View Poll Results: Is the argument valid?

Voters
9. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, the argument is valid.

    3 33.33%
  • No, the argument is not valid.

    3 33.33%
  • I don't know

    0 0%
  • The argument doesn't make sense

    3 33.33%
Page 3 of 24 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 235

Thread: And the next U.K. Prime Minister will be?

  1. Top | #21
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,049
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    9,637
    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    I find
    1) the premises do not encompass all of the alternatives, and
    2) the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.

    Now, from what I have read, I think Mr. Johnson is the expected selection because the Tories appear dead set on destroying their party and England.
    The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises (maybe you misread?): From P3 and P5, it follows that the next U.K. Prime Minister will not be Jeremy Hunt. From this and P4, it follows that the next UK Prime Minister will be Boris Johnson.
    I would have thought that had the argument been sound, then what follows from the premises necessarily did so.

    Since the conclusion is valid but unsound, what remains true is that the conclusion follows from the premises (which you and I agree on), but any number of conclusions also follow, so the conclusion wasn’t of necessity but of contingency.

    It’s the presence of a false premise, contradiction, or anything that results in an argument not being sound is what diminishes any sense of necessity. Ducklings will follow momma duck time and time again, but the event remains a contingent event. The path you took to arrive at the conclusion you can do time and time again, but other paths were available.

    At any rate, I’m not denying that the conclusion follows from the premise; just the necessity that it does.
    But it is not possible that you have the same argument and the conclusion fails to follow from the premises; for that reason, it follows necessarily (how could it not follow necessarily? )

  2. Top | #22
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    I would have thought that had the argument been sound, then what follows from the premises necessarily did so.

    Since the conclusion is valid but unsound, what remains true is that the conclusion follows from the premises (which you and I agree on), but any number of conclusions also follow, so the conclusion wasn’t of necessity but of contingency.

    It’s the presence of a false premise, contradiction, or anything that results in an argument not being sound is what diminishes any sense of necessity. Ducklings will follow momma duck time and time again, but the event remains a contingent event. The path you took to arrive at the conclusion you can do time and time again, but other paths were available.

    At any rate, I’m not denying that the conclusion follows from the premise; just the necessity that it does.
    But it is not possible that you have the same argument and the conclusion fails to follow from the premises; for that reason, it follows necessarily (how could it not follow necessarily? )
    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.

  3. Top | #23
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,049
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    9,637
    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by fast
    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.
    But the fact that other conclusions also follow from the premises does not change the fact that this one does.



    Quote Originally Posted by fast
    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.
    What other conclusion can follow from the premises?
    Many, actually, do follow from the premises - necessarily.

    Quote Originally Posted by fast
    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.
    I would say that infinitely many conclusions follow necessarily from the premises (and in the case of the OP arguments, anything does).

    Quote Originally Posted by fast

    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.
    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.

    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).

  4. Top | #24
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Lebanon, OR
    Posts
    6,393
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    23,222
    Rep Power
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Here is a "U.K. current affairs" argument.
    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.
    Thank you to say whether you consider this argument valid or not.
    Invalid. The five premises cannot all be true at the same time.

  5. Top | #25
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    8,920
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,826
    Rep Power
    70
    Invalid. The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises.

  6. Top | #26
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    2,116
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,172
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Here is a "U.K. current affairs" argument.

    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.
    Thank you to say whether you consider this argument valid or not.

    Thank you to abstain from commenting before you voted.
    EB
    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.

  7. Top | #27
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Invalid. The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises.
    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?

  8. Top | #28
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Here is a "U.K. current affairs" argument.
    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.
    Thank you to say whether you consider this argument valid or not.
    Invalid. The five premises cannot all be true at the same time.
    That’s a good reason to think the argument is unsound. Once you consider the difference between an arguments soundness and it’s validity, do you still want to use the reason given?

  9. Top | #29
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    8,920
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,826
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Invalid. The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises.
    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?
    Still can't see how the conclusion follows from the premises. Perhaps it's a case of brain freeze.

  10. Top | #30
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Here is a "U.K. current affairs" argument.

    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.
    Thank you to say whether you consider this argument valid or not.

    Thank you to abstain from commenting before you voted.
    EB
    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)
    If P5 is true, what does that tell us about Jeremy Hunt in P3?

Posting Permissions

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