| Subject: Wade never admits, he slithers. |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/31/04 2:55pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Actually, I did well in both philosophy and logic." on 03/31/04 12:45pm
>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.
You're wrong. Did you read the page?
"1) It may be that the conclusion cannot possibly be false if the premises are true. If this is so, the argument is said to be formally valid (or deductively valid, or just valid). An argument may be formally valid and have one or more false premises, in which case the conclusion may also be false, or it may not. But if it is valid and all its premises are true, then it is deductively sound (or just sound), and the conclusion of a sound argument is always true. An argument may be sound, and nonetheless fail to be convincing (if one does not believe the premises, despite their truth, or if it is a complicated argument and one does not understand how it follows, or trust that there is no mistake in it making it invalid). An argument may even be sound and fail to justify belief in the conclusion, if one has no good reason to believe all its premises, despite their truth, or if one has no good reason to trust that it is in fact valid.
(2) It may be that the conclusion could be false while the premises are all true, but this is unlikely. In that case the argument is said to have some force, since the premises render the conclusion more or less probable, and it is said to be 'non-deductive'. The amount of force it has will depend on just how probable the premises render the conclusion, and that depends on how likely the premises themselves are to be true, as well as how unlikely it is that the conclusion is false given the truth of the premises.
Formally valid and yet still have a false premise, or at least no good reason for believing a premise to be true. The premise itself can be correct (imaginarily) and still be false (in reality)
Beginningless task anyone?
And furthermore:
"But if it is valid and all its premises are true, then it is deductively sound (or just sound), and the conclusion of a sound argument is always true."
So while it may be valid, (or not) I don't think all the premises are true, and I therefore reject the argument, and I've discussed at length which premise (or implication or assumption however you wanna look at it) I think is baloney; namely the beginningless task.
>
>What I'm saying is that if the argument fails,
>a premise has to be wrong (because the argument is
>deductively valid).
You'd appear to be at odds with these fellows. They say something can be formally deductively valid, and still have false premises. The only way what you're saying would fly is if the premises are valid AND true. They may pass the validity test, but they don't pass the truth test. (there's no reason to assume they are true in other words)
>Given this, exactly why should I make a full
>retraction? A full retraction concerning what,
>exactly?
That my objection was a valid objection to the argument. That there needn't be "a premise" necessarily invalid, but that there is no reason to think these premises are true which is reason enough to reduce the force of the argument to negligible proportions.
You're staring down a loaded gun here. You'd do well to back down and concede on this one.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 