Validity of a simple logical argument

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Speakpigeon, Jan 23, 2019.

?

Is the argument valid?

Poll closed Feb 22, 2019.
  1. No

    54.5%
  2. Yes

    45.5%
  3. I don't know

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. The argument doesn't make sense

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,546
    Or you just note that any argument using contradictory premises is valid. End of story.
    Oh, sure, you could work with a non-mainstream definition of logic and arrive at a different result. But using that mainstream definition, the argument is valid. Period. Nothing more to see here. These aren't the invalid forms you're looking for. Move along. Move along.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    I didn't ask people to use any particular definition or method.
    I asked whether the argument was valid. And as it stands, 4 voted "valid", 4 voted "not valid".
    And why should anyone have to use any particular definition of validity? Just because it's "mainstream"?
    So, I guess, Copernicus should have shut his mouth and go mainstream. That's a very enlightened perspective on things. Galileo, too. Einstein. Let's only do mainstream from now on! Whoa.
    EB
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,612
    Well, explain this to me.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_equality
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,546
    No - so as to be sure that it is understood consistently from person to person. If we can each choose our own definition and not tell the other people party to the discussion what our definition is, you get muddled discussion. Once you get consistency of definition, that can be more easily avoided.
    Ah, once again attempting to elevate yourself through false comparison. Hey ho. But if you feel your only recourse is to play the Galileo gambit, or variations thereof, then it really would appear that your well is dry.
    It's one thing to propose a non-mainstream theory, and have the capability of supporting it and defending it despite widespread criticism, but it's quite another to simply ask a question (or 4, or 5, or however many of these inane threads it has been) and be utterly unable and/or unwilling to provide any semblance of meaningful defence whatsoever to your own answer of it, and then try to link yourself even in some small way to such people through simply holding a non-mainstream notion of a word. Truly remarkable egotism on your part. And so very flawed.
    And to quote Sagan properly this time: "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,189
    Such as?

    To decide whether it is true that A implies B.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,189
    How about this?

    We construct a proof by contradiction.

    1. Joe is either a squid or a giraffe (P4)
    2. Assume, provisionally, that Joe is a giraffe.
    3. Joe is not an elephant (deduction from assumption 2 and P2).
    4. But deduction 3 is in conflict with P5.
    5. Therefore, assumption 2 must be wrong (deduction from steps 1-4 and the assumption that all the given premises are true). Joe is not a giraffe.
    6. Therefore, Joe is a squid (deduction from step 5 and P4).
     
  10. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    You would want to know.
    Sometimes, it feels you guys just don't speak English.
    Sure, I hope I have understood that even before you told me. The question was obviously why use a truth table to decide whether something implies something else.
    And then, why use this particular truth table?
    EB
     
  11. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    Sorry, I'm not a rune-reading machine. So, wake up, if you can't articulate your point, I won't do it for you.
    EB
     
  12. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    Yes, better still, but there is shorter:
    P4. Joe is either a squid or a giraffe
    H1. Joe is a giraffe................................P4
    D1. Joe is not a giraffe..........................P5, P2
    D2. Joe is a squid..................................P4, D1
    QED
    Same thing, really, just shorter.
    So, yeah, Hallelujah.
    If you like it, you can keep it. Cadeau.
    EB
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2019
  13. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    And again, I didn't ask people to use any particular definition or method.
    I asked whether the argument was valid. And as it stands, 4 voted "valid", 4 voted "not valid".
    And why should anyone have to use any arbitrary definition of validity?
    I then asked people to justify their assessment of validity. Not their method. I asked them to justify their assessment.
    To continue your analogy that logical validity is like vocabulary, I agree it would help to know what definition the other guy is using if what he says doesn't make sense to you. But most people don't use any definition. They just know what they mean and speak from there. You don't like it, change planet. Second, it may well be that you don't understand what the other guy is saying because you are using the wrong definition. Happens a lot. So, again, look at your own assumptions.
    So, you use a particular definition. Good for you but then justify that the method implicit in your definition is the correct method to assess validity. And you can't do that.
    Wrong assumption.
    My heroes are Descartes, Copernicus, Aristotle and Archimedes. Archimedes was in his bath. I was in the loo.
    EB
     
  14. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,546
    As stated above, using a single definition avoids confusion and ensures consistency of perspective. It also avoids future dishonesty with someone claiming to use a different definition when their answer is shown to be wrong under the assumption of the mainstream definition.
    If you say they know what they mean then they must have a definition they are working from. If you don't have a working definition of a word then you can not use it sensibly.
    I can rather easily imagine it does to you.
    No need - they are adequately articulated, even for you.
    I need to do nothing other than point to it being the mainstream definition of validity within classical logic. The rest is for other people to assert their alternative is acceptable. You want to use a non-standard logic, you justify it. You want to go with just intuition, you go for it.
    And where exactly have I mentioned or implied anyone being your heroes?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You do like your strawmen, don't you.
     
  15. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    BS.
    EB
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,612
    There seems to be another consideration apart from validity, that of "soundness".
    All toasters are items made of gold.
    All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
    Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.
    In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
    In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
    Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.
    https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,612
    I quoted the "point".
    Are you telling me the quoted logical argument is "invalid"?
     
  18. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    I still don't know what your point is. You need to articulate your point.
    EB
     
  19. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,692
    That comports quite well with you not using a particular definition or method. So we're all on the same blank page here!
    OMG . . .
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2019
  20. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    OMG, yes you can't.
    Please note that smarter people have tried and couldn't do it.
    It's a notorious problem in logic but if you're interested there's definitely a Nobel Prize for you if you do it.
    EB
     
  21. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,692
    This smart person is going to turn off the bullshit tap now. You can have all the fun.
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,281
    The problem doesn't appear to be the logic. The problem is that the one asking the question always leaves an escape route to avoid agreement.
    A form of trolling that pretends sincerity to tease people into taking the posts seriously and then at the last moment, using a deliberately included ambiguity to avoid humiliation and in doing so attempt to humiliate the responder.
    It's pretty much the standard behavior of those who take delight in using their "superior" intellect to make others squirm.
    Surely you have better things to do with that superior intellect than flex your perverse form of sadism...

    or perhaps one should seriously ask :

    "What do you hope to achieve here at sciforums.com Speakpigeon ?"
     
    Write4U likes this.
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Only if they wanted to claim they were using "modal logic" - or some other of the known logics.
    If they are not using any particular established logic, or reasoning logically in any dictionary sense of the term, then one supposes they could employ their own definitions and meanings of whatever terms they wished. They could even decide "validity" by majority vote of the spectators.

    Years ago I ran into a biologist who had student-taught school in Quebec, and swore this was a true account: a fellow student teacher at the school had watched their mentor teacher instructing the students in the addition of fractions, and saw that the children were being taught to add the numerators and the denominators to find the sum. That is, 5/4 + 1/3 = 6/7. Not wishing to intrude, as a rookie, but nevertheless disturbed, they took the teacher aside as soon as they could and politely informed them that the usual procedure was otherwise. They then explained that usual procedure - common denominator, all that. The teacher was amenable, and introduced this new way of doing things to the children.
    But a month or so later, when the student revisited that classroom to say hello, they were adding as before.
    When asked, the teacher explained that the class had taken a vote, and preferred the first way.

    The biologist swore that actually happened. At the time, I did not really believe them. These days -
     
    DaveC426913 likes this.

Share This Page