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

[KerouacJack]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Ah, but it's my ass, and it's your head that doesn't belong there. So get it out, pilgrim.


Namaste

You ignore the rest of the post, like any sophist would.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

...I can't believe your head is so far up your own ass that you don't understand that.

Ah, but it's my ass, and it's your head that doesn't belong there. So get it out, pilgrim...

You ignore the rest of the post, like any sophist would.

Are you deef as well, man?!?
Remove that head of your'n from out that arse o' mine, or Katy bar the door!
Remember, Rex: Rudeness is its own Rearward.
Come a-courtin' when your manners improve.

Namaste

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

This is the kind of argument that has got the panties of our logicians manque in a twist:

If I am a bachelor, then I am unmarried.
If I am unmarried, then I am single.__
Therefore, if I am a bachelor, then I am single.

Put the word "God" in a tautology and anti-theists will question its truth.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT REASONING.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You made it about God because you believe that the idea God implies providential; but it doesn't. This is a truism only to you.

True in the way that you re-phrase it here (and in the way that you define "god"), but I think Angel is referring specifically to the Christian God of The Bible when he says "God", and in that case, it does imply providential as that is a part of God's identity.

If birds can fly then they can also swim.

This is as sound and argument as

If God created life, then life is providential.

No, it's not. Your example contains a false "if...then" correlation as catbirds most certainly can fly, but they cannot swim. Also, your major premise is invalid because P is true and Q is false, and as the truth table in post #11 and elsewhere shows, that combination yields an invalid "if...then" premise.

Angel's example, on the other hand, contains a true and valid "if...then" major premise, as the Christian God does imply providence (as part of his identity).

deleted (a rather unnecessarily vulgar) 'lack of intelligence' mantra

 

[cabse5]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Dismissal again?

Here's your homework:

If G, then B.
If B, then M.
Therefore, if G, then M.

Is this a valid argument?

He <Angel> thinks his subjective experience is objective truth

He is wrong

If atheists refuse to accept the existence of God, any reference to God will infuriate them.
If any reference to God will infuriate atheists, they don't believe God created the universe. If atheists refuse to accept the existence of God, they don't believe God created the universe.

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

This is the kind of argument that has got the panties of our logicians manque in a twist:

If I am a bachelor, then I am unmarried.

Above is true

If I am unmarried, then I am single.__

Above is false, you may be single or not

Therefore, if I am a bachelor, then I am single.

Since line 2 is incorrect the conclusion is incorrect.

Put the word "God" in a tautology and anti-theists will question its truth.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT REASONING.

Yes it is and you aren't doing it right.
Your problem isn't that you used God it is that your then does not necessarily follow your if just like the 2nd line in the argument above.

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

If atheists refuse to accept the existence of God, any reference to God will infuriate them.
If any reference to God will infuriate atheists, they don't believe God created the universe. If atheists refuse to accept the existence of God, they don't believe God created the universe.

I'm not an atheist and it isn't the God part that is the problem with Angels "argument"

 

[soylentgreen]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

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

Where as you appear to be mixing up the form an argument can take with it being a sound argument.

Being hypothetical in it self means it can not be a sound argument as the neither premis nor conclusion can be deemed to be actually true.

 

[soylentgreen]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

My point is in red.

And so what? You are still only taking about validity not soundness.

 

[soylentgreen]

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.

Being true by definition still does not make it a sound argument. It has to be actually true for that.

I could easily say "If God did not created life, then life is not providential". According to you now i have a sound argument meaning that it is an actual true argument. Which it is not. Like your statement it only reaches the criteria of " if" we consider this to be true.

 

[soylentgreen]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

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

Which means all that you have is a valid argument. You still have not achieved the thresh hold needed for it to be a sound argument.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Which means all that you have is a valid argument. You still have not achieved the thresh hold needed for it to be a sound argument.

If I understand you correctly, you maintain that the following statement has no truth value:

If soylentgreen is correct about the conditional argument, then Angel is incorrect about the conditional argument.

Do I correctly understand your position?

 

[soylentgreen]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

If I understand you correctly, you maintain that the following statement has no truth value:

If soylentgreen is correct about the conditional argument, then Angel is incorrect about the conditional argument.

Do I correctly understand your position?

You are correct that your argument is valid. But being valid does not make it sound.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You are correct that your argument is valid. But being valid does not make it sound.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[soylentgreen]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You didn't answer my question.

You only gave me a definition of a hypothetical syllogism. I would agree that that is a definition.

What you did not say is what claim you are making about it that can be considered right or wrong.

If you are merely claiming it is just a valid argument then you are right if you are claiming that hypothetical syllogisms are also sound arguments then you are wrong.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You only gave me a definition of a hypothetical syllogism. I would agree that that is a definition.

What you did not say is what claim you are making about it that can be considered right or wrong.

If you are merely claiming it is just a valid argument then you are right if you are claiming that hypothetical syllogisms are also sound arguments then you are wrong.

I didn't give you a definition of a hypothetical syllogism; I gave you a conditional statement and asked whether or not it has a truth-value. If I understand you, your answer should be No. Am I correct in guessing your answer?

 

[cabse5]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

I'm not an atheist and it isn't the God part that is the problem with Angels "argument"

Why would you think I'd identify you as atheist?

You aren't agnostic, either. What are you?

What is the problem with Angel's argument?

 

[cabse5]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Does this conditional argument pass muster?

If God created life on earth, then "there is a special Providence in the fall of a sparrow."
If "there is a special Providence in the fall of a sparrow," then life on earth is sacred.___
Therefore, if God created life on earth, then life on earth is sacred.

What follows from the sacredness of life?
Any takers?

Namaste

SIAP. If life on earth is sacred, then God created life on earth.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Sorry, man. I seem to have overlooked these posts of yours.

Being true by definition still does not make it a sound argument. It has to be actually true for that.

I could easily say "If God did not created life, then life is not providential". According to you now i have a sound argument meaning that it is an actual true argument. Which it is not. Like your statement it only reaches the criteria of " if" we consider this to be true.

Correct. The "if" supposes the truth of the statement it introduces.

Where as you appear to be mixing up the form an argument can take with it being a sound argument.

Being hypothetical in it self means it can not be a sound argument as the neither premis nor conclusion can be deemed to be actually true.

The validity goes to the form; truth tables verify validity by showing that true premises do not lead to a false conclusion in the form in question.

We agree up to this point.

But that a hypothetical argument "can not be a sound argument" seems to make hypothetical argument nugatory.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

SIAP. If life on earth is sacred, then God created life on earth.

The argument from morality.
I was thinking more modestly, in terms of "Thou shalt not kill." Your argument is more ambitious.

 

[KerouacJack]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

True in the way that you re-phrase it here (and in the way that you define "god"), but I think Angel is referring specifically to the Christian God of The Bible when he says "God", and in that case, it does imply providential as that is a part of God's identity.


No, it's not. Your example contains a false "if...then" correlation as catbirds most certainly can fly, but they cannot swim. Also, your major premise is invalid because P is true and Q is false, and as the truth table in post #11 and elsewhere shows, that combination yields an invalid "if...then" premise.

Angel's example, on the other hand, contains a true and valid "if...then" major premise, as the Christian God does imply providence (as part of his identity).

Stop conflating truth with faith..one is subjective the other objective.

If what your actually saying is that if Angle was to clarify the premise with use of say language like; If the Catholic idea of GoD created life, then life is providential... that would a sound argument. But he didn’t.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

True in the way that you re-phrase it here (and in the way that you define "god"), but I think Angel is referring specifically to the Christian God of The Bible when he says "God", and in that case, it does imply providential as that is a part of God's identity.
...
Angel's example, on the other hand, contains a true and valid "if...then" major premise, as the Christian God does imply providence (as part of his identity).

Thanks, gfm.

Of course, the "rephrasing" is illegitimate because it assumes that truth is relative in this case, an assumption only someone without a clear concept of the subject would make. Granting legitimacy to this assumption legitimizes the silly smorgasbord view of the concept held by the rephraser, as if everyone, like our rephraser, stood before a diverse spread of concepts and chose one that was appetizing (or like the rephraser rejected all). That's not the way it works -- except for those without a clear and compelling concept of their own. Anyone with a clear and compelling concept intends and means just that concept when he asserts it. Any objection to the concept on the grounds that it is not another concept or, as in this case, that it is only the concept it is and not another, is based on a misunderstanding or on the shallowest understanding of how this kind of concept and so this particular concept comes to be adopted.

NB
I've written this defense abstractly in order to keep this discussion about reasoning and nothing else, in accordance with the guidelines of this forum.

 

[KerouacJack]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Thanks, gfm.

Of course, the "rephrasing" is illegitimate because it assumes that truth is relative in this case, an assumption only someone without a clear concept of the subject would make. Granting legitimacy to this assumption legitimizes the silly smorgasbord view of the concept held by the rephraser, as if everyone, like our rephraser, stood before a diverse spread of concepts and chose one that was appetizing (or like the rephraser rejected all). That's not the way it works -- except for those without a clear and compelling concept of their own. Anyone with a clear and compelling concept intends and means just that concept when he asserts it. Any objection to the concept on the grounds that it is not another concept or, as in this case, that it is only the concept it is and not another, is based on a misunderstanding or on the shallowest understanding of how this kind of concept and so this particular concept comes to be adopted.

NB
I've written this defense abstractly in order to keep this discussion about reasoning and nothing else, in accordance with the guidelines of this forum.

This is gibberish.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Edification

HYPOTHETICAL REASONING
https://ilearn.instructure.com/courses/4117/pages/hypothetical-reasoning

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Edification