< 1 2 3 > 
 
   
 

POLL - Is this argument valid?

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15955
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
22 January 2019 11:31
 
Speakpigeon - 22 January 2019 09:00 AM
burt - 22 January 2019 08:52 AM
Speakpigeon - 22 January 2019 05:26 AM

Here is a second argument, more complex than the first one in this thread, but closer to my argument on the conscious mind, although still significantly simpler.

P1 - For all we know, A may be the state of some part of B;
P2 - What C does is determined by the state of some part of B;
C - Therefore, for all we know, what C does may be determined by A.

So, again, is this argument valid?
EB

Not really. It might fly in a preliminary grant proposal (we will seek to explicate this question by determining which parts of B are involved in A and in C) which is to say it’s not entirely invalid as a heuristic argument, but logically it is invalid.

I don’t think you could prove your claim of invalidity. So, why would it be invalid?
EB

that’s why I qualified it as logically invalid. Rhetorically, it leaves the conclusion open.

 
Speakpigeon
 
Avatar
 
 
Speakpigeon
Total Posts:  168
Joined  01-10-2017
 
 
 
22 January 2019 12:29
 
burt - 22 January 2019 11:31 AM
Speakpigeon - 22 January 2019 09:00 AM

I don’t think you could prove your claim of invalidity. So, why would it be invalid?
EB

that’s why I qualified it as logically invalid. Rhetorically, it leaves the conclusion open.

I don’t understand.
EB

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15955
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
22 January 2019 15:36
 
Speakpigeon - 22 January 2019 12:29 PM
burt - 22 January 2019 11:31 AM
Speakpigeon - 22 January 2019 09:00 AM

I don’t think you could prove your claim of invalidity. So, why would it be invalid?
EB

that’s why I qualified it as logically invalid. Rhetorically, it leaves the conclusion open.

I don’t understand.
EB

In other words, the premises don’t force the conclusion because the words “some part” are equivocal. Could be different parts. But at the same time, the conclusion cannot be denied with certainty, from what is given it’s an open question, may or may not be the case,

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1891
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
22 January 2019 15:55
 
Speakpigeon - 22 January 2019 05:26 AM

Here is a second argument, more complex than the first one in this thread, but closer to my argument on the conscious mind, although still significantly simpler.

P1 - For all we know, A may be the state of some part of B;
P2 - What C does is determined by the state of some part of B;
C - Therefore, for all we know, what C does may be determined by A.

So, again, is this argument valid?
EB

I hope you’ll excuse the interruption, Speakpigeon, but I’m dying to know how it is that your argument seems important enough to discuss with others. Will you eventually reveal your inner motivation? I’m not asking you to reveal it here, but only if you will at some future point reveal it.

 
 
Speakpigeon
 
Avatar
 
 
Speakpigeon
Total Posts:  168
Joined  01-10-2017
 
 
 
23 January 2019 04:32
 
burt - 22 January 2019 03:36 PM

In other words, the premises don’t force the conclusion because the words “some part” are equivocal.

The phrase “some part” is not equivocal.
It’s very clear and completely unambiguous.
Look it up in a dictionary.

burt - 22 January 2019 03:36 PM

Could be different parts.


Yes, it may be different parts and it may be the same part.
But there’s nothing in the argument that implies it can’t be the same part, so, on the face of the argument, it may be the same part.
So, the argument is valid.

burt - 22 January 2019 03:36 PM

But at the same time, the conclusion cannot be denied with certainty, from what is given it’s an open question, may or may not be the case,

You just proved the conclusion true. You’re saying here that it is possible that what C does is determined by A because the two parts of B may be the same part of B.
Aren’t you learning something here?
EB

 
Speakpigeon
 
Avatar
 
 
Speakpigeon
Total Posts:  168
Joined  01-10-2017
 
 
 
23 January 2019 04:45
 
nonverbal - 22 January 2019 03:55 PM

I hope you’ll excuse the interruption, Speakpigeon, but I’m dying to know how it is that your argument seems important enough to discuss with others. Will you eventually reveal your inner motivation? I’m not asking you to reveal it here, but only if you will at some future point reveal it.

And what time is it, by the way?
Do you have any friend named Joe?
How many cats do you have?
Seems to me you’re not interested in the topic or in what I may say.
I think you would need to get yourself to articulate something recognisable as addressing the topic. That would show you’re interested.
EB

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15955
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
23 January 2019 05:54
 
Speakpigeon - 23 January 2019 04:32 AM
burt - 22 January 2019 03:36 PM

In other words, the premises don’t force the conclusion because the words “some part” are equivocal.

The phrase “some part” is not equivocal.
It’s very clear and completely unambiguous.
Look it up in a dictionary.

burt - 22 January 2019 03:36 PM

Could be different parts.


Yes, it may be different parts and it may be the same part.
But there’s nothing in the argument that implies it can’t be the same part, so, on the face of the argument, it may be the same part.
So, the argument is valid.

burt - 22 January 2019 03:36 PM

But at the same time, the conclusion cannot be denied with certainty, from what is given it’s an open question, may or may not be the case,

You just proved the conclusion true. You’re saying here that it is possible that what C does is determined by A because the two parts of B may be the same part of B.
Aren’t you learning something here?
EB

First off, I hope that you are learning something, although I wonder.

The equivocation is not in the single phrase “some part” but in its use in both premises where it need not have the same referent.

And no, I did not just prove the conclusion true, I showed that it could not be denied from what was given, nor could it be shown true in the logical sense, rather it only invites agreement in a vacuous way of “for all we know”.

 
Speakpigeon
 
Avatar
 
 
Speakpigeon
Total Posts:  168
Joined  01-10-2017
 
 
 
23 January 2019 06:22
 

This is a thread on the logical validity of the following argument:

A squid is not a giraffe
A giraffe is not an elephant
An elephant is not a squid
Joe is either a squid or a giraffe
Joe is an elephant
Therefore, Joe is a squid?

Is this argument logically valid?
Either way, why?
EB

 
Speakpigeon
 
Avatar
 
 
Speakpigeon
Total Posts:  168
Joined  01-10-2017
 
 
 
23 January 2019 07:08
 
burt - 23 January 2019 05:54 AM

First off, I hope that you are learning something, although I wonder.

I just did. You haven’t looked up a dictionary as I suggested you should.

burt - 23 January 2019 05:54 AM

The equivocation is not in the single phrase “some part” but in its use in both premises where it need not have the same referent.

And for the second time, it’s not what “equivocal” means,

Equivocal
1. capable of varying interpretations; ambiguous
2. deliberately misleading or vague; evasive
3. of doubtful character or sincerity; dubious

You don’t seem capable of learning any longer.
And here we have this French idiot guy teaching proper English to the very representative on Earth of American science.
Whoa.

burt - 23 January 2019 05:54 AM

And no, I did not just prove the conclusion true, I showed that it could not be denied from what was given, nor could it be shown true in the logical sense, rather it only invites agreement in a vacuous way of “for all we know”.

Apparently, you seem to believe that the conclusion of the argument is “Therefore, what C does is determined by A”.
It’s not. It’s “Therefore, for all we know, what C does may be determined by A”.
And this is why the argument is valid, as per your own explanation.
And if you can’t learn anymore, I’ll have to give up on you.
EB

[ Edited: 23 January 2019 07:11 by Speakpigeon]
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15955
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
23 January 2019 07:55
 
Speakpigeon - 23 January 2019 07:08 AM
burt - 23 January 2019 05:54 AM

First off, I hope that you are learning something, although I wonder.

I just did. You haven’t looked up a dictionary as I suggested you should.

burt - 23 January 2019 05:54 AM

The equivocation is not in the single phrase “some part” but in its use in both premises where it need not have the same referent.

And for the second time, it’s not what “equivocal” means,

Equivocal
1. capable of varying interpretations; ambiguous
2. deliberately misleading or vague; evasive
3. of doubtful character or sincerity; dubious

You don’t seem capable of learning any longer.
And here we have this French idiot guy teaching proper English to the very representative on Earth of American science.
Whoa.
EB

I suggest that you take definition 1 above and compare it to what I said, your use of the same phrase in first and second premises fits that definition, it is ambiguous, it can be interpreted in varying ways. You do know, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say you ought to know that when stating premises it is important that the words used have unambiguous meanings. But perhaps your mind is too simple to grasp this oh so obvious fact. Perhaps you should stick to French.

Speakpigeon - 23 January 2019 07:08 AM
burt - 23 January 2019 05:54 AM

And no, I did not just prove the conclusion true, I showed that it could not be denied from what was given, nor could it be shown true in the logical sense, rather it only invites agreement in a vacuous way of “for all we know”.

Apparently, you seem to believe that the conclusion of the argument is “Therefore, what C does is determined by A”.
It’s not. It’s “Therefore, for all we know, what C does may be determined by A”.
And this is why the argument is valid, as per your own explanation.
And if you can’t learn anymore, I’ll have to give up on you.
EB

You have a very short memory. You need to stop smoking all that pot. In you recall, I said in the poll, valid but not logically valid. You said you did not understand, so I explained. But just so you can try to wrap your limited understanding around this I will explicate again:
If the argument is to be logically valid it must satisfy the condition that the conclusion is required by the premises, not suggested, of hinted at, but REQUIRED. In other words, given the premises, the conclusion must follow and the negation of the conclusion must be excluded. There can be no questioning of the conclusion. Your argument does not meet that standard. Because of the equivocation I identified, one could also draw a conclusion: Therefore, for all we know, what C does may not be determined by A. Or a variety of other conclusions, none of which are excluded by the premises. On the other hand, rhetorically the argument has validity. I understand that being French you have been conditioned to value rhetoric over logic, even though claiming otherwise, but try not to confuse the two.

Since you seem to have trouble with English, however, and find yourself having to reference a dictionary so frequently, perhaps you ought to write in French. That carries an additional benefit…, to quote the esteemed American philosopher John Searle: “Nonsense sounds better if you say it in French.”

 
Speakpigeon
 
Avatar
 
 
Speakpigeon
Total Posts:  168
Joined  01-10-2017
 
 
 
23 January 2019 08:17
 
burt - 23 January 2019 07:55 AM
Speakpigeon - 23 January 2019 07:08 AM

And for the second time, it’s not what “equivocal” means,

Equivocal
1. capable of varying interpretations; ambiguous
2. deliberately misleading or vague; evasive
3. of doubtful character or sincerity; dubious

You don’t seem capable of learning any longer.
And here we have this French idiot guy teaching proper English to the very representative on Earth of American science.
Whoa.
EB


I suggest that you take definition 1 above and compare it to what I said, your use of the same phrase in first and second premises fits that definition, it is ambiguous, it can be interpreted in varying ways. You do know, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say you ought to know that when stating premises it is important that the words used have unambiguous meanings. But perhaps your mind is too simple to grasp this oh so obvious fact. Perhaps you should stick to French.


So, explain to me what might be the varying interpretations of the phrase “some part of B”...
Apparently, not only do you not know what the word “equivocal” means, but you also don’t know what the word interpretation means.

Interpret
1. To explain the meaning of: The newspapers interpreted the ambassador’s speech as an attempt at making peace. See Synonyms at explain.

You’re a case of confusing meaning and reference. Equivocation relate to meaning, not reference. Upgrade.
That’s your last chance. I can’t possibly spend my time teaching you English vocabulary.

burt - 23 January 2019 07:55 AM

If the argument is to be logically valid it must satisfy the condition that the conclusion is required by the premises, not suggested, of hinted at, but REQUIRED. In other words, given the premises, the conclusion must follow and the negation of the conclusion must be excluded. There can be no questioning of the conclusion.

An argument is usually said to be logically valid if all cases in which the premises are true, the conclusion is also true.
Or, equivalently, an argument is said to be valid if there is no case in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false.

burt - 23 January 2019 07:55 AM

Your argument does not meet that standard. Because of the equivocation I identified, one could also draw a conclusion: Therefore, for all we know, what C does may not be determined by A. Or a variety of other conclusions, none of which are excluded by the premises. On the other hand, rhetorically the argument has validity. I understand that being French you have been conditioned to value rhetoric over logic, even though claiming otherwise, but try not to confuse the two.

There is no equivocation. You said yourself that some part of B in premise 1 and some part of B in premise 2 may refer to the same part. That’s all you need to understand to see that the argument is valid given that the conclusion is an assertion not of certainty but of possibility.

burt - 23 January 2019 07:55 AM

Since you seem to have trouble with English, however, and find yourself having to reference a dictionary so frequently, perhaps you ought to write in French. That carries an additional benefit…, to quote the esteemed American philosopher John Searle: “Nonsense sounds better if you say it in French.”

It’s really not difficult to see my English is much better.
And I obviously only quoted a dictionary after you had demonstrated not only your ignorance of ordinary English words but your unwillingness to look up a dictionary to begin with.
Oh, well, never mind.
I think I’m done with you. I give up. Trump wins.
Have a nice day and be a good boy and buy yourself a good sturdy American dictionary.
EB

[ Edited: 23 January 2019 08:19 by Speakpigeon]
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15955
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
23 January 2019 12:32
 
Speakpigeon - 23 January 2019 08:17 AM
burt - 23 January 2019 07:55 AM
Speakpigeon - 23 January 2019 07:08 AM

And for the second time, it’s not what “equivocal” means,

Equivocal
1. capable of varying interpretations; ambiguous
2. deliberately misleading or vague; evasive
3. of doubtful character or sincerity; dubious

You don’t seem capable of learning any longer.
And here we have this French idiot guy teaching proper English to the very representative on Earth of American science.
Whoa.
EB


I suggest that you take definition 1 above and compare it to what I said, your use of the same phrase in first and second premises fits that definition, it is ambiguous, it can be interpreted in varying ways. You do know, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say you ought to know that when stating premises it is important that the words used have unambiguous meanings. But perhaps your mind is too simple to grasp this oh so obvious fact. Perhaps you should stick to French.


So, explain to me what might be the varying interpretations of the phrase “some part of B”...
Apparently, not only do you not know what the word “equivocal” means, but you also don’t know what the word interpretation means.

Interpret
1. To explain the meaning of: The newspapers interpreted the ambassador’s speech as an attempt at making peace. See Synonyms at explain.

You’re a case of confusing meaning and reference. Equivocation relate to meaning, not reference. Upgrade.
That’s your last chance. I can’t possibly spend my time teaching you English vocabulary.

burt - 23 January 2019 07:55 AM

If the argument is to be logically valid it must satisfy the condition that the conclusion is required by the premises, not suggested, of hinted at, but REQUIRED. In other words, given the premises, the conclusion must follow and the negation of the conclusion must be excluded. There can be no questioning of the conclusion.

An argument is usually said to be logically valid if all cases in which the premises are true, the conclusion is also true.
Or, equivalently, an argument is said to be valid if there is no case in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false.

burt - 23 January 2019 07:55 AM

Your argument does not meet that standard. Because of the equivocation I identified, one could also draw a conclusion: Therefore, for all we know, what C does may not be determined by A. Or a variety of other conclusions, none of which are excluded by the premises. On the other hand, rhetorically the argument has validity. I understand that being French you have been conditioned to value rhetoric over logic, even though claiming otherwise, but try not to confuse the two.

There is no equivocation. You said yourself that some part of B in premise 1 and some part of B in premise 2 may refer to the same part. That’s all you need to understand to see that the argument is valid given that the conclusion is an assertion not of certainty but of possibility.

burt - 23 January 2019 07:55 AM

Since you seem to have trouble with English, however, and find yourself having to reference a dictionary so frequently, perhaps you ought to write in French. That carries an additional benefit…, to quote the esteemed American philosopher John Searle: “Nonsense sounds better if you say it in French.”

It’s really not difficult to see my English is much better.
And I obviously only quoted a dictionary after you had demonstrated not only your ignorance of ordinary English words but your unwillingness to look up a dictionary to begin with.
Oh, well, never mind.
I think I’m done with you. I give up. Trump wins.
Have a nice day and be a good boy and buy yourself a good sturdy American dictionary.
EB

Good by, I have more important things to do than argue with an idiot. Why not try to pull your head out of your ass for a change.

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1891
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
23 January 2019 14:20
 
Speakpigeon, to Burt - 23 January 2019 08:17 AM

. . .

That’s your last chance. I can’t possibly spend my time teaching you English vocabulary.

. . .

It’s really not difficult to see my English is much better.
And I obviously only quoted a dictionary after you had demonstrated not only your ignorance of ordinary English words

. . .

Have a nice day and be a good boy and buy yourself a good sturdy American dictionary.
EB

Please keep in mind that English dictionary definitions only summarize usage. Give me a word that’s in a dictionary of your choice, and I’ll give you the (additional) news!

 
 
Speakpigeon
 
Avatar
 
 
Speakpigeon
Total Posts:  168
Joined  01-10-2017
 
 
 
24 January 2019 01:24
 
nonverbal - 23 January 2019 02:20 PM

Please keep in mind that English dictionary definitions only summarize usage.

Sure, and you could have inferred I understand that from what I explicitly said that dictionaries reflect the meaning of most people.
And for people here, who pretend to understand and value empirical evidence, to keep using certain words, like burt does brutishly with “equivocal” and “interpret”, differently from what most people do, as empirically reported in dictionaries, is not only ironic but idiotic. I say show your ass if it’s clean.
EB

 
Speakpigeon
 
Avatar
 
 
Speakpigeon
Total Posts:  168
Joined  01-10-2017
 
 
 
27 January 2019 01:07
 

I would like to address burt’s reply here…

burt - 22 January 2019 08:52 AM
Speakpigeon - 22 January 2019 05:26 AM

P1 - For all we know, A may be the state of some part of B;
P2 - What C does is determined by the state of some part of B;
C - Therefore, for all we know, what C does may be determined by A.

So, again, is this argument valid?


Not really. It might fly in a preliminary grant proposal (we will seek to explicate this question by determining which parts of B are involved in A and in C) which is to say it’s not entirely invalid as a heuristic argument, but logically it is invalid.

The point I want to address is burt’s sentence: “we will seek to explicate this question by determining which parts of B are involved in A and in C”.

So, here is another, more simple, argument, with a similarity in logical form with the previous argument:

x may be some part of B;
y is some part of B;
Therefore, x may be y.

So,  is this argument valid? 
Possible answers:

Not valid
Valid
I don’t know
The argument doesn’t make sense

Please, take the argument “on the face of fit”, as worded and phrased.
Thank you also to try and articulate how you come to the conclusion either that it is valid or that it is not valid.
EB

 
 < 1 2 3 >