Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

DestinyCall · 2021-01-09 22:14:03

Dodge wrote:

Wtf are these walls of text, a 5 year old knows what this expression means, jesus...

You're not wrong, but I like to imagine that Spoonwood was raised by feral spoons in the deep woods, so he is unfamiliar with many concepts and social conventions that the average adult would consider obvious or common sense.

It helps me to push down my frustration and treat his responses seriously, like when a five year old keeps asking "why?" over and over until you just want to scream and pull out your hair.

...

Maybe no one ever took the time to explain the problem to him in a way he could understand. You never know.

Last edited by DestinyCall (2021-01-09 22:17:10)

Spoonwood · 2021-01-10 02:27:51

Cogito wrote:

Quibbling is the exact right term for what is going on here, as in many other threads. Thank you Destiny for finding the word I needed when trying to find the name for the equivocation fallacy! I hadn't considered that equivocation and equivocation fallacy need to be carefully used (I had _assumed_ that it was obvious we were talking about the equivocation fallacy throughout, but alas I think that was a poor assumption); quibbling is a far better term.
Spoonwood wrote:
DestinyCall wrote:
If I am debating with you, we are engaged in an argument with each other. One argument. Two people. If I use one definition for a term to describe my position and you attempt to counter, but your response relies on a different definition, we are talking at cross-purposes. It is not possible to reach common ground, because we are essentially not discussing the same thing, despite using the same terms. Our argument becomes pointless and circular, like Abbott and Costello trying to work out who's on first.
No, they have two arguments. One debate, two people, two arguments.
It's ok to use both meanings of the term 'argument', both as a discussion between two people, and as a set of statements that follow logically from each other (meanings 1 and 2 at https://www.thefreedictionary.com/argument) but of course it helps to be clear about which one you mean. Let's not quibble over the meaning!
Spoonwood wrote:
When one person makes an argument and another responds with a different interpretation of some term or phrase, the second person makes a distinct argument. So, there is no equivocation by the second person (unless that person used a phrase or term in more in the course of that argument).
The thing that you're missing here is that the second person will incorporate, often implicitly (ie without restating), one or more of the premises or conclusions of the first person. When they do that, they don't get to change the meaning of the words in just because they interpreted it differently to the intent of the first person.
In this thread when responding to Destiny about the 'afraid' statement you implicitly included that statement as a premise in the argument you were making.
1. DestinyCall claims that they are "afraid [Spoonwood is] not very good at recognizing the weaknesses in [their] own reasoning." <---- this is where you include Destiny's phrase, and misinterpret the word afraid.
2. There is nothing 'real' here to fear.
3. Therefore DestinyCall shouldn't be afraid. <---- this is where you use a different meaning of the word 'afraid' to what Destiny used. It may be consistent with your misinterpretation, but you don't get to redefine their meaning.

Yes, I don't get to redefine her meaning. I do get to define how I interpret such thought. But, because of that, I can't equivocate, nor quibble as used by Beardsley, since I only used one meaning. Equivocation happens when *one* argument* has a term or phrase that gets used in multiple ways *within* that argument.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2021-01-10 02:28:32)

DestinyCall · 2021-01-10 03:05:47

You know what? I take it back.

You are great at recognizing the weaknesses in your own reasoning. And admitting when you have made a mistake.

My bad. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. /s

Spoonwood · 2021-01-11 00:22:09

A misunderstanding of a phrase, does not indicate a weakness in reasoning.

DestinyCall · 2021-01-11 01:20:30

If the misunderstanding leads to an unsound conclusion, i think it does.

I realize you made an honest mistake and didn't realize I was using the word "afraid" in its figurative sense. But the direct result of that misunderstanding was a response that did not logically follow from my statement.

In other words, your response - the conclusion of an unspoken argument - was based on a faulty premise.

Just like when Abbott and Costello talk back and forth without understanding each others' true meaning, this fallacy does not require intention or actual recognition of the error being made at the time. What matters is the result - an unsound conclusion due to lexical ambiguity.

Spoonwood · 2021-01-11 09:40:16

DestinyCall wrote:

In other words, your response - the conclusion of an unspoken argument - was based on a faulty premise.

That doesn't indicate an error in reasoning, since errors in reasoning involve invalidity. If one starts with a false premise, and infers a false conclusion, the reasoning works fine.

DestinyCall wrote:

Just like when Abbott and Costello talk back and forth without understanding each others' true meaning, this fallacy does not require intention or actual recognition of the error being made at the time.

There wasn't a fallacy on my part there. Again, equivocation doesn't work, because I didn't use the term 'afraid' in more than one sense, which is required for for equivocation to exist.

JackTreehorn · 2021-01-11 10:29:38

I'm afraid you gents are just quibbling, waffling about a quarrel that is paltry and trite. I shan't equivocate, this squabble should surcease forthwith.

Last edited by JackTreehorn (2021-01-11 10:31:06)

Cogito · 2021-01-11 10:46:17

JackTreehorn wrote:

I'm afraid you gents are just quibbling, waffling about a quarrel that is paltry and trite. I shan't equivocate, this squabble should surcease forthwith.

Hear, hear!

DestinyCall · 2021-01-11 16:36:06

Spoonwood wrote:

DestinyCall wrote:
In other words, your response - the conclusion of an unspoken argument - was based on a faulty premise.
That doesn't indicate an error in reasoning, since errors in reasoning involve invalidity. If one starts with a false premise, and infers a false conclusion, the reasoning works fine.
DestinyCall wrote:
Just like when Abbott and Costello talk back and forth without understanding each others' true meaning, this fallacy does not require intention or actual recognition of the error being made at the time.
There wasn't a fallacy on my part there. Again, equivocation doesn't work, because I didn't use the term 'afraid' in more than one sense, which is required for for equivocation to exist.

No, that is not correct. There is a difference between validity and soundness. Validity assumes all premises are true. Soundness requires true premises. If you base the conclusion of your argument on a false premise, it is unsound, even if the logical structure of the argument is valid.

From wikipedia:

"Fallacies are commonly divided into "formal" and "informal". A formal fallacy can be expressed neatly in a standard system of logic, such as propositional logic, while an informal fallacy originates in an error in reasoning other than an improper logical form. Arguments containing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious."

Equivocation is an informal fallacy. So yes, "errors of reasoning" do extend to forming a false conclusion based on a false premise. In fact, I would even argue that you are attempting to obscure the core issue by using an unnecessarily narrow definition of "reason".

This is just pointless quibbling.

....

And in case there is any confusion, I am using this definition of the term:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quibble

Last edited by DestinyCall (2021-01-11 17:03:55)

Spoonwood · 2021-01-12 02:12:28

DestinyCall wrote:

Validity assumes all premises are true.

No, it does not. All arguments with false premises are valid.

"In logic, validity refers to the property of an argument whereby if the premises are true then the truth of the conclusion follows by necessity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(statistics)

If an argument has a false premise, then the conditional still holds. In other words, if the argument has a false premise, then if the premises are true, then the truth of the conclusion follows by necessity holds. Consequently, all arguments with a false premise hold as valid.

DestinyCall wrote:

Equivocation is an informal fallacy. So yes, "errors of reasoning" do extend to forming a false conclusion based on a false premise.

No, you can't infer from the nature of equivocation like that. Errors of reasoning don't extend to forming a false conclusion based on a false premise, because it's *always* valid reasoning to form a false conclusion based on a false premise. Check the material conditional would you.

And that this it is not pointless quibbling follows from what you would have to infer about the material conditional if your claim hold. You would have to infer that a conditional is false when its antecedent is false and it's consequent is false. But, it doesn't work that way. A conditional with a false antecedent and a false consequent holds true.

DestinyCall · 2021-01-12 03:09:35

How can you say something like " All arguments with false premises are valid."? That statement is clearly false. I can easily come up with a dozen different invalid arguments with false premises. If that was a logical argument, it would be invalid.

Are you even trying to make sense anymore?

"In logic, more precisely in deductive reasoning, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. It is not required for a valid argument to have premises that are actually true, but to have premises that, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the argument's conclusion. "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic)

In no way does this mean that "Consequently, all arguments with a false premise hold as valid." That is clearly fallacious. Or as the layperson might say ... it's pure bullshit.

It means that EVEN IF an argument is valid, one or more of its premises might be false. In other words, a valid argument can be logically unsound and lead to a false conclusion.

It is true that a valid argument can include a false premise and still be valid. It is NOT true that ALL arguments with a false premise are valid. Because invalid arguments can also have false premises. And, more importantly, an argument with a false premise is unsound.

I notice that when you quoted wikipedia regarding validity, you left out the part about soundness. That part is kind of important. Here is the rest of the quote:

"In logic, validity refers to the property of an argument whereby if the premises are true then the truth of the conclusion follows by necessity. The conclusion of an argument is true if the argument is sound, which is to say if the argument is valid and its premises are true."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(statistics)

I don't understand what you are trying to prove at this point, but I do not think you are demonstrating sound logic.

DestinyCall · 2021-01-12 05:44:03

Spoonwood wrote:

DestinyCall wrote:
Validity assumes all premises are true.
No, it does not. All arguments with false premises are valid.

Reading over your response again while applying the principle of charity, I think you might have misread my statement to say that true premises are necessary for validity. That was not what I was saying. In fact, it is the opposite.

When assessing the validity of an argument, it is ASSUMED that all the premises are true, whether or not they actually are. An argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion, but validity only assesses the form of the argument, not its content or actual truthfulness.

That is why I said this - "There is a difference between validity and soundness. Validity assumes all premises are true. Soundness requires true premises. "

A sound argument must have true premises. So soundness requires true premises. Validity does not. That is the difference that I was pointing out.

https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

Both validity AND soundness are important for making reasonable arguments. Formal fallacies involve errors in reason that render an argument invalid. Informal fallacies generally involve errors of reason that render an argument unsound. A deductive argument containing an informal fallacy may be formally valid, but still remain rationally unpersuasive. Interestingly, informal fallacies also include fallacies of relevance. These are a broad class of informal fallacies, related to "missing the point" - presenting an argument, which may be sound, but fails to address the issue in question.

Relating this back to the original topic, the equivocation fallacy is an INFORMAL fallacy because it involves a mistake in reasoning that arise from the mishandling of the content of the propositions constituting the argument. It is not an error in the logical form of the argument, but it IS a mistake in reasoning.

An argument that contains an equivocation fallacy might be logically valid, but it is not sound.

Spoonwood wrote:

Check the material conditional would you.

Oh, and I checked. The material conditional has no reasonable connection this discussion, so it appears to be irrelevant.

Last edited by DestinyCall (2021-01-12 07:50:50)

NoTruePunk · 2021-01-12 06:20:14

This is too many pages for a thread with "incest" in the title

DestinyCall · 2021-01-12 06:59:13

How about a thread with "rape" in the title?

https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=9043

Spoonwood · 2021-01-12 07:52:19

DestinyCall wrote:

"In logic, more precisely in deductive reasoning, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. It is not required for a valid argument to have premises that are actually true, but to have premises that, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the argument's conclusion. "

Suppose we have an argument X with a false premise. Then, for X it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Why? Because, it's impossible for the premises to be true, since there exists a false premise. From the "if and only if" and equivalence elimination it follows that if a form makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false, then argument is valid. Consequently, X is a valid argument. X was an arbitrary argument with a false premise. Therefore, all arguments with a false premise are valid.

DestinyCall wrote:

It means that EVEN IF an argument is valid, one or more of its premises might be false. In other words, a valid argument can be logically unsound and lead to a false conclusion.

No, it's not only "even if". "Even if" only has one direction. It said "if and only if".

DestinyCall wrote:

Because invalid arguments can also have false premises.

No. An argument is *only* invalid if all of its premises hold true, and it's conclusion is false.

"We simply inspect the truth-table columns for all of the premises and the conclusion; if there is any line on which all of the premises are true while the conclusion is false, then the argument is invalid (and if not, it is valid). "

http://philosophypages.com/lg/e11d.htm

DestinyCall wrote:

Relating this back to the original topic, the equivocation fallacy is an INFORMAL fallacy because it involves a mistake in reasoning that arise from the mishandling of the content of the propositions constituting the argument.

By your own characterization then, there is no invalidity in the use of an equivocation, as you said: " Formal fallacies involve errors in reason that render an argument invalid. Informal fallacies generally involve errors of reason that render an argument unsound."

But, on the contrary, fallacies do often render an argument invalid.

DestinyCall wrote:

It is not an error in the logical form of the argument, but it IS a mistake in reasoning.

No. Mistaken assumptions or premises or axioms don't involve any mistakes in reasoning. Reasoning concerns only moving from the set of premises to the conclusion. Mistakes in reasoning amount to invalidity, and no more.

DestinyCall wrote:

Oh, and I checked. The material conditional has no reasonable connection this discussion, so it appears to be irrelevant.

It does have a connection, since it's a basic metalogical theorem that if (X->Y), then X validates Y, and conversely.

DestinyCall · 2021-01-12 09:06:20

I cannot believe you are doubling down on your faulty conclusion that ALL arguments with a false premise are valid. And that you are still disregarding the importance of soundness in your arguments.

Oh wait ... I can.

I should have given up a while ago, but I wanted to see if you could actually understand if I explained the flaws in your reasoning more clearly. I guess I have my answer.

JackTreehorn · 2021-01-12 09:28:11

Spoonwood never admits when he's wrong, you should know this by now Destiny. It reminds me of the "Any child is capable of being fertile." discussion. That went for 3 pages too.

DestinyCall · 2021-01-12 18:00:40

Oh, I do know better. But I have come this far already ... so what the hell. Once more unto the breach, my friends, once more ...

Spoonwood wrote:

DestinyCall wrote:
"In logic, more precisely in deductive reasoning, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. It is not required for a valid argument to have premises that are actually true, but to have premises that, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the argument's conclusion. "
Suppose we have an argument X with a false premise. Then, for X it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Why? Because, it's impossible for the premises to be true, since there exists a false premise. From the "if and only if" and equivalence elimination it follows that if a form makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false, then argument is valid. Consequently, X is a valid argument. X was an arbitrary argument with a false premise. Therefore, all arguments with a false premise are valid.

There are a couple of problems with this argument, but the most important one is that you ignore that when testing for validity, you do not consider the truth of the premises. So if we assume there is an argument X with a false premise, we would then IGNORE that the premise is false when checking if the form of the argument was valid or not. The ACTUAL truth or falsehood of the premises will have no bearing on whether or not the arugment's form is valid, so it does not affect the outcome of the validity test.

To quote the quote that you already quoted, "It is not required for a valid argument to have premises that are actually true, but to have premises that, IF THEY WERE TRUE, would guarantee the truth of the argument's conclusion." In your proposed example argument, you failed to "assume" that the premise was true, because you know it is actually false. That is a mistake.

Spoonwood wrote:

DestinyCall wrote:
It means that EVEN IF an argument is valid, one or more of its premises might be false. In other words, a valid argument can be logically unsound and lead to a false conclusion.
No, it's not only "even if". "Even if" only has one direction. It said "if and only if".

No. Premises can be false if the argument is valid. Premises can be false if the argument is invalid. Therefore, EVEN IF the argument is valid, one or more of the premises might be false. You arrived at the conclusion that all arguments with a false premise are valid erroneously. The use of "if an only if" in the definition of validity has no bearing on this relationship and is irrelevant.

Spoonwood wrote:

DestinyCall wrote:
Because invalid arguments can also have false premises.
No. An argument is *only* invalid if all of its premises hold true, and it's conclusion is false.
"We simply inspect the truth-table columns for all of the premises and the conclusion; if there is any line on which all of the premises are true while the conclusion is false, then the argument is invalid (and if not, it is valid). "

No. See above for why this argument is unsound.

Spoonwood wrote:

DestinyCall wrote:
Relating this back to the original topic, the equivocation fallacy is an INFORMAL fallacy because it involves a mistake in reasoning that arise from the mishandling of the content of the propositions constituting the argument.
By your own characterization then, there is no invalidity in the use of an equivocation, as you said: " Formal fallacies involve errors in reason that render an argument invalid. Informal fallacies generally involve errors of reason that render an argument unsound."
But, on the contrary, fallacies do often render an argument invalid.

Yes, by definition, a formal fallacy is an error in the argument's form, while informal fallacies are errors in reason that are NOT related to the logical form. So they do not affect the validity of the argument but they generally do impact the soundness of the argument - whether or not the conclusion is actually true. Equivocation does not render an argument invalid. It renders it unsound. Which is exactly what I have already stated multiple times over the course of this debate.

Your statement does not contradict what I have said. It is true that SOME fallacies render an argument invalid. They are called formal fallacies, as I have already mentioned in the quote you so helpfully provided. I am not disputing the existence of formal fallacies. But I am questioning their relevance to the discussion at hand. We are discussing an informal fallacy - the equivocation fallacy. It is not a formal fallacy. So why do you keep talking about invalidity when it is not relevant? Informal fallacies involve an error in reason that is not caused by a problem with the argument's logical form, so the validity of the argument is not in question. The argument can be valid, but still contain an informal error in reason that renders it unsound.

Spoonwood wrote:

DestinyCall wrote:
It is not an error in the logical form of the argument, but it IS a mistake in reasoning.
No. Mistaken assumptions or premises or axioms don't involve any mistakes in reasoning. Reasoning concerns only moving from the set of premises to the conclusion. Mistakes in reasoning amount to invalidity, and no more.

And here we finally get to the heart of the matter. You are trying to use an inappropriately narrow definition of reasoning to defend your position. Reasoning DOES NOT concern only moving from the set of premises to the conclusion. What you are actually describing there is "formal reasoning", not reasoning as a whole.

Reasoning is the generation or evaluation of claims in relation to their supporting arguments and evidence. The ability to reason has a fundamental impact on one's ability to learn from new information and experiences because reasoning skills determine how people comprehend, evaluate, and accept claims and arguments. Reasoning skills are also crucial for being able to generate and maintain viewpoints or beliefs that are coherent with, and justified by, relevant knowledge. There are two general kinds of reasoning that involve claims and evidence: formal and informal.
...
Formal reasoning is used to evaluate the form of an argument, and to examine the logical relationships between conclusions and their supporting assertions. Arguments are determined to be either valid or invalid based solely on whether their conclusions necessarily follow from their explicitly stated premises or assertions.
...
Informal reasoning refers to attempts to determine what information is relevant to a question, what conclusions are plausible, and what degree of support the relevant information provides for these various conclusions.

Source: https://education.stateuniversity.com/p … z6jM5iyyAX

Errors in FORMAL reasoning are called formal fallacies and they will render an argument invalid. Errors in INFORMAL reasoning do not concern the logical form of the argument, so they are not related to validity. They are errors in reasoning, but NOT errors in formal reasoning. And since we are talking about equivocation and the equivocation fallacy is an informal fallacy, it does not make sense to use the narrower definition of reasoning that you keep insisting upon, because we are not discussing an error in formal reasoning.

"Correct reasoning involves clear expression and valid form. Formal fallacies are a matter of invalid form. Informal fallacies are a matter of unclear expression. Formal fallacies deal with the logic of the technical structure, while informal fallacies deal with the logic of the meaning of language. The word "informal" does not here mean it is inferior, casual or improper. It only means that our focus is not on the form of the argument, but on the meaning of the argument."

Source: https://www.triviumpursuit.com/articles … lacies.php

You have repeatedly tried to make this an argument about form. But that is not the core issue under discussion. This is an argument about meaning. You have repeatedly put forward unsound arguments, many of which were not even relevant to the debate. Please take a step back and consider your words more carefully. You are being unreasonable.

Spoonwood · 2021-01-12 19:48:40

DestinyCall wrote:

There are a couple of problems with this argument, but the most important one is that you ignore that when testing for validity, you do not consider the truth of the premises. So if we assume there is an argument X with a false premise, we would then IGNORE that the premise is false when checking if the form of the argument was valid or not.

If X has a false premise, then the conjunction of the premises implies the conclusion (by the deduction meta-theorem). Consequently (by the inverse of the deduction theorem), it follows also that the argument is valid.

DestinyCall wrote:

No. Premises can be false if the argument is valid. Premises can be false if the argument is invalid.

No. All arguments with a false premise are valid, since they entail a true implication.

DestinyCall wrote:

The use of "if an only if" in the definition of validity has no bearing on this relationship and is irrelevant.

No. The "if and only if" signals a two-way relationship.

DestinyCall wrote:

Equivocation does not render an argument invalid. It renders it unsound. Which is exactly what I have already stated multiple times over the course of this debate.

No, that isn't what you said above. You said above:

DestinyCall wrote:

An argument that contains an equivocation fallacy might be logically valid, but it is not sound.

DestinyCall wrote:

We are discussing an informal fallacy - the equivocation fallacy. It is not a formal fallacy. So why do you keep talking about invalidity when it is not relevant?

You, or Cogito, claimed invalidity.

DestinyCall wrote:

Informal fallacies involve an error in reason that is not caused by a problem with the argument's logical form, so the validity of the argument is not in question. The argument can be valid, but still contain an informal error in reason that renders it unsound.

Lack of soundness is not an error in reasoning. Lack of soundness consists in an error of perception or interpretation.

DestinyCall wrote:

Reasoning DOES NOT concern only moving from the set of premises to the conclusion. What you are actually describing there is "formal reasoning", not reasoning as a whole.

In logic one only studies what follows from what. Logic only concerns moving from some set of premises to some conclusion(s).

DestinyCall wrote:

Errors in INFORMAL reasoning do not concern the logical form of the argument, so they are not related to validity.

According to the description you gave it says:

"Informal reasoning refers to attempts to determine what information is relevant to a question, what conclusions are plausible, and what degree of support the relevant information provides for these various conclusions."

What conclusions are plausible concerns validity.

DestinyCall wrote:

You have repeatedly tried to make this an argument about form.

It had been about form to some extent, as soon as you, or Cogito, used the term 'invalidity'.

DestinyCall · 2021-01-12 23:14:41

Spoonwood wrote:

DestinyCall wrote:
There are a couple of problems with this argument, but the most important one is that you ignore that when testing for validity, you do not consider the truth of the premises. So if we assume there is an argument X with a false premise, we would then IGNORE that the premise is false when checking if the form of the argument was valid or not.
If X has a false premise, then the conjunction of the premises implies the conclusion (by the deduction meta-theorem). Consequently (by the inverse of the deduction theorem), it follows also that the argument is valid.

No.

Spoonwood wrote:

DestinyCall wrote:
No. Premises can be false if the argument is valid. Premises can be false if the argument is invalid.
No. All arguments with a false premise are valid, since they entail a true implication.

Wrong.

Spoonwood wrote:

DestinyCall wrote:
The use of "if an only if" in the definition of validity has no bearing on this relationship and is irrelevant.
No. The "if and only if" signals a two-way relationship.

Irrelevant.

Spoonwood wrote:

DestinyCall wrote:
Equivocation does not render an argument invalid. It renders it unsound. Which is exactly what I have already stated multiple times over the course of this debate.
No, that isn't what you said above. You said above:
DestinyCall wrote:
An argument that contains an equivocation fallacy might be logically valid, but it is not sound.

Huh?

Spoonwood wrote:

DestinyCall wrote:
We are discussing an informal fallacy - the equivocation fallacy. It is not a formal fallacy. So why do you keep talking about invalidity when it is not relevant?
You, or Cogito, claimed invalidity.

Where?

Spoonwood wrote:

DestinyCall wrote:
Informal fallacies involve an error in reason that is not caused by a problem with the argument's logical form, so the validity of the argument is not in question. The argument can be valid, but still contain an informal error in reason that renders it unsound.
Lack of soundness is not an error in reasoning. Lack of soundness consists in an error of perception or interpretation.

Wrong.

Spoonwood wrote:

DestinyCall wrote:
Reasoning DOES NOT concern only moving from the set of premises to the conclusion. What you are actually describing there is "formal reasoning", not reasoning as a whole.
In logic one only studies what follows from what. Logic only concerns moving from some set of premises to some conclusion(s).

Irrelevant.

Spoonwood wrote:

DestinyCall wrote:
Errors in INFORMAL reasoning do not concern the logical form of the argument, so they are not related to validity.
According to the description you gave it says:
"Informal reasoning refers to attempts to determine what information is relevant to a question, what conclusions are plausible, and what degree of support the relevant information provides for these various conclusions."
What conclusions are plausible concerns validity.

False.

Spoonwood wrote:

DestinyCall wrote:
You have repeatedly tried to make this an argument about form.
It had been about form to some extent, as soon as you, or Cogito, used the term 'invalidity'.

Nope!

Last edited by DestinyCall (2021-01-12 23:33:35)

DestinyCall · 2021-01-12 23:18:41

If you don't understand my replies, feel free to ask for clarification. I can break it down further.

Or refer to my previous posts, since most of the relevant points has already been covered more than once.

DiscardedSlinky · 2021-01-13 00:10:32

I declare this thread over.

No more pls.

Cogito · 2021-01-13 02:43:43

DiscardedSlinky wrote:

I declare this thread over.

No more pls.

But discussing how to reason (and specifically evaluate arguments) is fun!

By the way, I haven't checked but it's very possible I used the term 'invalid' informally, informally including both formal meanings of 'valid' and 'sound'. That is, saying something like "this makes your points invalid" is really meant to mean "this makes your points wrong". If so, I apologise greatly.

Berry High Priest · 2021-01-13 08:22:17

DiscardedSlinky wrote:

I declare this thread over.

No more pls.

Amen to that!

DestinyCall · 2021-01-13 17:32:00

If you have made it this far and feel like you have a strong grasp of deductive reasoning, why not take this logic quiz?

https://global.oup.com/us/companion.web … rue_false/

And if you are still thirsty for more logic, you can follow it up with quiz on validity and invalidity! Can you spot the invalid arguments?

https://global.oup.com/us/companion.web … d_invalid/

And if you smoked the previous two tests, try this even harder (but thankfully much shorter) logic test:

https://global.oup.com/us/companion.web … d_invalid/

Enjoy

One Hour One Life Forums

#51 2021-01-09 22:14:03

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

#52 2021-01-10 02:27:51

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

#53 2021-01-10 03:05:47

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

#54 2021-01-11 00:22:09

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

#55 2021-01-11 01:20:30

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

#56 2021-01-11 09:40:16

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

#57 2021-01-11 10:29:38

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

#58 2021-01-11 10:46:17

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

#59 2021-01-11 16:36:06

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

#60 2021-01-12 02:12:28

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

#61 2021-01-12 03:09:35

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

#62 2021-01-12 05:44:03

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

#63 2021-01-12 06:20:14

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

#64 2021-01-12 06:59:13

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

#65 2021-01-12 07:52:19

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

#66 2021-01-12 09:06:20

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

#67 2021-01-12 09:28:11

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

#68 2021-01-12 18:00:40

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

#69 2021-01-12 19:48:40

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

#70 2021-01-12 23:14:41

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

#71 2021-01-12 23:18:41

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

#72 2021-01-13 00:10:32

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

#73 2021-01-13 02:43:43

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

#74 2021-01-13 08:22:17

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

#75 2021-01-13 17:32:00

Re: Mating Mechanics Would Mean Less Incest Not More

Board footer