View Poll Results: Is the Squid argument valid?

Voters
7. You may not vote on this poll
  • The argument is valid

    1 14.29%
  • The argument is not valid

    4 57.14%
  • I don't know

    0 0%
  • The argument doesn't make sense

    2 28.57%
Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 112

Thread: Improved Squid Argument

  1. Top | #1
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,127
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,789
    Rep Power
    45

    Improved Squid Argument

    Here is the Squid argument again, with improved wording following the suggestion from a specialist in mathematical logic (A Toy Windmill).

    No squid is a giraffe
    No giraffe is an elephant
    No elephant is a squid
    Joe is either a squid or a giraffe
    Joe is an elephant
    Therefore, Joe is a squid
    Thank you to vote to say whether you think the argument is valid or not.

    Thanks for your answers.

    Please no comment without vote.
    EB

  2. Top | #2

  3. Top | #3
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,127
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,789
    Rep Power
    45
    This is not a thread about mathematical logic.

    The argument is couched in ordinary language so that everybody can understand the meaning of the argument.

    And the question is explicitly that of the validity of the argument, and not whether the premises or the conclusion are actually true.

    Let posters decide for themselves whether they can arrive at a position merely from reading the argument.

    People who don't feel confident they can decide on validity can reply that they don't know.
    EB

  4. Top | #4
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,039
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    This is not a thread about mathematical logic.
    ?
    Here is the Squid argument again, with improved wording following the suggestion from a specialist in mathematical logic
    Regardless, the paper I linked to is not about mathematical logic either, per se. It's about "truth vs validity." You seem to have a problem conflating truth and validity or otherwise not understanding the purpose of validity.

    To whit:

    The argument is couched in ordinary language so that everybody can understand the meaning of the argument.
    "The meaning of the argument," ironically, has nothing to do with whether or not it's valid and "ordinary language" likewise has nothing to do with whether or not the argument's form is valid.

    Hence my posting a paper on the difference between "validity" and "truth."

    And the question is explicitly that of the validity of the argument, and not whether the premises or the conclusion are actually true.

    People who don't feel confident they can decide on validity can reply that they don't know.
    And that will establish what exactly? Those who understand the concept of validity are those who understand the concept of validity. Those who do not are those who do not.

    So what's the point?

  5. Top | #5
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,127
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,789
    Rep Power
    45
    Sorry, I'm not interested in your constant misrepresentations and hysteria in your comments. Just answer the poll.
    EB

  6. Top | #6
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,039
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Sorry, I'm not interested in your constant misrepresentations and hysteria in your comments.
    Grow up.

  7. Top | #7
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,127
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,789
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Sorry, I'm not interested in your constant misrepresentations and hysteria in your comments.
    Grow up.
    Just answer the poll.
    EB

  8. Top | #8
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,127
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,152
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post

    No squid is a giraffe
    No giraffe is an elephant
    No elephant is a squid
    Joe is either a squid or a giraffe
    Joe is an elephant
    Therefore, Joe is a squid
    Awe, let me see if I can work this out. Gonna skip all the things starting with “no” because it just overwhelms me. All after I got used to the other way too—big meany.

    So, starting with Joe is either a squid or a giraffe. Excuse me while I commit that to memory.
    Joe is either a squid or giraffe.
    Squid or giraffe
    Squid or giraffe

    I think I got it. Joe is either one or Joe is the other.
    Squid or giraffe.

    Gonna peek at the conclusion: Joe is a squid.
    Hmmm, sounds consistent. Seems like I need to find something that disputes Joe being a giraffe.

    What do I know? Scratch that. Been yelled at for that already. What’s given (that doesn’t hurt my head)?: Joe is an elephant. Great, now I just need to use that information to see if I can weed out him being a giraffe, so I’m looking for an elephant/giraffe connection.

    No giraffe is an elephant! I think that works. I’m still wobbly because the turn of phrase “does that also mean no elephant is a giraffe?” Probably not, so I need to tread carefully.

    Hmmm. Given “he’s an elephant,” ... ... I had to pause because somebody sprinkled disturbing premises into the mix which caused a spiral of a head exploding contradiction to sprout.

    Okay, i didn’t get to it being valid the normal way, but using the contradictory potion method, I did arrive at the conclusion Joe is a bobcat (based on the idea that anything follows from a contradiction.) Since it follows (as does everything) and the conclusion is something out of everything, the argument is valid.

  9. Top | #9
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,032
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    9,620
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post

    No squid is a giraffe
    No giraffe is an elephant
    No elephant is a squid
    Joe is either a squid or a giraffe
    Joe is an elephant
    Therefore, Joe is a squid
    Awe, let me see if I can work this out. Gonna skip all the things starting with “no” because it just overwhelms me. All after I got used to the other way too—big meany.

    So, starting with Joe is either a squid or a giraffe. Excuse me while I commit that to memory.
    Joe is either a squid or giraffe.
    Squid or giraffe
    Squid or giraffe

    I think I got it. Joe is either one or Joe is the other.
    Squid or giraffe.

    Gonna peek at the conclusion: Joe is a squid.
    Hmmm, sounds consistent. Seems like I need to find something that disputes Joe being a giraffe.

    What do I know? Scratch that. Been yelled at for that already. What’s given (that doesn’t hurt my head)?: Joe is an elephant. Great, now I just need to use that information to see if I can weed out him being a giraffe, so I’m looking for an elephant/giraffe connection.

    No giraffe is an elephant! I think that works. I’m still wobbly because the turn of phrase “does that also mean no elephant is a giraffe?” Probably not, so I need to tread carefully.

    Hmmm. Given “he’s an elephant,” ... ... I had to pause because somebody sprinkled disturbing premises into the mix which caused a spiral of a head exploding contradiction to sprout.

    Okay, i didn’t get to it being valid the normal way, but using the contradictory potion method, I did arrive at the conclusion Joe is a bobcat (based on the idea that anything follows from a contradiction.) Since it follows (as does everything) and the conclusion is something out of everything, the argument is valid.
    It turns out that you did not need the contradiction.

    Let me show you why: Suppose you have the following argument:

    Argument 3:

    P1: No giraffe is an elephant.
    P2: Joe is either a squid or a giraffe.
    P3: Joe is an elephant.
    C: Therefore, Joe is a squid.

    Is that valid?

    Consider, for example, the following argument:

    Argument 4:


    P1: No giraffe is a mollusc.
    P2: Joe is either a squid or a giraffe.
    P3: Joe is an mollusc.
    C: Therefore, Joe is a squid.

    Is that valid?

    If you take a look, you will see that Argument 4 and Argument 3 have exactly the same form.

  10. Top | #10
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,127
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,152
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu;
    It turns out that you did not need the contradiction.

    Let me show you why: Suppose you have the following argument:

    Argument 3:

    P1: No giraffe is an elephant.
    P2: Joe is either a squid or a giraffe.
    P3: Joe is an elephant.
    C: Therefore, Joe is a squid.

    Is that valid?
    No giraffe is an elephant. Of all the giraffes out in the world there are, none are elephants. I’m not espousing—just going with the stated premise. No giraffe is an elephant. Well, Joe is an elephant (P3). What does that tell me? A little thinking and I’ve pretty much ruled out joe being a giraffe. After all, no giraffe is an elephant and Joe is. Seems to me Joe ain’t no giraffe. Ooh, he’s either a squid or a giraffe and given that he’s not a giraffe, I’m left to conclude he’s a squid. Sure enough, that’s what the conclusion says, so the argument is valid because the information in it (and no hidden stuff to consider) leads me to just what the conclusion says.


    Consider, for example, the following argument:

    Argument 4:


    P1: No giraffe is a mollusc.
    P2: Joe is either a squid or a giraffe.
    P3: Joe is an mollusc.
    C: Therefore, Joe is a squid.

    Is that valid?

    If you take a look, you will see that Argument 4 and Argument 3 have exactly the same form.
    Yeah, valid.

Posting Permissions

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