But you can have the same premises and arrive at a different conclusion, so that conclusion doesn’t necessarily have to follow when any other conclusion could just as well have followed.
Consider an argument that’s sound. What other conclusion can follow except for the very one that does? With an unsound yet valid argument, the conclusion follows, but so can a number of others.
An event that must occur can occur, but the inverse is not true. It’s not the case that if an event occurred that it had to.
When you tell me that the conclusion necessarily follows, there’s this ring about it that that’s the conclusion that must follow, but like I said, any number of conclusions could have followed.
If what you say is true (and I suppose it is), that relegates the wow factor downward to the level of valid arguments. Nice to have but potentially disappointing. People not in the know might mistake the claim of an argument being valid as also being sound—only to later be disappointed when the argument turns out to be unsound—whereas a sound argument is superior to one merely valid.
I figured it could be trusted that a necessary event would occur—after all, it’s necessary, not contingent. You’re ruining my admiration for the claim of an event to be necessary.
But the fact that other conclusions also follow from the premises does not change the fact that this one does.Originally Posted by fast
What other conclusion can follow from the premises?Originally Posted by fast
Many, actually, do follow from the premises - necessarily.
I would say that infinitely many conclusions follow necessarily from the premises (and in the case of the OP arguments, anything does).Originally Posted by fast
It's not a necessary event. Whether a person will draw one conclusion or another from the premises is a contingent event. What is necessary is that the conclusion follows from the premises, I'd say. But if you think about it, when you have a sound argument, the premises also imply other things, apart from the conclusion that a person contingently draws.Originally Posted by fast
So, the event that is always contigent is what conclusion(s) a person draws (correctly or not) from some premises, whereas what is necessary is that a conclusion (if the argument is valid) follows from the premises (and that, in the case of this argument, all conclusions follow).
Invalid. The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises.
Not a logician but Its valid (I think) if we are to take the consideration that P5 - Jerry Corbyn becomes Prime Minster after C - Boris Johnson is Prime Minister first, (by vote of no confidence. and re-election). Both Johnson and Corbyn do become Prime Minister as the OP lays out.
Edt: (hmm getting to the conclusion, I dunno, forget the above)
Last edited by Learner; 07-15-2019 at 10:01 AM.
Argument recap: (with some highlights)
P1 - Jeremy Corbyn is not Boris Johnson;
P2 - Boris Johnson is not Jeremy Hunt;
P3 - Jeremy Hunt is not Jeremy Corbyn;
P4 - The next U.K. Prime Minister will be either Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt;
P5 - The next U.K. Prime Minister will be Jeremy Corbyn;
C - Therefore, the next U.K. Prime Minister will be Boris Johnson.
I’m gonna make a little change and you tell me if it’s valid. I’m removing the “or Jeremy Hunt” from P4 above
P1 - Jeremy Corbyn is not Boris Johnson;
P2 - Boris Johnson is not Jeremy Hunt;
P3 - Jeremy Hunt is not Jeremy Corbyn;
P4 - The next U.K. Prime Minister will be Boris Johnson;
P5 - The next U.K. Prime Minister will be Jeremy Corbyn;
C - Therefore, the next U.K. Prime Minister will be Boris Johnson.
What would you say now about it’s validity?