Promethean is a Commie

[Wizard22]

Now, I'm really convinced you're not anti-semitic. Thank you.

You're welcome!

And I apologize for saying you couldn't admit you were wrong about your mistake around valid and sound.
I was clearly wrong about you. You did admit that mistake and also the one where you used a fallacy of composition.
You are able to admit these things and did and you can link people to this post if they accuse you of not admitting to things.

And, really, who could believe such a thing???

I know! ...it boggles the mind, truly.

[FlashDangerpants]

Why did you underline the word deductive, if you are segueing into an irrelevant discsussion about hypotheticals?

...because my retort against Hairball was hypothetical:

*IF* I were thin-skinned...

To which Ivanna intervened with his irrelevant scrutiny. Pay attention, Dpants, take this as a chance to work on that Literacy we discussed!

Do you think 'deductive' and 'hypothetical' are synonyms or something?

[promethean75]

"Your example is logically sound (correct form), but logically invalid (not based on reality)."

U got it backwards, but at least u got it.

Valid becuz the conclusion follows from the premises. Unsound becuz wtf is a twice defrondled hibbleham.

[Wizard22]

"Your example is logically sound (correct form), but logically invalid (not based on reality)."

U got it backwards, but at least u got it.

Valid becuz the conclusion follows from the premises. Unsound becuz wtf is a twice defrondled hibbleham.

Woah woah woah, hold up a minute there prommy boy... let's think about this rationally for a minute...

If X then Y,
If Y then Z,
X therefore Z.

The above argument is logically deductive and "valid" only insofar as the conclusion (Z) follows from the premise (X). The problem with logical deduction, however, is that it does not correspond 1-for-1 with Reality. Here's another example:

If it's lunchtime then I will have a BLT sandwich,
And if I will have a BLT sandwich then I will also have a coke.
It is lunchtime. Therefore I will have a coke.

Do you see why validity changes from logical deduction when reality is introduced? How does it follow, that because it is lunchtime, that you will have a coke? There is nothing within the premise (lunchtime) that indicates why or how it follows that I will have a coke. It is only through the intermediary premise (I will have a BLT sandwich) that it follows that I will also have a coke.

Reality is the difference between hypothetical deductions and "what is actually the case". Arguments are "logically sound" if every premise is true *AND* the conclusion must follow from *ALL* of its hypothetical premises.

Your argument, similar to the "X Y Z" deductive argument, are based on Referents. What does X refer to? What does Z refer to? What does twice defrondled hilbblehams refer to? I hope a layer of perfectly cooked bacon is involved. Hypothetical premises are based on True or False judgments. Referential premises are based on Subjectively agreeable definitions. Reality measures the coherence of logic. If logic is not based in reality, then it is not coherent. Deductive arguments, purely hypothetical arguments, arguments without reference, none of these are coherent. Hence, none of them are Valid.

Deductive logic has a different measure of validity, which *IS* based on pure hypotheses and 'formal' arguments.

Basically, it's like playing with kiddy toys. Adults need to graduate and move up to philosophy toys.

[FlashDangerpants]

Your quote says "deductive arguments". Arguments with hypotheticals can be sound and invalid, because validity is dependent on how real a hypothetical can be.

A proveable argument is valid. An unproveable argument is invalid.

Why did you underline the word deductive, if you are segueing into an irrelevant discsussion about hypotheticals?

Truly unbelievable where people dig in to not admit anything.
I understand if someone digs in and refuses to admit something that challenges the base of their worldview. Hell, it might even be healthy to do this for a while so the self can prepare for reorganization.

But Wizard is digging in around his making an incorrect statement about valid vs. sound.
And all in the name of weirdly justifying his presented certainty that you must be a Jew.

It's not the same as him admitting he's been anti-semitic here.

It's like there is no prioritization. It seems like that.

It seems like any admission means that the whole house crumbles. Even minor errors in terminology.

I do wonder about the many loons we have here who view every sentence they write as some sort of death before dishonour hill to die on. I've seen him try to bully somebody that English is a branch of Latin not German because of the alphabet we use (which closely resembles that used in Germany to my untrained eye) so it goes without saying that he will not agree that he has made a simple and very easily reversible error with the two concepts.

But we saw the same thing in Advocate's Scotsman thread. And if you ever catch IC making a small error that could be fixed with a simple ooops, I challenge you to find one where that was his reaction. So I find myself wondering if there is much of a difference between these people. I posit that there is, I think that for some of these people, the poisonous impulse to double down on a stupid position comes from vanity, while for others it is the sin of pride that corrupts.

The vanity of Narcissus in legend, always gazing only upon his own reflection has obviously given us the name for a vanity based condition that afflicts many, and some of them are among us at PN. So at risk of reading too much into that name, I would say that we can assign for Advocate at least a position at the far Vanity end of the spectrum here. He simply isn't capable of reviewing the evidence of any transaction and determining that his own position had been erroneous because that self image he stares at tells him he's perfect and mistake free, so he can't really understand you.

On the other hand, while it's true that Immanuel Can has got plenty of ego, the reason why he has about 20 extra argument fakeout tricks that Advocate doesn't is that he uses them when he has realised he's under water but his tragic pride cannot cope. Last year he confidently asserted that Nancy Pelosi had acheived impossible investment growth from 33 millions of dollars to 144 mil. Unfortunately that was since 2008 so he doesn't understand what the word "compound" means in this sort of matter, and of course had Pelosi put that money in an unmanaged S&P 500 tracker fund in 2008, she would have made the same level of gains. If we weigh this against his claim that "You will not find a single legal investment firm that can yield results even a fraction that good" you can see that any sane person would have given up the point right away, if you have to retain the pride you can say something about not realising how many years it had been or what not. But mister Can, when in a hole, instinctively reaches for his Pride spade, so he stuck to his reverse firing guns. He knew he was wrong straight away, but he particularly dislikes finding that out from me, I always know he will respond with overpride so sometimes I childishly begin the teasing for that right away. So it was like pulling teeth to make him admit a very small error. Shame really, you should see how rich she would have been if she put that money in Tesla stock. I never got to use that one.

So I posit that the extreme vanity end of the spectrum holds those who cannot understand they are ever mistaken due to a self image of perfection; While the extreme pride end of it holds people who are quite capable of finding out they have erred, but entirely unable to cope with that information. I don't actually think anyone occupies the exclusive extreme ends of this thing, IC may be the most poisonously overproud person I can think of, but he has a bit of vanity to go with it, I am not blinding myself to that in pursuit of my calorie free little pop-psych theory.

In this matter, I believe GrandWizzard22 occupies the middle ground between those leviathan. Sadly this apparent balance doesn't help him at all, and he's just as badly afflicted as the others. He seems to be very highly resistant to the idea that he could ever make a mistake, causing him to resemble Handjob7 and Advocate in that regard, but those guys never change their story because their vanity overwhelms their ability to forsee any need. At the other end, IC goes through 7 stages of grief when he's on a sinking ship, and that's preobably why he gives you 7 Herculean challenges to complete before he will grudgingly say that he was wrong about something but totally never cared.

Gadalf the KKK seems sort of convinced he is effortlessly superior like Advocate, but he's too insecure about it, Advocate just knows he is the greatest ever and it irks him that lessers cannot see it too. With Whizzy, it's more complicated than that. I've seen him claim to have some sort of relationship with the divine and to receive inspiration from the big guy upstairs, but that seems to be intermittent and he's fuzzy on the details, so perhaps it's episodic. But some degree of heightened self image definitely leads him to overcommit to some wild shit that cannot possibly work for him. No matter what insane self-contradictory irrelevant gobledygook he's written on any matter, his vanity tells him he can totally bullshit his way out of any tricky position, the need for which comes from the excess of pride that won't allow him to use the word oops in situations where it is obviously the right choice for the sane.

[Wizard22]

I do wonder about the many loons we have here who view every sentence they write as some sort of death before dishonour hill to die on. I've seen him try to bully somebody that English is a branch of Latin not German because of the alphabet we use (which closely resembles that used in Germany to my untrained eye) so it goes without saying that he will not agree that he has made a simple and very easily reversible error with the two concepts.

But we saw the same thing in Advocate's Scotsman thread. And if you ever catch IC making a small error that could be fixed with a simple ooops, I challenge you to find one where that was his reaction. So I find myself wondering if there is much of a difference between these people. I posit that there is, I think that for some of these people, the poisonous impulse to double down on a stupid position comes from vanity, while for others it is the sin of pride that corrupts.

The vanity of Narcissus in legend, always gazing only upon his own reflection has obviously given us the name for a vanity based condition that afflicts many, and some of them are among us at PN. So at risk of reading too much into that name, I would say that we can assign for Advocate at least a position at the far Vanity end of the spectrum here. He simply isn't capable of reviewing the evidence of any transaction and determining that his own position had been erroneous because that self image he stares at tells him he's perfect and mistake free, so he can't really understand you.

On the other hand, while it's true that Immanuel Can has got plenty of ego, the reason why he has about 20 extra argument fakeout tricks that Advocate doesn't is that he uses them when he has realised he's under water but his tragic pride cannot cope. Last year he confidently asserted that Nancy Pelosi had acheived impossible investment growth from 33 millions of dollars to 144 mil. Unfortunately that was since 2008 so he doesn't understand what the word "compound" means in this sort of matter, and of course had Pelosi put that money in an unmanaged S&P 500 tracker fund in 2008, she would have made the same level of gains. If we weigh this against his claim that "You will not find a single legal investment firm that can yield results even a fraction that good" you can see that any sane person would have given up the point right away, if you have to retain the pride you can say something about not realising how many years it had been or what not. But mister Can, when in a hole, instinctively reaches for his Pride spade, so he stuck to his reverse firing guns. He knew he was wrong straight away, but he particularly dislikes finding that out from me, I always know he will respond with overpride so sometimes I childishly begin the teasing for that right away. So it was like pulling teeth to make him admit a very small error. Shame really, you should see how rich she would have been if she put that money in Tesla stock. I never got to use that one.

So I posit that the extreme vanity end of the spectrum holds those who cannot understand they are ever mistaken due to a self image of perfection; While the extreme pride end of it holds people who are quite capable of finding out they have erred, but entirely unable to cope with that information. I don't actually think anyone occupies the exclusive extreme ends of this thing, IC may be the most poisonously overproud person I can think of, but he has a bit of vanity to go with it, I am not blinding myself to that in pursuit of my calorie free little pop-psych theory.

In this matter, I believe GrandWizzard22 occupies the middle ground between those leviathan. Sadly this apparent balance doesn't help him at all, and he's just as badly afflicted as the others. He seems to be very highly resistant to the idea that he could ever make a mistake, causing him to resemble Handjob7 and Advocate in that regard, but those guys never change their story because their vanity overwhelms their ability to forsee any need. At the other end, IC goes through 7 stages of grief when he's on a sinking ship, and that's preobably why he gives you 7 Herculean challenges to complete before he will grudgingly say that he was wrong about something but totally never cared.

Gadalf the KKK seems sort of convinced he is effortlessly superior like Advocate, but he's too insecure about it, Advocate just knows he is the greatest ever and it irks him that lessers cannot see it too. With Whizzy, it's more complicated than that. I've seen him claim to have some sort of relationship with the divine and to receive inspiration from the big guy upstairs, but that seems to be intermittent and he's fuzzy on the details, so perhaps it's episodic. But some degree of heightened self image definitely leads him to overcommit to some wild shit that cannot possibly work for him. No matter what insane self-contradictory irrelevant gobledygook he's written on any matter, his vanity tells him he can totally bullshit his way out of any tricky position, the need for which comes from the excess of pride that won't allow him to use the word oops in situations where it is obviously the right choice for the sane.

"You're WROOONNNGGG!!!"
Is an invalid argument.

"You're wrong because of X, Y, and Z."
Is a valid argument.

Learn the difference.
Know it.
Use it.

[FlashDangerpants]

I do wonder about the many loons we have here who view every sentence they write as some sort of death before dishonour hill to die on. I've seen him try to bully somebody that English is a branch of Latin not German because of the alphabet we use (which closely resembles that used in Germany to my untrained eye) so it goes without saying that he will not agree that he has made a simple and very easily reversible error with the two concepts.

But we saw the same thing in Advocate's Scotsman thread. And if you ever catch IC making a small error that could be fixed with a simple ooops, I challenge you to find one where that was his reaction. So I find myself wondering if there is much of a difference between these people. I posit that there is, I think that for some of these people, the poisonous impulse to double down on a stupid position comes from vanity, while for others it is the sin of pride that corrupts.

The vanity of Narcissus in legend, always gazing only upon his own reflection has obviously given us the name for a vanity based condition that afflicts many, and some of them are among us at PN. So at risk of reading too much into that name, I would say that we can assign for Advocate at least a position at the far Vanity end of the spectrum here. He simply isn't capable of reviewing the evidence of any transaction and determining that his own position had been erroneous because that self image he stares at tells him he's perfect and mistake free, so he can't really understand you.

On the other hand, while it's true that Immanuel Can has got plenty of ego, the reason why he has about 20 extra argument fakeout tricks that Advocate doesn't is that he uses them when he has realised he's under water but his tragic pride cannot cope. Last year he confidently asserted that Nancy Pelosi had acheived impossible investment growth from 33 millions of dollars to 144 mil. Unfortunately that was since 2008 so he doesn't understand what the word "compound" means in this sort of matter, and of course had Pelosi put that money in an unmanaged S&P 500 tracker fund in 2008, she would have made the same level of gains. If we weigh this against his claim that "You will not find a single legal investment firm that can yield results even a fraction that good" you can see that any sane person would have given up the point right away, if you have to retain the pride you can say something about not realising how many years it had been or what not. But mister Can, when in a hole, instinctively reaches for his Pride spade, so he stuck to his reverse firing guns. He knew he was wrong straight away, but he particularly dislikes finding that out from me, I always know he will respond with overpride so sometimes I childishly begin the teasing for that right away. So it was like pulling teeth to make him admit a very small error. Shame really, you should see how rich she would have been if she put that money in Tesla stock. I never got to use that one.

So I posit that the extreme vanity end of the spectrum holds those who cannot understand they are ever mistaken due to a self image of perfection; While the extreme pride end of it holds people who are quite capable of finding out they have erred, but entirely unable to cope with that information. I don't actually think anyone occupies the exclusive extreme ends of this thing, IC may be the most poisonously overproud person I can think of, but he has a bit of vanity to go with it, I am not blinding myself to that in pursuit of my calorie free little pop-psych theory.

In this matter, I believe GrandWizzard22 occupies the middle ground between those leviathan. Sadly this apparent balance doesn't help him at all, and he's just as badly afflicted as the others. He seems to be very highly resistant to the idea that he could ever make a mistake, causing him to resemble Handjob7 and Advocate in that regard, but those guys never change their story because their vanity overwhelms their ability to forsee any need. At the other end, IC goes through 7 stages of grief when he's on a sinking ship, and that's preobably why he gives you 7 Herculean challenges to complete before he will grudgingly say that he was wrong about something but totally never cared.

Gadalf the KKK seems sort of convinced he is effortlessly superior like Advocate, but he's too insecure about it, Advocate just knows he is the greatest ever and it irks him that lessers cannot see it too. With Whizzy, it's more complicated than that. I've seen him claim to have some sort of relationship with the divine and to receive inspiration from the big guy upstairs, but that seems to be intermittent and he's fuzzy on the details, so perhaps it's episodic. But some degree of heightened self image definitely leads him to overcommit to some wild shit that cannot possibly work for him. No matter what insane self-contradictory irrelevant gobledygook he's written on any matter, his vanity tells him he can totally bullshit his way out of any tricky position, the need for which comes from the excess of pride that won't allow him to use the word oops in situations where it is obviously the right choice for the sane.

"You're WROOONNNGGG!!!"
Is an invalid argument.

"You're wrong because of X, Y, and Z."
Is a valid argument.

Learn the difference.
Know it.
Use it.

I wouldn't normally bother asking the nutter for his own diagnosis, but I guess where's the harm? Everybody can see that you got validity and soundness mixed up in your first reference to them, why do you think it is that you would make a preposterous effort to invert reality in order to gaslight us all rather than just say "whoops, I got those the wrong way round"?

If not some vanity/pride problem, what is it that compels you to double down on a mistake instead of just reverse it? And if you could muster the self-realisation necessary to think that through, could you make the actual breakthrough of applying that new reasoning skill before you write the dumb thing sometimes....

[Wizard22]

I wouldn't normally bother asking the nutter for his own diagnosis, but I guess where's the harm? Everybody can see that you got validity and soundness mixed up in your first reference to them, why do you think it is that you would make a preposterous effort to invert reality in order to gaslight us all rather than just say "whoops, I got those the wrong way round"?

If not some vanity/pride problem, what is it that compels you to double down on a mistake instead of just reverse it? And if you could muster the self-realisation necessary to think that through, could you make the actual breakthrough of applying that new reasoning skill before you write the dumb thing sometimes....

Dpants, you still haven't explained how they are "mixed-up".

What's the difference between a valid argument and an invalid argument???

I already gave my answer—so what's yours?!

[FlashDangerpants]

I wouldn't normally bother asking the nutter for his own diagnosis, but I guess where's the harm? Everybody can see that you got validity and soundness mixed up in your first reference to them, why do you think it is that you would make a preposterous effort to invert reality in order to gaslight us all rather than just say "whoops, I got those the wrong way round"?

If not some vanity/pride problem, what is it that compels you to double down on a mistake instead of just reverse it? And if you could muster the self-realisation necessary to think that through, could you make the actual breakthrough of applying that new reasoning skill before you write the dumb thing sometimes....

Dpants, you still haven't explained how they are "mixed-up".

What's the difference between a valid argument and an invalid argument???

I already gave my answer—so what's yours?!

It's not MY answer, it's just THE answer.

First, one must ask if the premises provide support for the conclusion by examing the form of the argument. If they do, then the argument is valid. Then, one must ask whether the premises are true or false in actuality. Only if an argument passes both these tests is it sound. However, if an argument does not pass these tests, its conclusion may still be true, despite that no support for its truth is given by the argument.
https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/#:~:text=Fi ... it%20sound.

No gaslighting copium you attempt will make any difference to the brute fact that formal validity is a necessary requirement for soundness, rather than the other way round, which was your implication.

Nobody is having a debate with you about that topic, everyone else is right and you are wrong because these terms are defined. The actual question is why are you unable to just admit even such a trivial error?

What would it cost you to just accept that you got something unimportant ever so slightly wrong, and why can you never muster that price?

[Wizard22]

First, one must ask if the premises provide support for the conclusion by examing the form of the argument. If they do, then the argument is valid. Then, one must ask whether the premises are true or false in actuality. Only if an argument passes both these tests is it sound. However, if an argument does not pass these tests, its conclusion may still be true, despite that no support for its truth is given by the argument.
https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/#:~:text=Fi ... it%20sound.

No gaslighting copium you attempt will make any difference to the brute fact that formal validity is a necessary requirement for soundness, rather than the other way round, which was your implication.

Nobody is having a debate with you about that topic, everyone else is right and you are wrong because these terms are defined. The actual question is why are you unable to just admit even such a trivial error?

What would it cost you to just accept that you got something unimportant ever so slightly wrong, and why can you never muster that price?

Now let's see your Literacy, Dpants...

Is this a *VALID* argument???

Hibblehams are twice defrondled.
This is a hibbleham.
Therefore it is twice defrondled.

Are u sayin that isn't a valid argument, Wiz?

[FlashDangerpants]

First, one must ask if the premises provide support for the conclusion by examing the form of the argument. If they do, then the argument is valid. Then, one must ask whether the premises are true or false in actuality. Only if an argument passes both these tests is it sound. However, if an argument does not pass these tests, its conclusion may still be true, despite that no support for its truth is given by the argument.
https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/#:~:text=Fi ... it%20sound.

No gaslighting copium you attempt will make any difference to the brute fact that formal validity is a necessary requirement for soundness, rather than the other way round, which was your implication.

Nobody is having a debate with you about that topic, everyone else is right and you are wrong because these terms are defined. The actual question is why are you unable to just admit even such a trivial error?

What would it cost you to just accept that you got something unimportant ever so slightly wrong, and why can you never muster that price?

Now let's see your Literacy, Dpants...

Is this a *VALID* argument???

Hibblehams are twice defrondled.
This is a hibbleham.
Therefore it is twice defrondled.

Are u sayin that isn't a valid argument, Wiz?

That's covered adequately by the text book definition I already provided....

First, one must ask if the premises provide support for the conclusion by examing the form of the argument. If they do, then the argument is valid. Then, one must ask whether the premises are true or false in actuality. Only if an argument passes both these tests is it sound. However, if an argument does not pass these tests, its conclusion may still be true, despite that no support for its truth is given by the argument.
https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/#:~:text=Fi ... it%20sound.

No gaslighting copium you attempt will make any difference to the brute fact that formal validity is a necessary requirement for soundness, rather than the other way round, which was your implication. That includes silly attempts to turn the tables.

[Wizard22]

There is no way to determine that it is twice defrondled from the premises, because neither defrondled nor hibblehams are based in any possible reality.

Therefore the argument is invalid. The conclusion does not, and cannot follow from the premises. The argument is still sound, however, because if twice defrondled hibblehams were real (hypothetically), then the argument would be provable, the premises maybe demonstrated as true or false, and thus the validity of the argument would hold. This is the difference between "deductive logic", "purely formal logic", and just normal logic applied to reality. You know, real life.

[promethean75]

F.D. Pants, I think what Wizzzard is tryna say is

[FlashDangerpants]

There is no way to determine that it is twice defrondled from the premises, because neither defrondled nor hibblehams are based in any possible reality.

Therefore the argument is invalid. The conclusion does not, and cannot follow from the premises. The argument is still sound, however, because if twice defrondled hibblehams were real (hypothetically), then the argument would be provable, the premises maybe demonstrated as true or false, and thus the validity of the argument would hold. This is the difference between "deductive logic", "purely formal logic", and just normal logic applied to reality. You know, real life.

You are just confirming how accurate my predictive powers were when I wrote "his vanity tells him he can totally bullshit his way out of any tricky position, the need for which comes from the excess of pride that won't allow him to use the word oops in situations where it is obviously the right choice for the sane."

[FlashDangerpants]

F.D. Pants, I think what Wizzzard is tryna say is

Too true. The problem with the doubledown bullshit theatre though is that now he's overinvested and underwater, he can't get out of it unless we are very nice to him about it. I would need to see a lot of quality humility out of this cunt before I was inclined to be nice to him.