers future understanding and excludes the word 'yet', purposefully or not, must in some manner be limiting himself.
So, does the man that says 'yet' and attains that future understanding exist as the man who was going to know, always going to know, or does that same man exist as the man that knows because he said 'yet'?
Ultimately, I see man as trying to separate himself from language, but that is an ignorant perspective. Ignorant of the vast interconnectivity of EVERYTHING. Oh there is so much to say about language... I would say other than trying to answer why there is something and not nothing, language might be the most complex and befuddling topic in existence.
It is hard to find books that really square this topic, and I'm not sure of your exposure so I'm going to suggest some fun fiction works to start you off.
The Diamond Age is a good book to express some of the computer science concepts.
and
Cryptonomicon is good to understand how some of Turing's ideas were understood.
For actual philosophy ideas I recommend just ordering some heavier works that are harder to get through like
Quintessence
German Idealism
History of Western Philosophy
And (while I hesitate to mention it because I worry about the backlash on /r/philosophy) I think that Philosophy: Who Needs It is important to read if only to argue with people that believe in Ayn Rand's teachings.
I'll leave it at that for now. Most of what I've learned about this have been by reading Wikipedia and random usenet and irc posts. Books that are succinct and good are hard to come by.
I believe Wittgenstein's student Elizabeth Anscombe wrote a book about the Tractatus which she intended as a kind of walk-through of its ideas (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Wittgensteins-Tractatus-Wittgenstein-Studies/dp/189031854X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333264313&sr=8-1). Or, if you have a $130, you could always get this: http://www.amazon.com/Post-Analytic-Tractatus-Critical-Thinking-Philosophy/dp/075461297X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333264134&sr=8-1
I learned logic from 'A concise introduction to Logic.' by hurley
Do you have some idea of the type of logic you want to learn? an introduction into modern logic usually encompases two aspects: propositional (sentential) and predicate (first-order) logic. Once you learn these, you can learn other types of fun logic like metalogic, modal logic, and maybe even set theory. There's also Aristotelian logic (i.e. syllogisms and the square of opposition.) I learned this, but i never use it so i wouldn't recommend learning it (although the text i provided has chapters on both)
Overall, I think it's a great text and you can easily learn everything in the book on your own without a teacher. The book's pricey, but it's worth it if you're serious about learning Logic. I still use it whenever i want to learn what a specific term is called, remember a rule of inference, predicate logic restriction, etc.
http://www.amazon.com/Concise-Introduction-Logic-Patrick-Hurley/dp/0495503835
i've found that this is a pretty good resource if you want a written introduction online:
http://www.cs.odu.edu/~toida/nerzic/content/logic/intr_to_logic.html
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0393930785/?coliid=IIEFUXHFJV2A7&colid=NGKL0HXDREXC&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
Hope you're rich, it's expensive
A Practical Study of Argument by Trudy Govier is concise and at 25 cents, well worth it.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0534605257
[This book] (http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Thinking-A-Concise-Guide/dp/0415471834) is a good guide. It is specifically designed as an introduction for people with no prior experience in philosophy.
I have taught this text (1st Edition) and it works well.
Copi's Introduction to Logic is excellent, although it may be a bit more philosophical than your family friend is looking for. Anyways, here's the link:
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Irving-M-Copi/dp/1292024828
Here are a few links to different Intro to Logic texts that teach Syllogistic Logic. Gensler is the cheapest and has an easy method for testing validity, called the star test, but is less traditional. The others take a more traditional approach.
Gensler
Hurley
Copi
Also, you may want to try Carneades.org. He has video series on the subject:
Categorical Logic at Carneades.org
Hope this helps!
Have not read but was recommended to me once.
http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Thinking-A-Concise-Guide/dp/0415471834
This is the one I used at university. Although the book had a few mistakes in it.
Buy Irving Copi's "Introduction to Logic" and work your way through it. It has a lot of exercises, IIRC.
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Irving-M-Copi/dp/1292024828
Take a Logic class.
Take advantage of those Back to School specials !
https://www.amazon.ca/Elements-Reasoning-Ronald-Munson/dp/0495809187
https://www.amazon.ca/Argument-Argumentation-Jean-Saindon/dp/0176103163
/r/atheism, this thread is sophomoric. If any of you are interested in formal logic, here's my favorite introductory text. I bet you can pirate it.
I'm using this book for a second logic course in an undergrad philosophy program, and even though it's in its 5th edition, it's full of typos—in the text, in the exercises, and in the answers (downloadable from the publisher's web site). I'm compiling a list to submit at the end of the semester. The quality control is just terrible.
Also, I take to logic easily, so I learn the material despite the book. But I'm helping some of my friends study, and its teaching method is doing them no favors.
The textbook we used for the first course, Hurley's A Concise Introduction to Logic, was much better, but it won't cover the advanced material OP is interested in.
A couple of books you might find useful:
Anscombe's is a classic too. Here it is if anyone is interested.
I'm not sure how dedicated you are to the cause, but a good first-year uni textbook on reasoning would serve as a great resource.
This is a later edition of the one that really worked for me. It's bare-bones. Cuts straight to the point, and broaches the subject really cleanly. Plus you can get a used copy for like a nickel (plus shipping).
https://www.amazon.ca/Elements-Reasoning-Ronald-Munson/dp/0495809187
I guess I get to look cool by posting the first logic book reference:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Reasoning-Introduction-Critical/dp/0393930785/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
I'm sure there are other good one's out there. I took logic in college, but didn't retain much. I think this book will give you a real solid foundation in the basics.
Also, I'd recommend deciding for yourself why logic works, as part of your epistemology:
http://intentionalworldview.com/Epistemology+(The+Theory+of+Knowledge)#How_is_knowledge_acquired_
Let's hope he doesn't pull a George di Giovanni and charge $160 for it.
I look forward to learning German.
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Harry-Gensler/dp/0415226759/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1317779423&sr=8-5
http://www.amazon.com/Meaning-Argument-Introduction-Through-Language/dp/1405196734/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317779481&sr=1-1
This is the one Cambridge University recommend, and I can testify to it's making logic understandable for someone who sucks at maths such as myself: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Languages-Logic-Introduction-Formal/dp/155786988X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313283805&sr=8-1
This was the textbook we used for my "Critical Reasoning" philosophy class. It's a great read.
A Practical Study of Argument
This.
And this: https://smile.amazon.com/Critical-Thinking-Appeal-Peg-Tittle/dp/0415997143/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1517174060&sr=8-2&keywords=peg+tittle
The Science of Logic is referred colloquially by many, many philosophers as "the Logic," which you would be aware of if you knew anything about anything.
George di Giovanni's new translation is excellent. Kindly fuck off now.
I don't recommend the Fox book.
Getting the Manhattan Prep book would be questionable too--it's not going to tell you a whole lot you didn't get from Powerscore + LSAT Trainer really. I actually recommend this: https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/0415997143/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
> Also, strawman argument.
You are confused and trying too hard to be pretentious. I did not misrepresent your argument (Strawman): "Because they would die."
> If we're pulling
straw mena strawman, here's oneThat's called anecdotal evidence. Go read a book.
> Also, arguably most religious people today suffer at least a mild manner of cognitive dissonance... Should I apply the same reasoning to this particular issue?
Arguably...most....at least....mild. You are stretching really thin.
> As much as I gathered: "Think of the children, not normal"
Nope and wrong.
The real issue is that Americans have a tendency to conflate sex and gender. I've had a lot of forms say "Gender: M / F" which is inaccurate. It should be "Sex: M / F", but they say gender because "sex" as a word is also taboo. Likewise, "gender dysphoria" should probably actually be called "sex dysphoria" but it is what it is.
Honestly, even "Sex: M / F " is not great, because genotypes like XXY - Kleinfelter Syndrome exist. One estimate puts the prevalence of intersexed people at roughly 1-2%. And that's just talking about things like chromosomes and genital formation. It's easy to imagine that there is another 1-2% of people who are intersexed due to brain differences.
Gender, as in "gender identity" is a different story. I could go on at length about gender. The short answer is that I think "gender" is a meaningless construct that is the epitome of what it means to be a Wittgenstein's Beetle. While I absolutely believe that people should be free to wear whatever clothes they want, get HRT, whatever, take a gender label like "boi." Unscientific though it may be, let us look to the Urban Dictionary definition of "boi" because natural language philosophers are concerned with "actual and possible uses of words". According to Urban Dictionary, "boi" can mean a male or a female, heterosexual or homosexual, young or old. The only consistency is a sense of immaturity for which there are many other more useful words. Even take a word like "feminine." Both Ronda Rousey and Conchita Wurst put such different takes on the concept of "feminine" that the word itself is meaningless.