Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:10 pm
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:12 pm
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:51 pm
What conclusion? That the argument is valid?! That it is invalid?!
Can't you try to be specific. I can't possibly guess what it is you're trying to say, for God sake!
Obviously, if we are to ASSUME that the premises are true, then we would ALWAYS arrive at the same conclusion that the argument is valid.
But that doesn't make sense.
That does not make sense to you because of how far you have drifted off track.
To get you back on track.
You wrote:
you have to assess the validity of an logical argument on the basis of what the premises and the conclusion mean and assuming they are true, not on whether they are actually true or false.
I responded:
If we are to ASSUME that the premises are true, and not on whether the premises are actually true or false, then EVERY time we looked at an argument to access if the argument is a valid argument or not, then we would ALWAYS arrive at the same conclusion.
It should read: if we assume that the premises are true, then if the argument is valid, then we will conclude that the conclusion of the argument is true.
It should NOT read that at all: because we were discussing
ASSESSING THE VALIDITY OF A LOGICAL ARGUMENT. We were NOT discussing if AN argument is valid or not. Instead, we were talking about
assessing procedure to see if an argument is valid or not. That is WHY I responded with what I did.
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:51 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:12 pmSpeakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:10 pmSo, let's assume you mean that if we assume all the premises true, we inevitably conclude that the argument is valid. Let's try that on our Squid argument:
Let's assume all the premises are true. So?
Can you explain why we would
inevitably conclude the argument is valid?
Me, I'm definite that's not true.
EB
Of course, an argument is valid only if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion.
Could your squid argument, in its current form, ever logically guarantee the truth of the conclusion?
If i understand you correctly here you also agree that your squid argument is not logically valid. Is this right?
Yes, at least according to the interpretation of validity in line with Aristotle, something I favour over modern logic.
It doesn't seem to make any sense to claim this argument valid, as you do if you abide to the definition of validity proposed in modern mathematical so-badly-called "classical logic".
What do you mean by: to claim this argument valid, as I do.
Just to make it clear, I do NOT claim this squid argument to be valid.
By the way I do NOT abide by the definition of the word 'validity' proposed in any thing if that definition is NOT uniform across all things. I do NOT see that there is one set of logic over another set of logic. To me that just appears blatantly illogical. Of course different systems with different sets of rules may use different "logic" but I would NEVER use one over another nor would I ever abide by the definition of the word 'valid' for just one sort of "logic" for all those different systems and rules, which are made up by human beings.
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:10 pmOK, so we agree and also on the second argument in the other thread.
EB
I am not sure, because I do not know what you are saying we agree on here.