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

[RAMOSS]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Philosophy.


How do you think the rules for your favorite childhood board games get set up? Are those axioms not set up in an arbitrary fashion? Could one choose to operate under a different set of axioms to play that board game in a different way?


I just did...

You saying 'philospohy' and not giving a reference is excactly the same as 'because I said so'.

If you are saying there are no non-arbitrarily axioms, then that claim is arbitrary, and it is self refuting and therefore false.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You saying 'philospohy' and not giving a reference is excactly the same as 'because I said so'.

Philosophy IS the reference, RAMOSS... Your continued denial of Philosophy is a roadblock to you realizing this...

If you are saying there are no non-arbitrarily axioms, then that claim is arbitrary, and it is self refuting and therefore false.

Non-sequitur...

 

[ashurbanipal]

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

Lesson #2: How To Test Validity

Step #1: Assume that all premises are true, whether they are true or not.

Step #2: Ask yourself if the conclusion can still be false, given the truths of the premises.

Step #3: If the conclusion can be false, then the argument is invalid. If the conclusion can't be false, then the argument is valid.

I've seen a few textbooks of introductory logic that suggest this test. I don't particularly like it, because the "ask yourself" bit is rather vague. Intuitions likely differ across individuals with respect to some given argument, and the way this test is phrased, it sounds as if one is supposed to rely on intuition in just the wrong way. Better is the following test:

1. Negate the conclusion.
2. Construct a truth table for the premises and the negated conclusion.
3. If there's a line on the truth table on which the premises and negated conclusion are consistent, the argument is invalid.

Of course, you can do basically the same with a truth tree, or if you've been at it long enough, you can often just look at an argument and tell whether it's valid or not--though I emphasize that this is not a matter of intuition, but rather of memory built up over a long time dealing with many thousands of arguments. But the above test is a simple clerical procedure, and doesn't rely on something murky like "asking yourself."

 

[gfm7175]

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

I've seen a few textbooks of introductory logic that suggest this test. I don't particularly like it, because the "ask yourself" bit is rather vague. Intuitions likely differ across individuals with respect to some given argument, and the way this test is phrased, it sounds as if one is supposed to rely on intuition in just the wrong way. Better is the following test:

1. Negate the conclusion.
2. Construct a truth table for the premises and the negated conclusion.
3. If there's a line on the truth table on which the premises and negated conclusion are consistent, the argument is invalid.

Of course, you can do basically the same with a truth tree, or if you've been at it long enough, you can often just look at an argument and tell whether it's valid or not--though I emphasize that this is not a matter of intuition, but rather of memory built up over a long time dealing with many thousands of arguments. But the above test is a simple clerical procedure, and doesn't rely on something murky like "asking yourself."

That's a fair point.

Thanks for your substantive input.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Philosophy IS the reference, RAMOSS... Your continued denial of Philosophy is a roadblock to you realizing this...


Non-sequitur...

Please support your claim that 'Philosophy is the reference', that looks like 'because I said so'. The inability to defend your point is actually the exact opposeit of Philosophy.

And, no, your claim it's a non-sequitur is incorrect. It was in direct response to your claim that axioms are arbitrary.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

"Please support" mantra dismissed on sight...

And, no, your claim it's a non-sequitur is incorrect. It was in direct response to your claim that axioms are arbitrary.

Irrelevant. Your conclusion still doesn't follow from your premises...

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Irrelevant. Your conclusion still doesn't follow from your premises...

And how is that?? Because you said so?

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

And how is that?? Because you said so?

No, because Logic says so... Logic is what defines a non-sequitur argument...

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Please give a reference to the claim 'Axioms are arbitrarily set' . Show that all axioms are arbitrary. Please, back up your claim with something other than 'because I said so'.

Oy, RAMOSS! Your persistence in insubstantial objection is wearisome! If axioms were not discretionary, then axioms would need axioms. Give your habitual contrarianism a rest. For the love of God!

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

No, because Logic says so... Logic is what defines a non-sequitur argument...

Back up this claim. Show where logic says so. If 'logic' defines what a non-sequitur argument is, your logic is faulty.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Back up this claim. Show where logic says so. If 'logic' defines what a non-sequitur argument is, your logic is faulty.

Are you kidding? Show where logic says so, he says? This is the basic logical fallacy, man! Please stop this harassment!

Here are your holy links:

Non Sequitur
Description: When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little support to the conclusion.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/136/Non-Sequitur

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Are you kidding? Show where logic says so, he says? This is the basic logical fallacy, man! Please stop this harassment!

Here are your holy links:

It's just sad seeing the outright denial of Philosophy and Logic... Since when does one need to make use of outside sources in order to logically reason?

Non-sequitur is defined by Logic, which is defined by its axioms. This is nothing that I came up with. It is simply the 'rules of the game' concerning reasoning... Apparently RAMOSS doesn't like the rules of this particular game...

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Back up this claim.

I already have. You just happen to deny my source.

Show where logic says so.

Take a look at its axioms, which define what it is...

If 'logic' defines what a non-sequitur argument is, your logic is faulty.

Non-sequitur...

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

I already have. You just happen to deny my source.


Take a look at its axioms, which define what it is...


Non-sequitur...

Your source is yourself. . You have not used any other source. IN addition to not referencing any supporting data, you use terms inconsistantly, and not from a standard way.

Therefore, your claim 'you already have' has been falsified. Your claim that 'Logic says it' is the claim I am challenging. That is the unsupported claim.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Your source is yourself.

Lie... I have told you my source.

You have not used any other source.

Revisionist history. I have told you my source.

IN addition to not referencing any supporting data,

No "supporting data" is required...

you use terms inconsistantly,

I have defined my terms, and have used them the same way every single time.

and not from a standard way.

Irrelevant. "Standard" usage can be, and typically IS, incorrect or incomplete...

Therefore, your claim 'you already have' has been falsified.

Non-sequitur.

Your claim that 'Logic says it' is the claim I am challenging.

The axioms of Logic have already answered your challenge...

That is the unsupported claim.

Wrong. It is supported by the axioms of Logic.


Since you ignore Angel's posts, he provided some 'holy links' for you, since you deny Logic and Philosophy outright... Are those good enough sources for you, even though Logic itself is the proper authority here?

Non Sequitur
Description: When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little support to the conclusion.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...6/Non-Sequitur

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Lie... I have told you my source.


Revisionist history. I have told you my source.


No "supporting data" is required...


I have defined my terms, and have used them the same way every single time.


Irrelevant. "Standard" usage can be, and typically IS, incorrect or incomplete...


Non-sequitur.


The axioms of Logic have already answered your challenge...


Wrong. It is supported by the axioms of Logic.


Since you ignore Angel's posts, he provided some 'holy links' for you, since you deny Logic and Philosophy outright... Are those good enough sources for you, even though Logic itself is the proper authority here?

Well, I am not talking to Angel, I am talking to you. You have not provided anything. You accuse me of lying, yet, you can not show where you give a source except for the unsupported claim of 'logic' and 'philosophy'. You divert, yet you can not support.

That is a very fraudulent behaviour.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Well, I am not talking to Angel, I am talking to you. You have not provided anything. You accuse me of lying, yet, you can not show where you give a source except for the unsupported claim of 'logic' and 'philosophy'. You divert, yet you can not support.

That is a very fraudulent behaviour.

Look, I've given you my source... my source is Logic itself... I can't help it that you deny Logic... You ask for "outside sources"... I can't help it that you deny Philosophy... But here, take a look at these sources... Are these sources good enough for you to "back up my claims"?

Non Sequitur
Description: When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little support to the conclusion.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...6/Non-Sequitur

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

I wouldn't say useless... One needs to have a certain amount of faith in a falsifiable theory before performing null hypothesis testing on it, and even after doing so, to keep believing that the theory is indeed true (and won't be destroyed in the future).

Faith is circular reasoning, and it is something that we all regularly make use of in our day to day lives... Many things which we all believe to be "true" are really just us having faith in the "trueness" of them... Unless something is proven, we just don't know for sure... If something isn't proven, then we make use of science (conflicting evidence) and religion (supporting evidence), in which religion gets colored by "reality" (our own unique perceptions of the world around us).

I can't say I disagree with any of what you wrote there. Indeed, I have faith (though I NEVER think of it that way) that cars won't come across the center line and hit me.

For me, a pure tautology is a self-referencing circular argument that depends on itself for itself. It is essentially trivial and explains nothing. Circular arguments become useful when they expand to pull new things in, using already present axioms. Then those newly brought in factors can be examined to see if everything still fits. In other words, A = A is not meaningful. A(x) = A or A(x) = y can be examined for any specific 'x' or 'x' and 'y'. It may be true for some and false for others.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Look, I've given you my source... my source is Logic itself... I can't help it that you deny Logic... You ask for "outside sources"... I can't help it that you deny Philosophy... But here, take a look at these sources... Are these sources good enough for you to "back up my claims"?

Non Sequitur
Description: When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little support to the conclusion.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...6/Non-Sequitur

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

And, how do those links support your claim? SHow how those links support what you are claiming.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Well, I am not talking to Angel...
That is a very fraudulent behaviour.

Why aren't you talking to Angel? He is talking to you. Or are you only here to hold forth?
You got it right about "fraudulent behavior," but you got it right about your posts, not gfm7175's.

And, how do those links support your claim? SHow how those links support what you are claiming.

You questioned whether the non-sequitur derives from logic, a frivolous question of course, but supported by the holy links provided to you. You asked to be "shown" and you were "shown."

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

And, how do those links support your claim? SHow how those links support what you are claiming.

????

Non Sequitur
Description: When the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Your arguments that I labeled "non sequitur" had conclusions which did not follow from the premises... Therefore, they were non-sequiturs...

Gotta love ya, RAMOSS...

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

????

Non Sequitur
Description: When the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Your arguments that I labeled "non sequitur" had conclusions which did not follow from the premises... Therefore, they were non-sequiturs...

Gotta love ya, RAMOSS...

Ok. now you did step two of supporting your claim that my comment was a non-sequitur. However, you did not show that my argument's conclusions did not follow the premise. That step is sort of missing. You are beginning to get there, but you are a few french fries short of a happy meal yet.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Ok. now you did step two of supporting your claim that my comment was a non-sequitur. However, you did not show that my argument's conclusions did not follow the premise. That step is sort of missing. You are beginning to get there, but you are a few french fries short of a happy meal yet.

Ah, His Nibs condescends to acknowledge what he pretended to ignore earlier and in order to save face presses a superior interlocutor with yet another "fraudulent" (to use his word for the bad faith he himself has turned into an art form) demand masked by a clumsy stab at colloquial humor. Sheesh!

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

????

Non Sequitur
Description: When the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Your arguments that I labeled "non sequitur" had conclusions which did not follow from the premises... Therefore, they were non-sequiturs...

Gotta love ya, RAMOSS...

I admire your charity, gfm. And your patience with obduracy. I've said this before, but it's worth saying again from time to time, just for the record. Anyway, after this latest series of exchanges it occurs to me that your interlocutors are persistently confused by your appeal to philosophy and logic because they do not understand that you yourself are doing philosophy and logic here (and in those other threads where they show the same confusion); they think you are referring them to some authoritative article or link, that you are relying, as they invariably do, on someone else's authority. They seem incapable of grasping the concept of someone actually using philosophy and logic in an argument without appeal to outside authority, and this no doubt because their minds have been so googled into "holy link" trains of thought that they no longer recognize independent critical thinking anymore. At this stage in the internet discursive free-for-all they've become as immune to critical thought as they are incapable of it.

That's just my two cents on the matter.

Happy Thanksgiving, my friend.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

And, how do those links support your claim? SHow how those links support what you are claiming.

Keep in mind that you're talking to someone utterly and totally unacquainted with logic, in any manner, who casually tosses out accustions of committing falacies that haven't even remotely been offered.

It's actually rather humorous at times watching completely inappropriate formal fallacies being cited where they simply don't apply.