Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 144

Thread: 4 very easy arguments. Are they valid?

  1. Top | #91
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    5,565
    Rep Power
    13
    Picking up on (or perhaps merely rehashing) fast's last example, how about this?

    A6

    P1'": Joe is not an elephant
    P2": Joe is an elephant
    C'"': Joe is an elephant

    A7

    P1'": Joe is not an elephant
    P2": Joe is an elephant
    C'"'': Joe is not an elephant

    Both valid? My (amateur) guess is....yes. Even though (a) in both cases the conclusion is only one of two things that must follow and (b) in both cases the conclusion is also a premise.

    In other words, I'm thinking fast's last example (just above) would also have been valid if the conclusion had been any of the premises.

    If (if) so, I'm curious to know what the correct term would be to describe something which is valid but which is 'incomplete' (layman's term again) if the conclusion is not the only conclusion that must follow from the premises? In other words if a certain premise (or premises) is/are not taken into account, not used, or ignored.

    I'm thinking that if you were sitting a hypothetical logic exam and the question was 'what conclusion follows from the premises in argument A5 (or A4)' you might not get full marks if you only gave either of the answers in A6 or A7 above. Possibly in some ways, though not all, similar to how you would not get full marks in a GCSE Maths exam by giving 7 as the answer to the question, 'what is the square root of 49?' (Though we could be pedantic there and say the latter question, and possibly also the former one, was/were worded misleadingly or ambiguously in implying that there is 'a' or only one, answer).
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 02-16-2019 at 12:57 PM.

  2. Top | #92
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,238
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,263
    Rep Power
    60
    If the animal walks, it’s an elephant
    The animal walks
    The animal doesn’t walk
    Therefore, it’s an elephant

    The first two has skin in the game for arriving at the conclusion.

    If the animal walks, it’s an elephant
    The animal walks
    The animal doesn’t walk
    Therefore, its not an elephant

    That’s a mess!!

    On the one hand, it might be valid yet with a false conclusion, but then again, it might not be valid at all if P2 has no skin in the game:

    If the animal walks, it’s an elephant
    The animal doesn’t walk
    Therefore, it’s an elephant

    It could very well be that if ithe animal walks that it’s an elephant, but if theres an animal that doesn’t walk, it could still be an elephant—the poor thing

  3. Top | #93
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,238
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,263
    Rep Power
    60
    If the animal walks, it’s an elephant
    The animal walks
    The animal does not walk
    Therefore, it’s an elephant

    That’s valid (1 and 2 entails C)

    If the animal walks, it’s an elephant
    The animals walks
    The animal does not walk
    Therefore, it’s not an elephant

    1 and 3 does not infer C, so is it a valid argument with a false conclusion or an invalid argument?

    See, there could be an elephant that doesn’t walk.

  4. Top | #94
    Senior Member OLDMAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NB
    Posts
    657
    Archived
    2,107
    Total Posts
    2,764
    Rep Power
    44
    A 3 is were it goes off the tracks.

  5. Top | #95
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,238
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,263
    Rep Power
    60
    By the way, is a sentence a premise merely because we stipulate it as such? A sentence that is purportedly a premise is brought into question if has no attachment to the inference leading to a conclusion.

  6. Top | #96
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,039
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    9,627
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks
    I might be wrong, but I think I understand what valid is. As I understand it, the conclusion must follow from the premises. Which as you say it does in both your A4 and my A5.
    Okay, you got it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks
    As I am starting to understand it now (thanks to this thread and your contributions, and those of some others) a conclusion and it's negation can follow, so long as both are in the premises.
    Yes, and I would say - following nearly every logician, mathematician or philosopher - that even if they are not in the premises. For example, "Joe is an elephant" and its negation "It is not the case that Joe is an elephant" both follow from the premises of A4, but only one of them is one of the premises. In fact, even if neither of them were in the premises, both a conclusion and its negation could follow. For example, we can modify A4 as follows:

    A8:

    P1: Joe is either a squid or a giraffe.
    P1''': Joe is either an elephant or a squid.
    P1': A giraffe is not an elephant.
    P2''': Joe is not a squid.
    C'''': Joe is not an elephant, and Joe is an elephant.

    In this case, we use P1''' and P2''' to derive "Joe is an elephant", and from P2''' and P1 we get "Joe is a giraffe", which together with P1' entail "Joe is not an elephant".
    So, both "Joe is an elephant" and its negation follow from the premises of A6, even though neither statement is one of the premises.


    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks
    My termonology might be wrong, but what I'm saying is that for instance, in my argument A5, the 'same issue or feature' which is in the conclusion (which I think we agree is a contradiction) is already present in the two preceding premises. In other words, the two premises seem to contradict each other in the same way the conclusion does.
    Sure, though the full set of premises is inconsistent. It might be that any proper subset is consistent. In particular, there need not be two premises that contradict each other (e.g., ee A8 above, or even A4).

    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks
    Picking up on (or perhaps merely rehashing) fast's last example, how about this?

    A6

    P1'": Joe is not an elephant
    P2": Joe is an elephant
    C'"': Joe is an elephant

    A7

    P1'": Joe is not an elephant
    P2": Joe is an elephant
    C'"'': Joe is not an elephant

    Both valid? My (amateur) guess is....yes. Even though (a) in both cases the conclusion is only one of two things that must follow and (b) in both cases the conclusion is also a premise.

    In other words, I'm thinking fast's last example (just above) would also have been valid if the conclusion had been any of the premises.
    That is correct.


    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks
    If (if) so, I'm curious to know what the correct term would be to describe something which is valid but which is 'incomplete' (layman's term again) if the conclusion is not the only conclusion that must follow from the premises? In other words if a certain premise (or premises) is/are not taken into account, not used, or ignored.
    Those are two different things. That the (stated) conclusion isn't the only thing that follows from the premises is also a property of A4, A8, and a lot of other arguments that need all of the premises to derive the stated conclusion. I don't think there is a special term for that, other than saying that one or more of the premises are unnecessary, superfluous, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks
    I'm thinking that if you were sitting a hypothetical logic exam and the question was 'what conclusion follows from the premises in argument A5 (or A4)' you might not get full marks if you only gave either of the answers in A6 or A7 above.
    Actually, the correct answer would be (in most such exams) that every statement follows from the premises of A4 (or A5, or A8). That is because every statement follows from a contradiction. That is the principle of explosion, which is accepted by nearly everyone. There are some philosophers who oppose it, though, and paraconsistent logics do not have it. But that is another matter, central in the other thread but not related to whether a conclusion and its negation can both follow, which as far as I know everyone accepts (well, everyone in the fields of philosophy, math and logic).

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by OLDMAN View Post
    A 3 is were it goes off the tracks.
    Why do you think that?
    A3 is valid and nothing goes off the tracks, but I can't address your objection if I do not know why you object.

  7. Top | #97
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,039
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    9,627
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by fast
    If the animal walks, it’s an elephant
    The animal walks
    The animal doesn’t walk
    Therefore, it’s an elephant

    The first two has skin in the game for arriving at the conclusion.
    That's valid. Whether a premise has skin in the game or not is not relevant when it comes to validity.


    Quote Originally Posted by fast
    If the animal walks, it’s an elephant
    The animal walks
    The animal doesn’t walk
    Therefore, its not an elephant

    That’s a mess!!
    That is valid, but for a very different reason, which I wanted to leave for the other thread so that in this one, I could focus on the fact that a conclusion and its negation can both follow. The reason the argument is valid is that from the second and third premise one can derive a contradiction, and everything follows from a contradiction (principle of explosion), though some philosophers (in my experience, very few) reject that (they do not reject the fact that a conclusion and its negation can both follow, though).

    Quote Originally Posted by fast
    On the one hand, it might be valid yet with a false conclusion, but then again, it might not be valid at all if P2 has no skin in the game:

    If the animal walks, it’s an elephant
    The animal doesn’t walk
    Therefore, it’s an elephant

    It could very well be that if ithe animal walks that it’s an elephant, but if theres an animal that doesn’t walk, it could still be an elephant—the poor thing
    That is invalid. But the matter is not about whether the premise has skin in the game.

    Quote Originally Posted by fast

    If the animal walks, it’s an elephant
    The animals walks
    The animal does not walk
    Therefore, it’s not an elephant

    1 and 3 does not infer C, so is it a valid argument with a false conclusion or an invalid argument?

    See, there could be an elephant that doesn’t walk.
    1 and 3 do not imply C, but 2 and 3 imply everything (including C and its negation). So, it is valid. However, that is not what I wanted to focus on this thread, because I wanted to separate the matter of explosion from that of whether a conclusion and its negation can both follow.

    Quote Originally Posted by fast
    By the way, is a sentence a premise merely because we stipulate it as such? A sentence that is purportedly a premise is brought into question if has no attachment to the inference leading to a conclusion.
    Sure, we freely choose our premises.

  8. Top | #98
    Super Moderator Torin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    119
    Rep Power
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    The methods used in modern logic are based on reason, and they often are applicable to reality. Mathematics is full of arguments that, from some hypotheses, reach a contradiction. That is useful to disprove hypotheses.
    If you're saying that there are true contradictions (which is how I read your post), then your ideas have nothing to do with reason or reality. If that's not what you're saying then okay.

  9. Top | #99
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,039
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    9,627
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Torin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    The methods used in modern logic are based on reason, and they often are applicable to reality. Mathematics is full of arguments that, from some hypotheses, reach a contradiction. That is useful to disprove hypotheses.
    If you're saying that there are true contradictions (which is how I read your post), then your ideas have nothing to do with reason or reality. If that's not what you're saying then okay.
    No, I'm not saying any of the sort. Contradictions are of course false. Reaching a contradiction with a valid argument implies at least one of the premises is false. When all of them but one are known to be true, from that one gets that the other premise is false. This is a common method for providing things in math (assume X, reach a contradiction from that and known statements, then conclude ¬X).

  10. Top | #100
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,199
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,861
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    No, I'm not saying any of the sort. Contradictions are of course false. Reaching a contradiction with a valid argument implies at least one of the premises is false. When all of them but one are known to be true, from that one gets that the other premise is false. This is a common method for providing things in math (assume X, reach a contradiction from that and known statements, then conclude ¬X).
    Good, excellent, repair has been completed if ever any damage was done.

    So, I won't post anything else in this very interesting thread either.
    EB

Similar Threads

  1. POLL 2: Is this second argument valid?
    By Speakpigeon in forum Logic and Epistemology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-31-2019, 05:33 PM
  2. POLL: Is the argument valid?
    By Speakpigeon in forum Logic and Epistemology
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 01-19-2019, 03:16 AM
  3. Opinions - everyone has one. Are they all valid?
    By credoconsolans in forum Social Science
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 05-08-2017, 06:05 AM
  4. Please Enter a Valid Email Address?
    By Colonel Sanders in forum Miscellaneous Discussions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-28-2016, 06:34 PM
  5. Is there a valid reason for Retina or 4K computer displays?
    By NobleSavage in forum Miscellaneous Discussions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 06-01-2015, 12:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •