Actually, I did well in both philosophy and logic. -- Ben's Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Tuesday, May 13, 06:16:51pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Actually, I did well in both philosophy and logic.

Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 03/31/04 12:45pm
In reply to: Damoclese 's message, "Passing calculus, flunking philosophy and logic" on 03/30/04 2:40pm

>Argument from I've had many philosophy classes:
>
>I've had many philosophy classes and passed them.
>You're argument never has been nor never will be
>deductive in the parlance of logic.

Really? Perhaps you should check my formal proof again.

Click here to see the formal proof of my Tristram Shandy argument

>P.S. Here's a link so you can study up on why decrying
>something deductive doesn't necessarily make it so.
>Pay particular attention to the part about changing
>the premises.
>
>A lesson Wade must've missed
>
>As the conclusion may follow but isn't necessarily
>true, I'll expect a full retraction from you as
>concerning this matter

Why? Exactly how does the link bear any relevance to anything I've said? I have explicitly and repeatedly said that the argument being valid merely means that the conclusion is true if the premises are true, thus the only the argument can fail is if one or more of its premises are incorrect.

Remember this post:

A deductively valid argument means that if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true also. So one can deny the conclusion only by denying the premises. The premises are the only way a deductively valid argument can fail.

And this post:

Valid just means that, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. A sound argument is one that is both valid and has all true premises. Is the argument valid? Yes, I've proved it. Is the argument sound? I don't have a formal proof for that, but if it isn't sound the only way the conclusion can be false is if one of the premises are false.

And, let's not forget this post:

>Okay. So unwarranted assumptions are made in the
>premises, at least theoretically. Doesn't that
>theoretically mean the conclusions this argument draws
>about reality are subject to error?

YES!

What I'm saying is that if the argument fails, a premise has to be wrong (because the argument is deductively valid).

Given this, exactly why should I make a full retraction? A full retraction concerning what, exactly?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Wade never admits, he slithers.	Damoclese	03/31/04 2:55pm
I've admitted mistakes before. What is there to admit here? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/ 1/04 9:54am Falsity -- Damoclese, 04/ 1/04 11:36am Truth -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/ 1/04 12:08pm