Moral Fact Deniers Has Cognitive Deficit in Morality

[FlashDangerpants]

You didn't understand it. You read it 20 times and failed to get it.

This isn't surprising. You've been on this here philosophy forum for 8 years apparently. Yet every time I tell you one of your arguments is deductively invalid, you always ask me which of your premises is untrue. So you've been at this stuff for 8 years and you don't understand what makes arguments deductively valid vs sound.

[Skepdick]

You didn't understand it. You read it 20 times and failed to get it.

This isn't surprising. You've been on this here philosophy forum for 8 years apparently. Yet every time I tell you one of your arguments is deductively invalid, you always ask me which of your premises is untrue. So you've been at this stuff for 8 years and you don't understand what makes arguments deductively valid vs sound.

Seeming as you have been doing Philosophy much longer than him, at what point do you expect to comprehend that deduction doesn't work in the universe you live in?

One Man’s Modus Ponens is Another Man’s Modus Tollens.

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

Inductive reasoning is inherently uncertain. It only deals in the extent to which, given the premises, the conclusion is credible according to some theory of evidence. Examples include a many-valued logic, Dempster–Shafer theory, or probability theory with rules for inference such as Bayes' rule. Unlike deductive reasoning, it does not rely on universals holding over a closed domain of discourse to draw conclusions, so it can be applicable even in cases of epistemic uncertainty (technical issues with this may arise however; for example, the second axiom of probability is a closed-world assumption).[25]

Another crucial difference between these two types of argument is that deductive certainty is impossible in non-axiomatic systems such as reality, leaving inductive reasoning as the primary route to (probabilistic) knowledge of such systems.

[Peter Holmes]

A logic deals with language, not reality. The clue's in the name. And reality isn't linguistic. So in reality, outside language, there are no categories, identity, deduction, induction, validity, soundness, truth, falsehood, probability or contradiction - none of the paraphernalia of logic.

[Skepdick]

A logic deals with language, not reality. The clue's in the name. And reality isn't linguistic. So in reality, outside language, there are no categories, identity, deduction, induction, validity, soundness, truth, falsehood, probability or contradiction - none of the paraphernalia of logic.

Tell me something about "reality" without language then.

What do you think it is you "understand" about "reality" if all of the paraphernalia get taken away from you?
Can you predict the consequences of your choices without induction? If not- how do you make any choices?

All theories - linguistic.
All philosophies - linguistic.
All descriptions of reality - linguistic.

Almost as if you need a theory of language or something...

[Veritas Aequitas]

You didn't understand it. You read it 20 times and failed to get it.

This isn't surprising. You've been on this here philosophy forum for 8 years apparently. Yet every time I tell you one of your arguments is deductively invalid, you always ask me which of your premises is untrue. So you've been at this stuff for 8 years and you don't understand what makes arguments deductively valid vs sound.

Btw, I did not post here for 8 years continuously.
You are the stupid one in not getting the point.

Deductive arguments is ABC once one is familiar with it.
I have read Mill's SYSTEM OF LOGIC, RATIOCINATIVE AND INDUCTIVE, sometime ago.

The basic deductive syllogism is;

• A-B
  B-C
  A-C

What is so complicated about that.
There are other variations as shown in Mill's book.

I admit I had been sloppy at times but that is because I merely wanted to present a quickie point and I can get them back to a syllogism proper where necessary.
Btw, not arguments must be syllogistic.

Since I am confident of what is deductive argument, thus the only issue is whether my premises are true or false.
If any of the premise is false, the whole argument collapses, thus the most effective way is for you to show where my premise[s] are wrong.
Get it?

Btw, note Mill on deduction;

Again, a man is often called a great logician, or a man of powerful logic,
not for the accuracy of his deductions,
but for the extent of his command over premises;
because the general propositions required for explaining a difficulty or refuting a sophism, copiously and promptly occur to him:
because, in short, his knowledge, besides being ample, is well under his command for argumentative use.

Whether, therefore, we conform to the practice of those who have made the subject their particular study, or to that of popular writers and common discourse, the province of logic will include several operations of the intellect not usually considered to fall within the meaning of the terms Reasoning and Argumentation.
pg 19

It is because you don't have ample, wide and deep knowledge that you make a lot of noises on the issue of deductive argument.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A logic deals with language, not reality. The clue's in the name. And reality isn't linguistic. So in reality, outside language, there are no categories, identity, deduction, induction, validity, soundness, truth, falsehood, probability or contradiction - none of the paraphernalia of logic.

What are you talking about?
Logic uses language like most of other Framework of Knowledge.

According to J S Mill,

Logic, then, comprises the science of reasoning, as well as an art, founded on that science. But the word Reasoning, again, like most other scientific terms in popular use, abounds in ambiguities. In one of its acceptations, it means syllogizing; or the mode of inference which may be called (with sufficient accuracy for the present purpose) concluding from generals to particulars. In another of its senses, to reason is simply to infer any assertion, from assertions already admitted: and in this sense induction is as much entitled to be called reasoning as the demonstrations of geometry. pg 18

The province of logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known;
whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions.

Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence.
In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded.
With the claims which any proposition has to belief on the evidence of consciousness—that is, without evidence in the proper sense of the word—logic has nothing to do. pg 21

§ 7. Logic, then, is the science of the operations of the understanding which are subservient to the estimation of evidence: both the process itself of advancing from known truths to unknown, and all other intellectual operations in so far as auxiliary to this. pg 23

Mill's SYSTEM OF LOGIC, RATIOCINATIVE AND INDUCTIVE

Thus logic deal with justified truths, knowledge, facts of reality.

[Peter Holmes]

A logic deals with language, not reality. The clue's in the name. And reality isn't linguistic. So in reality, outside language, there are no categories, identity, deduction, induction, validity, soundness, truth, falsehood, probability or contradiction - none of the paraphernalia of logic.

What are you talking about?
Logic uses language like most of other Framework of Knowledge.

According to J S Mill,

Logic, then, comprises the science of reasoning, as well as an art, founded on that science. But the word Reasoning, again, like most other scientific terms in popular use, abounds in ambiguities. In one of its acceptations, it means syllogizing; or the mode of inference which may be called (with sufficient accuracy for the present purpose) concluding from generals to particulars. In another of its senses, to reason is simply to infer any assertion, from assertions already admitted: and in this sense induction is as much entitled to be called reasoning as the demonstrations of geometry. pg 18

The province of logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known;
whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions.

Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence.
In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded.
With the claims which any proposition has to belief on the evidence of consciousness—that is, without evidence in the proper sense of the word—logic has nothing to do. pg 21

§ 7. Logic, then, is the science of the operations of the understanding which are subservient to the estimation of evidence: both the process itself of advancing from known truths to unknown, and all other intellectual operations in so far as auxiliary to this. pg 23

Mill's SYSTEM OF LOGIC, RATIOCINATIVE AND INDUCTIVE

Thus logic deal with justified truths, knowledge, facts of reality.

Nope. Like you, Mill was suckered by the ancient delusion of mistaking what we say for what there is or how we think. What logicians actually do is study relationships between declarative sentences in arguments - how to relate them consistently, without contradiction. Logic isn't the science of proof, evidence or reasoning, because those have nothing to do with language, which is what logic deals with. Logicians say nothing about the truth-values of factual premises, because those are other people's business.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope. Like you, Mill was suckered by the ancient delusion of mistaking what we say for what there is or how we think. What logicians actually do is study relationships between declarative sentences in arguments - how to relate them consistently, without contradiction. Logic isn't the science of proof, evidence or reasoning, because those have nothing to do with language, which is what logic deals with. Logicians say nothing about the truth-values of factual premises, because those are other people's business.

No wonder,

Like you and your below;

A logic deals with language, not reality.

When you ignore logic's relation to reality, what you ended up is merely 'mental masturbation'.
This is why I stated your 'fact' in fact, "fart".

I understand there are critiques of Mill and they are all in the same shoes like yours, i.e. grappling with illusions rather than reality.

[Peter Holmes]

Nope. Like you, Mill was suckered by the ancient delusion of mistaking what we say for what there is or how we think. What logicians actually do is study relationships between declarative sentences in arguments - how to relate them consistently, without contradiction. Logic isn't the science of proof, evidence or reasoning, because those have nothing to do with language, which is what logic deals with. Logicians say nothing about the truth-values of factual premises, because those are other people's business.

No wonder,

Like you and your below;

A logic deals with language, not reality.

When you ignore logic's relation to reality, what you ended up is merely 'mental masturbation'.
This is why I stated your 'fact' in fact, "fart".

I understand there are critiques of Mill and they are all in the same shoes like yours, i.e. grappling with illusions rather than reality.

Ah. Reasoning from the Donald Trump school of intellectual laziness - or inadequacy - with childish abuse to distract attention.

[Skepdick]

Nope. Like you, Mill was suckered by the ancient delusion of mistaking what we say for what there is or how we think.

That's your eternal crutch. You keep dragging us to the point of "what we say" all while ignoring the context in which we say it and the reason for us saying it.

Why do philosophers say what they say? For what purpose?

What logicians actually do is study relationships between declarative sentences in arguments - how to relate them consistently, without contradiction.

That's not true. Logicians also study imperative sentences. Logicians are also fine with contradictions

Logic isn't the science of proof, evidence or reasoning, because those have nothing to do with language, which is what logic deals with. Logicians say nothing about the truth-values of factual premises, because those are other people's business.

The truth-value of premises is the business of computer scientists.

Is the premise true or false? That's called a decision problem.

What do you know? Turns out logicians also concern themselves with decidability.

[Peter Holmes]

An imperative has no truth-value, and can't be a premise in an argument. The so-called propositional content of non-declaratives is as fictional as propositions themselves.

[Skepdick]

An imperative has no truth-value, and can't be a premise in an argument. The so-called propositional content of non-declaratives is as fictional as propositions themselves.

That may be a problem for you and others muddled in the "paraphernalia of logic", but it's not a problem for people who don't care about premises, arguments, declarations and truth-values.

In so far as I understand how to use language, the imperative expression "I intend to eat cake" is a true, factual statement about the future.

You may want to look into why the wiki article for imperative logic also links to temporal logic. It may have something to do with the past, present and future.

IDK. Just an intuition.

[FlashDangerpants]

You didn't understand it. You read it 20 times and failed to get it.

This isn't surprising. You've been on this here philosophy forum for 8 years apparently. Yet every time I tell you one of your arguments is deductively invalid, you always ask me which of your premises is untrue. So you've been at this stuff for 8 years and you don't understand what makes arguments deductively valid vs sound.

Btw, I did not post here for 8 years continuously.
You are the stupid one in not getting the point.

Deductive arguments is ABC once one is familiar with it.
I have read Mill's SYSTEM OF LOGIC, RATIOCINATIVE AND INDUCTIVE, sometime ago.

The basic deductive syllogism is;

• A-B
  B-C
  A-C

What is so complicated about that.
There are other variations as shown in Mill's book.

I admit I had been sloppy at times but that is because I merely wanted to present a quickie point and I can get them back to a syllogism proper where necessary.
Btw, not arguments must be syllogistic.

Since I am confident of what is deductive argument, thus the only issue is whether my premises are true or false.
If any of the premise is false, the whole argument collapses, thus the most effective way is for you to show where my premise[s] are wrong.
Get it?

That's just stupid. Present arguments where the premisses support the conclusions if you can, or just admit when they don't like an honest man would.

[Peter Holmes]

The clause 'I intend to eat cake' is declarative, not imperative. It has a truth-value. An imperative expresses a command, which is why it has no truth-value. 'Go away' is neither true nor false.

Also, 'I intend to eat cake' isn't an assertion about the future. It's about my current intention.

[Skepdick]

The clause 'I intend to eat cake' is declarative, not imperative. It has a truth-value. An imperative expresses a command, which is why it has no truth-value. 'Go away' is neither true nor false.

Also, 'I intend to eat cake' isn't an assertion about the future. It's about my current intention.

Idiot. The imperative and declarative moods are functionally equivalent in a deterministic paradigm.

I intend to eat cake.
I will eat cake.
Somebody, get me cake.
The somebody who gets me cake is me.

All of the above statements communicate exactly the same fact about the future. They have identical truth-value. Intentions translate into actions translate into facts. It's called eventual consistency.

Skepdick: Alexa, I want the lights on.
Alexa: OK

*poof* lights come on.

That's how Downward causation works!