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.
Is this argument sound?
Thank you to vote before posting any comment here.
You will be able to change your vote if need be.
EB
An argument can be composed of three sentences.
Three correct sentences can be placed close to each other and mention related things.
If three sentences that mention similar things are placed next to each other, they may or may not constitute an actual argument.
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:55 pm
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.
Is this argument sound?
Thank you to vote before posting any comment here.
You will be able to change your vote if need be.
EB
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.
Is this argument sound?
Thank you to vote before posting any comment here.
You will be able to change your vote if need be.
EB
This guy doesn't seem to know what a buoy is or what it's supposed to do or even whether there are waves in the sea.
What qualifies him to argue about it?
Not like it was all that controversial in the first place...
Skip wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:10 am
This guy doesn't seem to know what a buoy is or what it's supposed to do or even whether there are waves in the sea.
What qualifies him to argue about it?
Not like it was all that controversial in the first place...
This thread is explicitly about the soundness of the argument, not the soundness of Speakpigeon.
If you can't get yourself to address the topic, go play in the courtyard.
EB
Walker wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 5:15 am
The word "maybe" dilutes it to unsoundness.
"For all we know," contributes to the flabbiness.
“If” also contributes to unsound reporting of reality.
There's just one way to assess soundness and it is as follows:
So:
- Is it true or not that for all we know, a wave may be the state of some water in the sea?
- Is it true or not that what the buoy does is determined by the state of some water in the sea?
That's all there is to it.
So, spare me your idiotic comments.
EB
Walker wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 5:15 am
The word "maybe" dilutes it to unsoundness.
"For all we know," contributes to the flabbiness.
“If” also contributes to unsound reporting of reality.
There's just one way to assess soundness and it is as follows:
So:
- Is it true or not that for all we know, a wave may be the state of some water in the sea?
- Is it true or not that what the buoy does is determined by the state of some water in the sea?
That's all there is to it.
So, spare me your idiotic comments.
EB
Maybe
From a premise as foggy as a wet fart ye seek definitive but will find only flapdoodle.
So:
- Is it true or not that for all we know, a wave may be the state of some water in the sea?
- Is it true or not that what the buoy does is determined by the state of some water in the sea?
That's all there is to it.
So, spare me your idiotic comments.
EB
Sure those statements are true. But it makes no difference because this statement is true with or without them.
- for all we know, what the buoy does may be determined by a wave.
Deductive validity can only apply to deductions. Putting "therefore" in front of a statement that is true in it's own right does not make it a deduction from previous statements. That is an act of blatant misdirection.
If you want your collection of statements to add up to a deductive argument that could be valid you must formulate it such that the conclusion is dependent on the premises.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:39 pm
If you want your collection of statements to add up to a deductive argument that could be valid you must formulate it such that the conclusion is dependent on the premises.
That is necessary but insufficient.
You must also structure the argument in such a way so that it's impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true.
As soon as you produce such an argument, please claim your Nobel Prize in Physics for having discovered The Theory of Everything.