[W:444:664] Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Quag · Sep 8, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
Your conditional syllogism, though rough-hewn, is valid, although you don't seem to understand this.
Hang a left out the door and the "Beliefs and Skepticism" building is the second on the right, the one with the gargoyle sticking out its tongue.

what you dont seem to understand is that the argument like your is worthless
All you are doing mental masturbation based on flawed reasoning and pretending oy are doing philosophy
You are not.

marke · Sep 8, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

devildavid said:
You don't understand the true nature of god. Your if statements rely on your erroneous view of god. God is synonymous with hate, not providence.

What moron told you God is a God of hate and why did you believe that idiot?

Angel · Sep 8, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

KerouacJack said:
No infer is the proper word and english isn't even my first language.
You're just making yourself out to be a bigger twat then i thought.

aprachana

Like the man said, name-calling and scatological swearwords are better resorted to in "Beliefs and Skepticism."
And no, you want the word "imply," not the word "infer," in this context.

how does providential infer the sacred

The infer/imply confusion is common; don't take umbrage, take heed. And remember who you are: you're the guy who made a big deal about my use of "Namaste."

Namaste

KerouacJack · Sep 8, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
Like the man said, name-calling and scatological swearwords are better resorted to in "Beliefs and Skepticism."
And no, you want the word "imply," not the word "infer," in this context.

The infer/imply confusion is common; don't take umbrage, take heed. And remember who you are: you're the guy who made a big deal about my use of "Namaste."

Namaste

I'm not taking umbrage it is the proper word to use in the context, since i was referring to the idea of your premise and not your intent. MORON

Angel · Sep 8, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

KerouacJack said:
I'm not taking umbrage it is the proper word to use in the context, since i was referring to the idea of your premise and not your intent. MORON

It is not the proper word to use. Your persistence in error and your continued name-calling does not change the fact that "how does providential infer the sacred" is in fact very close to nonsense, and that what you meant to say was: how does providential imply the sacred.

Now, if you who dish out correction uncivilly cannot take correction civilly, then you can take a hike as far as I'm concerned.

Namaste

KerouacJack · Sep 8, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
It is not the proper word to use. Your persistence in error and your continued name-calling does not change the fact that "how does providential infer the sacred" is in fact very close to nonsense, and that what you meant to say was: how does providential imply the sacred.

Now, if you who dish out correction uncivilly cannot take correction civilly, then you can take a hike as far as I'm concerned.

Namaste

I don't care about your concern i gave you definition of the word infer... you obviously needed it repeated

in·fer
inˈfər/Submit
verb
deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.
"from these facts we can infer that crime has been increasing"

It is the correct use for the context as subject of the inference was one idea logically following to another... your not hinting at anything in your stupid premises.
imply and infer are opposites, like a throw and a catch. To imply is to hint at something, but to infer is to make an educated guess.

Angel · Sep 8, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

KerouacJack said:
I don't care about your concern i gave you definition of the word infer... you obviously needed it repeated

It is the correct use for the context as subject of the inference was one idea logically following to another... your not hinting at anything in your stupid premises.
imply and infer are opposites, like a throw and a catch. To imply is to hint at something, but to infer is to make an educated guess.

Here, learn:
https://www.hauppauge.k12.ny.us/cms.../Domain/326/Scope January Imply vs. Infer.pdf

Moreover, imply has another meaning besides "hint," a meaning which is not involved in teaching the imply/infer difference, and it is in fact that meaning you need in your case, namely, "to suggest as a logical consequence or conclusion." Providence implies sacredness.

Namaste

KerouacJack · Sep 8, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
Here, learn:
https://www.hauppauge.k12.ny.us/cms.../Domain/326/Scope January Imply vs. Infer.pdf

Moreover, imply has another meaning besides "hint," a meaning which is not involved in teaching the imply/infer difference, and it is in fact that meaning you need in your case, namely, "to suggest as a logical consequence or conclusion." Providence implies sacredness.

Namaste

You are pathetic

https://writingexplained.org/imply-vs-infer-difference

Imply is a verb and is defined as “to express or state indirectly.” For example,

He implied that he needed some help.
She implied that she was in a hurry to get somewhere.
Their fancy clothes implied they were wealthy.
To imply something is to hint or suggest something, but not to directly say it. It is the more assertive, more active of the two. The word imply is derived from an Old French word that meant “to enfold,” and this is a good way to think about it. An implied statement is hidden, and not directly stated, as a message folded into an envelope would be.

Infer is also a verb and is defined as “to conclude from evidence of by reasoning.” For example,

I inferred from your look that you wanted me to leave.
You can infer from the crime scene that a gun was used.
If you see someone staggering along the sidewalk, you may infer that he is drunk.
To infer something is to deduce or conclude something as a result of something unsaid or indirectly said. Infer is derived from a Latin word that means to “bring in,” and this is a good way to think about it. A reader or listener is “bringing in” a meaning that isn’t directly stated or intentionally left ambiguous.

providence infers sacredness.......

these are ideas, the idea of providence is the actor here.

let me put it a better way, as i am understanding the idea of providence and following your reasoning to a conclusion the reader must infer sacredness from providence.

Quag · Sep 8, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

KerouacJack said:
You are pathetic

https://writingexplained.org/imply-vs-infer-difference

providence infers sacredness.......

these are ideas, the idea of providence is the actor here.

let me put it a better way, as i am understanding the idea of providence and following your reasoning to a conclusion the reader must infer sacredness from providence.

Angel does have a tendency to make up his own definitions

Angel · Sep 8, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

KerouacJack said:
...
let me put it a better way, as i am understanding the idea of providence and following your reasoning to a conclusion the reader must infer sacredness from providence.

This is correct.

Providence (the concept) implies sacredness.

The above is a logical relationship. This use of the word is covered at 1.1 in this Oxford entry:

1.1 (of a fact or occurrence) suggest (something) as a logical consequence.
‘the forecasted traffic increase implied more roads and more air pollution’

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/imply

When the distinction is taught, the logical use (1.1) is not mentioned, and the distinction is presented in terms of the speaker/listener relationship, as in this Oxford usage note:

Usage

There is a distinction in meaning between infer and imply. In the sentence the speaker implied that the General had been a traitor, implied means that the speaker subtly suggested that this man was a traitor (though nothing so explicit was actually stated). However, in we inferred from his words that the General had been a traitor, inferred means that something in the speaker's words enabled the listeners to deduce that the man was a traitor. The two words infer and imply can describe the same event, but from different angles. Use of infer to mean imply, as in are you inferring that I'm a liar? (instead of are you implying that I'm a liar?), is an extremely common error

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/infer

In the conditional argument (like the one I post in this thread) the argument presents a relationship of implication between the if-clause and the clause following the if-clause.
"If A, then B" means A implies B.

Where A implies B, you are asked to infer B from A. Inference is always from something given.

soylentgreen · Sep 8, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
That's not the premise. It is not even a statement. It is a conditional clause used in a statement that serves as a premise.

In logic the argument is broken down into all its parts. Your use of an if / then clause can be seen as a separate part. ie. if (hypotheses), then (conclusion). Which are then given T /F values.

But how we structure the argument is not what bothers me as much as your pedantic reply. . I entered this conversation because of one of your statements. This one.

The only way the argument can be unsound, as explained earlier in this thread, is in the case that an antecedent is true and its consequent false. All other truth values result in a sound argument.

I would like you to clarify this statement for me.

If it is the case that you are just making a statement about soundness in an argument in general then i still have a problem with what you say but i want this one sorted first.

.
Given the context of that statement it could be interpreted as you saying that your particular argument of which i quoted the first hypotheses is you claiming it is a sound argument. That i have a problem with.
It is not a sound argument.

So, before i waste our time explaining why it is not sound i need to know whether you are in fact claiming it is sound. A simple Yes/No answer will suffice at this point.

Now let's also deal with why your statement is wrong.

The only way the argument can be unsound, as explained earlier in this thread, is in the case that an antecedent is true and its consequent false. All other truth values result in a sound argument.

Again, i can only assume you are referring back to the table you gave in post #11.

That is a table that shows validity not soundness.

For your argument to be sound all statements would have to be true. And that is not a claim you can make about your argument.

soylentgreen · Sep 8, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Quag said:
Even if God exists and God created life on earth it doesn't mean "there is a special Providence in the fall of a sparrow"
And even if "there is a special Providence in the fall of a sparrow" it doesn't mean all life is sacred

Those are just claims Angel cannot prove and there is no reason whatsoever to assume they are.

Agreed he appears to be mistaking validity for soundness. His argument is valid, but so what? Valid arguments are a dime a dozen.

Angel · Sep 8, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

soylentgreen said:
In logic the argument is broken down into all its parts. Your use of an if / then clause can be seen as a separate part. ie. if (hypotheses), then (conclusion). Which are then given T /F values.

But how we structure the argument is not what bothers me as much as your pedantic reply. . I entered this conversation because of one of your statements. This one.

I would like you to clarify this statement for me.

If it is the case that you are just making a statement about soundness in an argument in general then i still have a problem with what you say but i want this one sorted first.

.
Given the context of that statement it could be interpreted as you saying that your particular argument of which i quoted the first hypotheses is you claiming it is a sound argument. That i have a problem with.
It is not a sound argument.

So, before i waste our time explaining why it is not sound i need to know whether you are in fact claiming it is sound. A simple Yes/No answer will suffice at this point.

Now let's also deal with why your statement is wrong.

Again, i can only assume you are referring back to the table you gave in post #11.

That is a table that shows validity not soundness.

For your argument to be sound all statements would have to be true. And that is not a claim you can make about your argument.

soylentgreen said:
Agreed he appears to be mistaking validity for soundness. His argument is valid, but so what? Valid arguments are a dime a dozen.

Yes. My argument is valid and sound. Have at it.

soylentgreen · Sep 8, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
Yes. My argument is valid and sound. Have at it.

Yes it is valid, which means very little. But no, it is not sound

sound is defined as

An argument is sound if and only if

The argument is valid, and
All of its premises are true.

And this does not mean true in the "if" true sense but true in the verifiable sense.

As it cannot be said that god can be proven to exist then your first premise holds only in a if true/false sense.

Your argument is valid and the definition of valid is

Validity: An argument is valid when, IF all of it’s premises were true, then the
conclusion would also HAVE to be true.
In other words, a “valid” argument is one where the conclusion necessarily follows from
the premises

So your argument is one where "if" we consider the premises to be true not that we know the premises to be true.
Your argument is valid only because the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.

Angel · Sep 9, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

soylentgreen said:
...

And this does not mean true in the "if" true sense but true in the verifiable sense.

As it cannot be said that god can be proven to exist then your first premise holds only in a if true/false sense.

So your argument is one where "if" we consider the premises to be true not that we know the premises to be true.
...

You seem to be saying that hypothetical syllogisms cannot be sound by definition. That's sorta silly with the truth table staring you in the face.

Tim the plumber · Sep 9, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
You have to argue here, mate. Calling won't do.

The reason I view you as an enemy of humanity is that you constantly seek to avoid actual reality. You seek to make it OK to speak drivel. This is the worst thing that can happen to the enlightenemnt:- The subversion of actual rigourous thinking by self proclaimed high brow argument which is simply drivel using long words.

The post modernist philosophy you wish to try to shoe horn into the world is drivel.

That it surrounds its' self with the trappings of respectibility and gravitas does not make it anything other than an attack on reason.

Angel · Sep 9, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Tim the plumber said:
The reason I view you as an enemy of humanity is that you constantly seek to avoid actual reality. You seek to make it OK to speak drivel. This is the worst thing that can happen to the enlightenemnt:- The subversion of actual rigourous thinking by self proclaimed high brow argument which is simply drivel using long words.

The post modernist philosophy you wish to try to shoe horn into the world is drivel.

That it surrounds its' self with the trappings of respectibility and gravitas does not make it anything other than an attack on reason.

You still need arguments, mate. Personal crap is just that, crap.

This is the worst thing that can happen to the enlightenemnt:- The subversion of actual rigourous thinking

And that enlightenment of yours should learn how to spell, or at least spell check. Sloppy language usually signals sloppy thinking.

Angel · Sep 9, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

For latecomers.
Shorn of the Shakespeare, here's the conditional argument in question:

If God created life, then life is providential.
If life is providential, then life is sacred.__
Therefore, if God created life, then life is sacred.

KerouacJack · Sep 9, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
This is correct.

Providence (the concept) implies sacredness.

The above is a logical relationship. This use of the word is covered at 1.1 in this Oxford entry:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/imply

When the distinction is taught, the logical use (1.1) is not mentioned, and the distinction is presented in terms of the speaker/listener relationship, as in this Oxford usage note:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/infer

In the conditional argument (like the one I post in this thread) the argument presents a relationship of implication between the if-clause and the clause following the if-clause.
"If A, then B" means A implies B.

Where A implies B, you are asked to infer B from A. Inference is always from something given.

Wow, your total lack of understanding the context is noted

last help you get from me.

Use infers in a sentence | infers sentence examples

Quag · Sep 9, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
For latecomers.
Shorn of the Shakespeare, here's the conditional argument in question:

If God created life, then life is providential.
If life is providential, then life is sacred.__
Therefore, if God created life, then life is sacred.

Still worthless

Angel · Sep 9, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

KerouacJack said:
Wow, your total lack of understanding the context is noted

last help you get from me.

Use infers in a sentence | infers sentence examples

Beat it. You're wasting my time and your own. You don't want to learn.

Namaste

Angel · Sep 9, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Quag said:
Still worthless

Still not a logical term. I recommend a good book on logic and some honest self-examination.

soylentgreen · Sep 9, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
You seem to be saying that hypothetical syllogisms cannot be sound by definition. That's sorta silly with the truth table staring you in the face.

As i said your truth table is for validity not soundness. Validity uses truth/false as being the only two possible outcomes of any statement. They are an "if" proposition not a factual claim of truth or falseness. It is when you reach for the higher ground of establishing whether an argument is sound does truth then must become a point that is factually true.

Your argument is valid but that does not mean it is true. For example.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid. An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well. We can recognize in the above case that even if one of the premises is actually false, that if they had been true the conclusion would have been true as well. Consider, then an argument such as the following:

All toasters are items made of gold.
All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.

Obviously, the premises in this argument are not true. It may be hard to imagine these premises being true, but it is not hard to see that if they were true, their truth would logically guarantee the conclusion's truth.

Your argument is like the toaster argument. None of your premises are factually true they are only being considered as if they were true and can see that the premises do relate to the conclusion.

Angel · Sep 9, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

soylentgreen said:
As i said your truth table is for validity not soundness. Validity uses truth/false as being the only two possible outcomes of any statement. They are an "if" proposition not a factual claim of truth or falseness. It is when you reach for the higher ground of establishing whether an argument is sound does truth then must become a point that is factually true.

Your argument is valid but that does not mean it is true. For example.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

Your argument is like the toaster argument. None of your premises are factually true they are only being considered as if they were true and can see that the premises do relate to the conclusion.

No, my argument is a conditional argument, and the truth table gives the truth values of of the conditional argument (Upper right) given different truth values of its clausal terms.
I don't know what you mean by "factually true" and I doubt you yourself know, but the table sets forth the paradigm of logical truth given the various truth values of the variables.
If you are denying a truth value to a conditional statement simply because it is hypothetical, then you are mistaken.
The truth table tells you that you are mistaken.
Moreover, there's a simple counterexample available: Does "If P, then P" not have a truth value? Of course it does.

Angel · Sep 9, 2018

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

soylentgreen said:
...
None of your premises are factually true they are only being considered as if they were true and can see that the premises do relate to the conclusion.

If Abraham Lincoln committed suicide, then Abraham Lincoln is dead.
Abraham Lincoln did not commit suicide.___
Therefore, Abraham Lincoln is not dead.

We have true premises and a false conclusion. Yes, that first premise is true.
Validity, Truth and Soundness

[W:444:664] Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Quag

marke

Angel

KerouacJack

Active member

Angel

KerouacJack

Active member

Angel

KerouacJack

Active member

Quag

Angel

soylentgreen

soylentgreen

Angel

soylentgreen

Angel

Tim the plumber

Angel

Angel

KerouacJack

Active member

Quag

Angel

Angel

soylentgreen

Angel

Angel