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 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 112

Thread: Improved Squid Argument

  1. Top | #11
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,129
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,154
    Rep Power
    59
    It’s not working for me on his argument.

  2. Top | #12
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    5,499
    Rep Power
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    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.
    Just a thought. I may not be raising a valid point......

    Is it confusing that argument 3 (above) and indeed the OP argument, are using categories (hope that's the right word) that are, in the real world, mutually exclusive (Joe can't in the real world be a squid and an elephant, given the definitions of what those are)?

    Does it help if we use categories that aren't mutually exclusive?


    P1: No tall person is a fat person.
    P2: Joe is either a black person or a tall person.
    P3: Joe is a fat person.
    C: Therefore, Joe is a black person.

    Or am I talking shite?

    All I can say is that it is easier for me to see how that's valid, I guess.

  3. Top | #13
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,129
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,154
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    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.
    Just a thought. I may not be raising a valid point......

    Is it confusing that argument 3 (above) and indeed the OP argument, are using categories (hope that's the right word) that are, in the real world, mutually exclusive (Joe can't in the real world be a squid and an elephant, given the definitions of what those are)?

    Does it help if we use categories that aren't mutually exclusive?


    P1: No tall person is a fat person.
    P2: Joe is either a black person or a tall person.
    P3: Joe is a fat person.
    C: Therefore, Joe is a black person.

    Or am I talking shite?

    All I can say is that it is easier for me to see how that's valid, I guess.
    I think there’s advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that we can more easily relate and perhaps better think it through if we do as you say; however, truth (or even soundness) is often a distraction when trying to hone in specifically on validity. Another option is to use letters, but it’s easier to use words when trying to recollect how each part fits. At any rate, just try not to let the labels (that do refer to categories) get to ya.

  4. Top | #14
    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
    Also, and there is a little thing that keeps scratching at my thoughts. It’s about Q. I never comprehend when it’s equivalent to not ~P and when it’s not.
    It's not, in the context of these arguments, since it stands for any proposition you want.


    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    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.
    Excellent!

    So, from the premises P1: No giraffe is an elephant, P2: Joe is either a squid or a giraffe, and P3: Joe is an elephant, you can validly conclude that Joe is a squid. Great!
    Now, take a look at the argument in the OP. It turns out it contains all of those three premises!. Now, it also contains more premises, but even without those extra premises (and without the contradiction stuff), just using P1, P2 and P3, you can conclude validly that Joe is a squid. You should change your vote to "valid".

    (or do you think that it's possible that from some premises P1,..,Pn you validly deduce Q, but if you add more premises, then you no longer can validly deduce Q?)

  5. Top | #15
    Veteran Member Cheerful Charlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    4,428
    Archived
    3,884
    Total Posts
    8,312
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    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
    No elephant is a squid.
    Joe is an elephant.

    Joe then cannot be a squid.

    Therefore, Joe is a squid
    Any sort of "logic" that can conclude Joe is a squid is obviouslt flawed.
    Cheerful Charlie

  6. Top | #16
    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 Cheerful Charlie View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    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
    No elephant is a squid.
    Joe is an elephant.

    Joe then cannot be a squid.

    Therefore, Joe is a squid
    Any sort of "logic" that can conclude Joe is a squid is obviouslt flawed.
    Let me try to persuade you otherwise.

    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.

    If you take a look, you will see that Argument 4 and Argument 3 have exactly the same form. Before I go on, I would like to ask you whether you think Argument 3 and Argument 4 are both valid, or neither, or only one (depending on the answer, I might or might not try to convince you that the original OP argument is valid).

  7. Top | #17
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,129
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,154
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    It's not, in the context of these arguments, since it stands for any proposition you want.


    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    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.
    Excellent!

    So, from the premises P1: No giraffe is an elephant, P2: Joe is either a squid or a giraffe, and P3: Joe is an elephant, you can validly conclude that Joe is a squid. Great!
    Now, take a look at the argument in the OP. It turns out it contains all of those three premises!. Now, it also contains more premises, but even without those extra premises (and without the contradiction stuff), just using P1, P2 and P3, you can conclude validly that Joe is a squid. You should change your vote to "valid".

    (or do you think that it's possible that from some premises P1,..,Pn you validly deduce Q, but if you add more premises, then you no longer can validly deduce Q?)
    I must have been growing weary!! Yes, I see.

  8. Top | #18
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,129
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,154
    Rep Power
    59
    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

    Validity is about finding a path to the finish line where the conclusion is the final destination.

    Each premise is like a path. Consider all the paths. Each premise bolded above (if followed) will lead us to the end.

  9. Top | #19
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,129
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,154
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    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
    No elephant is a squid.
    Joe is an elephant.

    Joe then cannot be a squid.

    Therefore, Joe is a squid
    Any sort of "logic" that can conclude Joe is a squid is obviouslt flawed.
    Of course it’s flawed. It’s unsound. That is the great warning sign we should look out for with deductive arguments (whether it’s sound or unsound,) but there are some other things about arguments we can point out. For instance, whether a proposition (either in a premise or conclusion) is true. Another thing we can look at is validity. What that is exactly is in dispute. Do we go by dictionaries that explain how it’s ordinarily used, or do we use it as a technical term? When used as a technical term, we need to be careful about what it is and what it isn’t. We can have a perfectly valid argument and it still be unsound.

    A) If Kansas is in the ocean, then Kansas is a squirrel.
    B) Kansas is in the ocean.
    Therefore C) Kansas is a squirrel

    That’s valid because those two taken together leads to the conclusion.

    A) If Kansas is in the ocean, then Kansas is a squirrel.
    B) Kansas is in the ocean.
    C) Bobby has an upset stomach
    Therefore D) Kansas is a squirrel

    That’s still valid. It’s like a math problem where information that is given is irrelevant. Just ignore it.

    A) If Kansas is in the ocean, then Kansas is a squirrel.
    B) Kansas is in the ocean.
    C) Bobby has an upset stomach
    D) Kansas is in space
    Therefore E) Kansas is a squirrel

    Obviously, if Kansas is in the ocean, then it’s not in space, but forget that. Just look to see there’s enough of the right premises to get to the conclusion —ignoring all others that merely serve to distract. A and B gets us to E, so it’s valid.

    Now here’s a fun one:
    A) Bobby has an upset stomach
    B) bobby doesn’t have an upset stomach
    Therefore C) Kansas is a squirrel.

    That too is valid. Gotta love it.

    You might be wondering what kind of logic allows that, as it might not always accord with what a dictionary has to say. But, it’s in the tool belt of the logician and well respected the world over. It just takes a little getting used to.

  10. Top | #20
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    10,500
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    28,713
    Rep Power
    52
    Gotta say it. The panda in the room. Its actually an Octopussy.

Posting Permissions

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