Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 2 of 2 First 12
• 08-31-2019, 06:36 PM
Torin
Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bank
p1 All Greeks are geeks
p2 Joe is a Greek
p3 Not all geeks are Greeks

Which of the following conclusions are valid.
c1 Joe is a Greek geek
c2 Joe may or may not be geek.

C1 appears to follow from p1 and p2.
• 08-31-2019, 08:56 PM
steve_bank
Yes p3 is extraneous.
• 09-12-2019, 06:38 PM
steve_bank
An axiom in classical logic.

If a = b and b = c then a = c.

A rock weighs 100kg. A log has the same weight as the rock. A boat weighs the same as the log. Therefore the boat weighs 100kg.

Logically why is this valid? What is the proof of the axiom?
• 12-14-2019, 05:13 AM
steve_bank
Is it possible to be hypercritically hypothetical?
• 12-14-2019, 08:27 AM
fromderinside
Oh. I remember.

Dough-ah
• 12-15-2019, 12:15 AM
steve_bank
Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bank
Is it possible to be hypercritically hypothetical?

Dam spell checker, s it possible to be hypothetically hypothetical?
• 12-30-2019, 09:37 PM
fromderinside
hypothetically for argument's sake.
• 02-08-2020, 11:29 PM
fromderinside
Dumb da dumb dumb, dumb da dumb, dumb da dumb de dumb ....

Joe
• 05-05-2020, 04:58 PM
MxM111
Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bank
The science forum has the dumb question thread. This is for dumb logic. No need to srart a new thread for every idea. Lump it all together.

for example.

If a conclusion follows from a premise that is obviously absurd then the argument is structurally valid.

The Earth is flat and thin, so if I step off the edge I will possibly fall off and there is no air past the edge..

I want to list, what I think, all possibilities.

There are assumptions, and there are conclusions that are obtained by logic.

The assumptions can be right, wrong, and incorrect. The logic can be correct and incorrect. Let me explain.

Correct logic is if the conclusions follow from assumptions. Otherwise the it is incorrect.
The assumptions can be self-consistent, claim to reflect reality (physical) world, but actually do not. This is the flat earth assumption (if it also claims that it is what actually is). Then this is wrong.
The right assumption is self consistent, and if it claims that it reflects reality, then it actually does.
The incorrect assumption is the one that is not self-consistent. "Suppose you have a sword, that can break any shield, and a shield that can stop any sword".

So, which of those is dumb logic? I argue it is the incorrect logic. The flat earth example does not belong to it - it is wrong assumption, correct logic.
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 2 of 2 First 12