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

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

That video aimed to give you another way of viewing the conditional argument. In logic material implication is a replacement rule whereby a hypothetical statement may be translated into a disjunctive statement while maintaining validity and soundness. The conditional (P=>Q) translates as (-PvQ). (P=>Q) and (-PvQ) are logically equivalent. They have the same truth table. So, in the disjunctive iteration, as in the hypothetical iteration, the sole instance in which the statement is false is where P is true and Q is false. (T=>F) is false and (-TvF) is false. In our residential example, "If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California" is false only in case I live in Sacramento and don't live in California. In my original argument, "If God created life, then life is providential" is false only in case God created life and life is not providential.

You can prove that Sacramento is in California you cannot show that life is providential or that God created it
The If then becomes relevant.
You are making a conditional "argument" based on conditions that cannot be proven thus the If at the beginning of your "argument" is irrelevant. Making the "argument" inherently worthless or if you prefer unsound.

 

[soylentgreen]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

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.

Sigh!! If you had bothered to read the link given it would have explained it for you.

But let me quote the relevant bit.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

It is easy to see that the previous example is not an example of a completely good argument. A valid argument may still have a false conclusion. When we construct our arguments, we must aim to construct one that is not only valid, but sound. A sound argument is one that is not only valid, but begins with premises that are actually true. The example given about toasters is valid, but not sound. However, the following argument is both valid and sound:

In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

Your argument does not begin with premises that are actually true. meaning true in the sense that they are undeniable. Your table which you keep pointing to only gives true as an " if" proposition. Meaning it does not have to be actually true but only if we consider it to be true. Your table is only used to asses validity, not soundness.

As for your counter example that is laughable. " if P then P" has a true value that makes it sound? Ridiculous!

Then an argument that went " if god does not exist then god does not exist" Now apperantly according to you this a true and sound argument, so therefore it is a truth that god does not exist. But in fact it is not. All it is is a valid argument.

 

[soylentgreen]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

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

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.

From the link you provided.

Note: The truth or falsity of the individual premises and conclusion has nothing to do with the validity of the argument! It is valid or invalid regardless of the truth value of its premises. In a valid argument, we say that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Logical analysis comes first, then truth value analysis

You have a valid argument but not a sound argument because the conclusion is actually not true.

 

[soylentgreen]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

I think we may be at cross-purposes here because you are taking my major premise as an assertion that God exists. This is incorrect. My major premise is a hypothetical that asserts a logical relationship between an antecedent and a consequent. The truth of this premise lies in that logical relationship, not in the existence or non-existence of anything contained in the hypothetical. See the Lincoln example above.

Not at all. I can find other reasons to question it that has nothing to do with existence.
And keep in ind that in these exercises i do not have to prove the truth or false of any premise, i merely need suggest a plausible alternative.

Your first premise is questionable.
If God created the universe, then the universe enjoys Divine Warrant.
But what if god created the universe and then simply ****ed off without a care as to what happened leaving no warrant divine or otherwise.

Like yours, mine is a hypothetical but just as plausible as yours. Which means your " if / then" argument is valid but not sound. As a premise for your complete argument it is again a valid argument that we can only consider in the terms of " if"

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

That's is just a belief held by Judeo-Christian religions, you cannot prove the belief or affirm it is the "correct" belief.

I don't have to prove anything for the logic of my argument to be valid and sound. No more than I have to prove that I live in Sacramento for the logic of my example to be valid and sound. You're just plain wrong about this. Your agnosticism is messing up your logic.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You can prove that Sacramento is in California you cannot show that life is providential or that God created it
The If then becomes relevant.
You are making a conditional "argument" based on conditions that cannot be proven thus the If at the beginning of your "argument" is irrelevant. Making the "argument" inherently worthless or if you prefer unsound.

Get that good logic book I recommended, and dial back the militant agnosticism -- it carries no weight with me or logic.

 

[soylentgreen]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

"If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California"​

Gentlemen, it seems clear by now that your thinking in this matter has been clouded by the appearance of the word "God" in the major premise of my argument.
Therefore, in a good-faith effort to help you get past your God-fixation and see the soundness issue in a clear light, I offer the following illustration:

If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California.
If I live in California, then I live in the USA.___
Therefore, if I live in Sacramento, I live in the USA.

This argument is valid and sound.

The truth of the premises depends on the logical relation between the antecedent and the consequent in their statements. That logical relation is called implication.

For example, the truth of the major premise -- and this is most important, so please pay attention -- the truth of the major premise, "If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California," does not depend at all on whether I in fact live in Sacramento.

I in fact live in New York City. Nevertheless, when I assert "If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California," I make a true statement.

Whether or not I live in Sacramento does not affect in any way the truth values of the logical implication expressed in the statement "If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California."

Likewise, whether or not God exists and created life does not affect in any way the truth values of the logical implication expressed in the statement "If God created life, then life is providential."

I repeat, in a larger font, just as the truth of the conditional statement "If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California" is unaffected by where I actually or in fact live, so too the truth of the conditional statement "If God created life, then life is providential" is unaffected by the question of God's existence or Creationism.

Actually it does. For the argument to be sound the conclusion must be a conclusion not a continuation of premises. Had you put
"Therefore, I live in Sacramento, I live in the USA"

It would then be a sound argument providing you did in fact live in sacramento.


And again you mistake validity for soundness. Validity only means there is a connection between premise and conclusion where as sound means that the premises and conclusion are actually true. Where as this argument can be verified as being actually true or false your first cannot.

Your trying to compare the toaster argument with the felons argument but the two are entirely different.

 

[soylentgreen]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

As I posted to another poster in post #72 (I believe)...

Remember, a "fact" ("factual") does not mean that something is a universal truth. Rather, a "fact" is shorthand predicate (when a given True is accepted by all parties). If this isn't the case, then that "fact" ceases to exist and returns to an argument. That's how I'm using the phrase "factually correct" in my OP...

I also think you're missing the point behind how conditionals work.

You will have to enlighten me on how i miss the point.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Sigh!! If you had bothered to read the link given it would have explained it for you.

But let me quote the relevant bit.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/


Your argument does not begin with premises that are actually true. meaning true in the sense that they are undeniable. Your table which you keep pointing to only gives true as an " if" proposition. Meaning it does not have to be actually true but only if we consider it to be true. Your table is only used to asses validity, not soundness.

As for your counter example that is laughable. " if P then P" has a true value that makes it sound? Ridiculous!

Then an argument that went " if god does not exist then god does not exist" Now apperantly according to you this a true and sound argument, so therefore it is a truth that god does not exist. But in fact it is not. All it is is a valid argument.

You are mixing up categorical and hypothetical arguments.
And your last example, which you deem a reductio, is in fact a tautology and true.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.

From the link you provided.


You have a valid argument but not a sound argument because the conclusion is actually not true.

My point is in red.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

An even clearer signal of sloppy thinking is when people try and reference words, arguments and theories that they don't understand.

"you just don't understand" mantra dismissed...

Try substantive reasoning next time.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Not at all. I can find other reasons to question it that has nothing to do with existence.
And keep in ind that in these exercises i do not have to prove the truth or false of any premise, i merely need suggest a plausible alternative.

Your first premise is questionable.
If God created the universe, then the universe enjoys Divine Warrant.
But what if god created the universe and then simply ****ed off without a care as to what happened leaving no warrant divine or otherwise.

Like yours, mine is a hypothetical but just as plausible as yours. Which means your " if / then" argument is valid but not sound. As a premise for your complete argument it is again a valid argument that we can only consider in the terms of " if"

My argument merely gives logical form to an analytic truth. "If God created life, then life is providential" mere asserts what is already contained in the concept of Creator God in the form of a conditional argument. It is true by definition.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Actually it does. For the argument to be sound the conclusion must be a conclusion not a continuation of premises. Had you put
"Therefore, I live in Sacramento, I live in the USA"

It would then be a sound argument providing you did in fact live in sacramento.


And again you mistake validity for soundness. Validity only means there is a connection between premise and conclusion where as sound means that the premises and conclusion are actually true. Where as this argument can be verified as being actually true or false your first cannot.

Your trying to compare the toaster argument with the felons argument but the two are entirely different.

I live in NYC. This does not affect the truth of my premises one bit.
And the classic hypothetical syllogism has three conditionals, including the conclusion.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

"you just don't understand" mantra dismissed...

Try substantive reasoning next time.

Way to utterly and completely miss the point.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Way to utterly and completely miss the point.

I can't miss a point that isn't there...

All that was present was a mantra, which I dismissed as such...

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

I can't miss a point that isn't there...

All that was present was a mantra, which I dismissed as such...

Whatever you have to tell yourself to maintain the fantasy.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You will have to enlighten me on how i miss the point.

It's been explained throughout the recent responses in this thread... no need for me to parrot what has already been said.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Whatever you have to tell yourself to maintain the fantasy.

What is "the fantasy"?

Angel precisely and correctly explained how conditional arguments work, then he mentioned that sloppy language usually signals sloppy thinking, then you retorted back in post #145 with the "you don't understand" mantra (asserting that Angel doesn't know what he is talking about)... Finally, I dismissed that non-substantive mantra as such...

So, I ask again, what is "the fantasy"?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

What is "the fantasy"?

Angel precisely and correctly explained how conditional arguments work, then he mentioned that sloppy language usually signals sloppy thinking, then you retorted back in post #145 with the "you don't understand" mantra (asserting that Angel doesn't know what he is talking about)... Finally, I dismissed that non-substantive mantra as such...

So, I ask again, what is "the fantasy"?

The point is that Angel has a long and documented history here of doing exactly what I referenced.

You can deny that and harbor the fantasy that it's not the case, but it won't change reality or the past.

And have someone explain to you what a 'mantra' is.

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

I don't have to prove anything for the logic of my argument to be valid and sound. No more than I have to prove that I live in Sacramento for the logic of my example to be valid and sound. You're just plain wrong about this. Your agnosticism is messing up your logic.

Actually the problem is your belief is messing up your logic, you are confusing your beliefs with facts

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Get that good logic book I recommended, and dial back the militant agnosticism -- it carries no weight with me or logic.

I suggest you learn some logic because all you are doing is mental masturbation. Furiously and vainly beating the meat while thinking of Jennifer Lawrence. After failing to self gratify claiming that you made love to Jennifer Lawrence.
Logic carries no weight with you because you ail to comprehend it.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Not at all. I can find other reasons to question it that has nothing to do with existence.
And keep in ind that in these exercises i do not have to prove the truth or false of any premise, i merely need suggest a plausible alternative.
...

Actually the problem is your belief is messing up your logic, you are confusing your beliefs with facts

I have bolded in red the portion that should put an end to our exchanges:

Hypothetical Syllogisms
Two propositions may be joined into a compound proposition by using the words "if" and "then". The resulting compound proposition is known as a hypothetical or conditional proposition. In a hypothetical (in standard form) the component proposition which follows the "if" is called the antecedent, and the other, which follows the "then", is called the consequent. For example in

1.) "If might makes right, then love has no place in the world."

"might makes right" is the antecedent and "love has no place in the world" is the consequent. A hypothetical does not assert the truth of either its antecedent or its consequent. It asserts that a relationship exists between the two such that if the antecedent is true the consequent must be true.

https://homepage.usask.ca/~wiebeb/Propositional.html


Namaste

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

My argument merely gives logical form to an analytic truth. "If God created life, then life is providential" mere asserts what is already contained in the concept of Creator God in the form of a conditional argument. It is true by definition.

You are trying your old and illogical trick of defining God to fit your argument. Doesn't work because you cannot prove or even provide any evidence for the then part of your statement you can only believe it.
The problem is anyone can define God any way they want including the exact opposite of what you claim
Ie If God exists then life is not providential has exactly as much value as your claim
Because I have defined God that way doesn't make it so an

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

The point is that Angel has a long and documented history here of doing exactly what I referenced.

His "long and documented history", whatever that may be, has no relevance on what he has been posting in this thread about syllogisms... He is correct in his assertions about syllogisms... His assertions are supported by logic itself.

You can deny that and harbor the fantasy that it's not the case, but it won't change reality or the past.

"You just don't understand" mantra dismissed...

And have someone explain to you what a 'mantra' is.

No need for that... A "mantra" is a word/phrase/sound that is repeated frequently, such as your "you just don't understand" mantra that I have been repeatedly dismissing as non-substantive...

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You are trying your old and illogical trick of defining God to fit your argument. Doesn't work because you cannot prove or even provide any evidence for the then part of your statement you can only believe it.
The problem is anyone can define God any way they want including the exact opposite of what you claim
Ie If God exists then life is not providential has exactly as much value as your claim
Because I have defined God that way doesn't make it so an

See #172 and desist, please.