Philosophy Now Forum

We re talking about validity in this thread and your explanation here only shows how scientists get to revise their beliefs whenever new facts come to contradict the conclusion of the theory currently accepted as science Your hypothesis is that you are doing deduction My hypothesis is that you SAY ...

the validity of an argument isnt affected by the falsification of its conclusion for example by empirical observations A valid argument is one where the conclusion is true in relation to the premises but only within the context of the argument and nothing else But why use an argument after its conc...

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:15 pm Do you want me to edit the wikipedia article and add the word "validity" in there, or can you actually use your own brain?

If you can't articulate your point, nobody is going to do it for you.
EB

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:45 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:40 pm Please provide an authoritative reference.
EB

And since you claim that you trust your "intuition":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic

Irrelevant.
No mention of fallacy of validity.
EB

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:45 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:40 pm Please provide an authoritative reference.
EB

And since you claim that you trust your "intuition":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... thematics)

Irrelevant.
No mention of validity.
EB

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:45 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:40 pm Please provide an authoritative reference.
EB

Would this suffice? https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/New ... aser_Sword

Irrelevant.
No mention of validity.
EB

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:37 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:33 pm You think people wouldn't have spotted a fallacy if there was one since Aristotle, 2,400 years ago?

We have. And we are pointing it out. Well, mathematicians have been pointing it out for what. 300 years?

Please provide an authoritative reference.
EB

* Deduction mandates absolute certainty as to the correctness of your conclusions. No. If the argument is valid, then if the premises are true, then it is absolutely certain that the conclusion is true. See? So, just because the argument is valid doesn't imply that the conclusion is true, let alone...

Fallacy of validity. Something is determined valid if it is sound. ??? Soundness isn't a condition of validity. Here is the definition of the logical validity of an argument: An argument is usually said to be logically valid if all cases in which the premises are true, the conclusion is also true. ...

It's fine with me, as long as you can't argue shit.
EB

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:52 pm There are 12 definitions for may: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/di ... nglish/may. Please pick up one which is relevant to the discussion.

2. modal verb
You use may to indicate that there is a possibility that something is true, but you cannot be certain.

EB

No. You haven't justified that there was such a disparity. Clearly, your example isn't a case of disparity between logic and empiricism. You are playing mental gymnastics. The word "impossible" has a pretty unambiguous meaning, wouldn't you say? an argument is logically valid if it is in ...

This thread is a poll on the soundness of a logical argument. Here is the argument: For all we know, a wave may be the state of some water in the sea; What the buoy does is determined by the state of some water in the sea; Therefore, for all we know, what the buoy does may be determined by a wave. I...

OK, I think I can ignore you safely.
Have a good trip.
EB

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:19 pm If by "may" you mean unknown, then the premise is unknown to be true or false hence the conclusion.

"May" just doesn't mean unknown.
The wording of the argument should be interpreted as per the everyday English described in any English dictionary.
Obviously.
EB