• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Now that the static has died down...

(p→q) ∧ (q→r) → (p→r)

If Empiricism is true, then idealism is true.
If Idealism is true, then Physicalism is false.
Therefore, if Empiricism is true, then Physicalism is false.

Ain't that a kick in the head!
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
Now that the static has died down...

(p→q) ∧ (q→r) → (p→r)

If Empiricism is true, then idealism is true.
If Idealism is true, then Physicalism is false.
Therefore, if Empiricism is true, then Physicalism is false.

Ain't that a kick in the head!
Click to expand...

Line one does not follow. There is no logical connection between empiricism and idealism. The rest of it follows the same non logical suit.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

devildavid said:
Line one does not follow. There is no logical connection between empiricism and idealism. The rest of it follows the same non logical suit.
Click to expand...
Your erroneous claim reveals the gaps in your reading in philosophy, if you've read in philosophy at all. Read Locke, Berkeley or Hume, the British Empiricists. Pay particular attention to Berkeley. Empiricism leads directly to Idealism.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
Your erroneous claim reveals the gaps in your reading in philosophy, if you've read in philosophy at all. Read Locke, Berkeley or Hume, the British Empiricists. Pay particular attention to Berkeley. Empiricism leads directly to Idealism.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

devildavid said:
It does not.
Click to expand...
Listen, joker. Your ignorance of a subject is not an argument -- except perhaps in your twitter-age view of things. If you want to play Pee Wee Herman with someone, find someone else to play with.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

(p→q) ∧ (q→r) → (p→r)

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

If a black hole captures information at its surface, then the universe is a hologram.
If the universe is a hologram, then reality is immaterial.
Therefore, if a black hole captures information at its surface, then reality is immaterial.

If Empiricism is true, then idealism is true.
If Idealism is true, then Physicalism is false.
Therefore, if Empiricism is true, then Physicalism is false.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

gfm7175 said:
My "mantras" will be in red text, and my support for my "mantras" will be in black text. If you disagree with the red text, you must first address the black text, THEN advance support for your own position...

I have claimed that dictionaries are not proof of anything because proofs reside in closed functional systems such as math and logic, dictionaries don't define words because people define words (through use of philosophy, so it's ultimately philosophy defining words since philosophy defines ways in which we reason, such as science and logic), dictionaries are not authoritative because they are simply a collection of words; they don't define those words; they don't own those words.

Now, it's your turn to clear your paradoxes... In post #2181, you claimed that ALL dictionaries are "authoritative and correct". This means that Oxford is authoritative and correct, but so is dictionary.com, so is Cambridge, so is Urban Dictionary... This is a paradox... you must clear it...
1) Dictionaries differ from each other.
2) ALL dictionaries are authoritative and correct.

You must also clear the second paradox you accumulated while trying to defend your position:
1)ALL dictionaries are the source of word definitions.
2) People are the source of word definitions.

If you don't clear these paradoxes, and continue to throw stones, I will not continue to argue with someone who argues irrationally.
Click to expand...

Your failure to understand what a dictionary is or what language is or gow it works just shows your lack of education

Your mantra of calling everting you dont understand a paradox is pathetic.
you Still havent explained your mantra about of philosophy defining words

I guess you never will deal with that canard.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
The concept of a Creator God contains the idea of providence. A Creator God means divine providence. That's the skinny, my friend. All your complaints to the contrary are erroneous and derive either from an unwitting contrarianism on your part or a genuine lack of understanding.
Click to expand...

No that is your belief others have different beliefs
Your THEN doesn't necessarily follow the IF
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

FreedomFromAll said:
Your rainy day story is indeed meaningless. Then taking my comments out of context and trying to apply them to your rainy day story is just word games.
Click to expand...

What is meaningless about it? Why is that?

How was I "playing word games" and what is the "correct context"?

I just showed how we regularly make use of hypothetical syllogisms and why they aren't "meaningless"...
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Quag said:
...deleted various 'you don't understand' and 'lack of intelligence' mantras...
Click to expand...

Quag said:
Your mantra of calling everting you dont understand a paradox is pathetic.
Click to expand...
A paradox occurs when one asserts conflicting viewpoints. Whenever one asserts conflicting viewpoints, which you do quite often, I call them out on it. You are up to at least eight paradoxes now; you must clear them before you can argue rationally.

Quag said:
you Still havent explained your mantra about of philosophy defining words...deleted snarky comment...
Click to expand...
Philosophy is the study of how and why we reason. Religion, science, mathematics, and logic all stem from philosophy because they are all ways in which we reason. So, in other words, philosophy defines those terms... That's why I say that it is ultimately philosophy that defines words (people are the vessels). Dictionaries and 'holy links' have absolutely nothing to do with, and play no part in, defining words. Thus, appealing to dictionaries and 'holy links' as the ultimate standard for word definitions is committing the 'false authority' fallacy, among its leading to numerous paradoxes (as you have already asserted two such paradoxes).



So, once again, you talk as if you are willing to have a back and forth discussion, but then the very moment the spotlight shifts over to you, you cower away from it... That's what happens when one can't defend the positions they are advocating (in other words, strongly believing something without even knowing why they believe it)...


Nice talk, Quag...
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
Listen, joker. Your ignorance of a subject is not an argument -- except perhaps in your twitter-age view of things. If you want to play Pee Wee Herman with someone, find someone else to play with.
Click to expand...

The iromy inheremt to that statememt is quite delicious.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

gfm7175 said:
What is meaningless about it? Why is that?

How was I "playing word games" and what is the "correct context"?

I just showed how we regularly make use of hypothetical syllogisms and why they aren't "meaningless"...
Click to expand...

I do not care if you can construct a logical sounding sentence, if you still cannot make a sound argument out of it. I mean come on word play is asserting that a circular argument is logically valid as if that somehow makes the circular reasoning valid. And for the record you did not show me anything other than dishonest attempts to sound like some kind of an authority.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

FreedomFromAll said:
I do not care if you can construct a logical sounding sentence, if you still cannot make a sound argument out of it.
Click to expand...
If you don't care that I can make proper use of logic, then I'm afraid we have nowhere else to go with this...

FreedomFromAll said:
I mean come on word play is asserting that a circular argument is logically valid as if that somehow makes the circular reasoning valid.
Click to expand...
There is no word play involved here. A circular argument is an argument as follows (P, therefore P)... Kate is a lawyer, therefore Kate is a lawyer. An argument is logically valid if its conclusion follows from its predicate(s). In circular arguments, the conclusion DOES follow from its predicate(s), so circular arguments ARE logically valid. The argument could be true, the argument could be false, but regardless, the argument IS logically valid. To deny this is to deny logic. To deny logic is to be irrational.

FreedomFromAll said:
And for the record you did not show me anything other than dishonest attempts to sound like some kind of an authority.
Click to expand...
No idea what you're saying here or what your point is...
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

gfm7175 said:
If you don't care that I can make proper use of logic, then I'm afraid we have nowhere else to go with this...


There is no word play involved here. A circular argument is an argument as follows (P, therefore P)... Kate is a lawyer, therefore Kate is a lawyer. An argument is logically valid if its conclusion follows from its predicate(s). In circular arguments, the conclusion DOES follow from its predicate(s), so circular arguments ARE logically valid. The argument could be true, the argument could be false, but regardless, the argument IS logically valid. To deny this is to deny logic. To deny logic is to be irrational.


No idea what you're saying here or what your point is...
Click to expand...

P, therefore P is not logically sound if you cannot show that 'P' is a valid claim. So honestly you must admit that P, therefore P is not always sound logic. P, therefore P can never stand on its own as sound logic. Before P, therefore P can be even considered sound logic you need to prove 'P' is a sound argument. So quit with the word games.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

FreedomFromAll said:
P, therefore P is not logically sound if you cannot show that 'P' is a valid claim.
Click to expand...
P, therefore P is logically valid through the proof of identity. The truth of the claim is irrelevant, as circular arguments are synonymous with 'faith'...

FreedomFromAll said:
So honestly you must admit that P, therefore P is not always sound logic.
Click to expand...
It is logically valid as long as one recognizes the circular nature of the argument... If one fails to recognize that, they are committing the circular argument fallacy (otherwise known as 'fundamentalism').

FreedomFromAll said:
P, therefore P can never stand on its own as sound logic. Before P, therefore P can be even considered sound logic you need to prove 'P' is a sound argument... deleted 'word games' mantra...
Click to expand...
Truth is irrelevant here as I have previously explained...
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Moderator's Warning:
Stop the name calling and baiting insults. Stick to discussing the topic without flaming or personal snipes about education and the like
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
(p→q) ∧ (q→r) → (p→r)

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

If a black hole captures information at its surface, then the universe is a hologram.
If the universe is a hologram, then reality is immaterial.
Therefore, if a black hole captures information at its surface, then reality is immaterial.

If Empiricism is true, then idealism is true.
If Idealism is true, then Physicalism is false.
Therefore, if Empiricism is true, then Physicalism is false.
Click to expand...

How about this one?

If 3 > 5, then 5 > 3.
If 5 > 3, then Bismarck is the capital of North Dakota.
Therefore, if 3 > 5, then Bismarck is the capital of North Dakota.

Valid and sound?
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
How about this one?

If 3 > 5, then 5 > 3.
If 5 > 3, then Bismarck is the capital of North Dakota.
Therefore, if 3 > 5, then Bismarck is the capital of North Dakota.

Valid and sound?
Click to expand...
Hint

Remember the material implication replacement rule?

(p→q) and (∼p∨q) are logically equivalent.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

gfm7175 said:
A paradox occurs when one asserts conflicting viewpoints. Whenever one asserts conflicting viewpoints, which you do quite often, I call them out on it. You are up to at least eight paradoxes now; you must clear them before you can argue rationally.
Click to expand...
I know what a paradox is but you dont seem to understand that your lack of comprehension does not make something a paradox

Words can have multiple meanings and there can be multiple ways of saying the same thing.
Some words are defined by those who speak another language when we take the word from them (eg Tulwar a word we took from Hindi meaning a type of sword)
Sorry but if you dont understand these basics about language then you shouldn't try to bring language into the debate


Philosophy is the study of how and why we reason. Religion, science, mathematics, and logic all stem from philosophy because they are all ways in which we reason. So, in other words, philosophy defines those terms... That's why I say that it is ultimately philosophy that defines words (people are the vessels). Dictionaries and 'holy links' have absolutely nothing to do with, and play no part in, defining words. Thus, appealing to dictionaries and 'holy links' as the ultimate standard for word definitions is committing the 'false authority' fallacy, among its leading to numerous paradoxes (as you have already asserted two such paradoxes).
Click to expand...
Still no attempt to back up your claims with anything other than your say so.




So, once again, you talk as if you are willing to have a back and forth discussion, but then the very moment the spotlight shifts over to you, you cower away from it... That's what happens when one can't defend the positions they are advocating (in other words, strongly believing something without even knowing why they believe it)…
Click to expand...
Im not cowering away, You make claims you cant back up and ignore actual supporting documentation
You have given no valid or logical reason why a dictionary cannot be used when establishing the definition of a word other than the fact it goes against whatever strawmen argument you are trying to make.
You have yet too explain exactly where we find the definition of words in philosophy or how they are used. Who is the arbiter in philosophy if two philosophers disagree on a term?


Nice talk, Quag...
Click to expand...
Try backing up your claims and stop making strawmen it will go better
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
How about this one?

If 3 > 5, then 5 > 3.
If 5 > 3, then Bismarck is the capital of North Dakota.
Therefore, if 3 > 5, then Bismarck is the capital of North Dakota.

Valid and sound?
Click to expand...



Angel said:
Hint

Remember the material implication replacement rule?

(p→q) and (∼p∨q) are logically equivalent.
Click to expand...

So, in the case of the major premise, If 3 > 5, then 5 > 3 is logically equivalent to Not 3 > 5 or 5 > 3.
Since 3 > 5 is False, Not 3 > 5 is True.
Therefore the disjunction is True or True, which is True.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

So what about the minor premise: If 5 > 3, then Bismarck is the capital of North Dakota.

Remember: (p→q) and (∼p∨q) are logically equivalent.

Does the disjunction come out True or False?
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
So what about the minor premise: If 5 > 3, then Bismarck is the capital of North Dakota.

Remember: (p→q) and (∼p∨q) are logically equivalent.

Does the disjunction come out True or False?
Click to expand...
The disjunction comes out False or True, which is True.

So the minor premise is True.

How about the conclusion: Therefore, if 3 > 5, then Bismarck is the capital of North Dakota.

How does this come out, True or False?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom