Why are you on your own mission? Show me where I said that all valid arguments must be true. You cannot do so. You have never addressed anything I asked. Why is that? Do you have issues with the English language?
that is a good one! I was not literally meaning YOU. I made a general claim not to be taken personally. I am asking would you say logic is only about validity if informal fallacies can exist in valid arguments? Or would you deny logic is only about validity once you see that subject content...
Aristotle???? Can you quote where he said that? Can you find one sample from Aristotle where he gave false premises and still made a valid argument?
Aristotle used premises where he already KNEW the truth value. He started with truth and ended up in truth which is why logic is truth preserving.
Exactly what argument are YOU talking about committing a fallacy of denying the antecedant BUD. The argument I GAVE was not fallacious. Check yourself. Stop making stuff up. Use my claims as premises not yours!
Can you NAME legit LOGICIANS who are not mathematicians?
You cannot even place your argument in logical form for us to analyze it with premises and of course your conclusion: logic is about validity. Show us what premises lead to that conclusion.
Give me a Modus Ponens or modus Tollens...
You have not covered that gap at all. I am still waiting. You have thrown up elementary stuff as if I have no experience in logic. I have over 20 years in this. You demonstrated validity is not TRUTH and that is all.
State your case logically how you THINK you demonstrated logic is only about...
Yes. Would you honestly agree that if an argument can be formally valid and still commit a fallacy that the claim "Logic is only about validity" is false? Or would you still think logic is all about validity still?
No you are making stuff up again. You cannot speak for ME! If you knew logic as well as you think you knew logic, then you would use MY claims as premises to prove me wrong. You are making up the premises and attributing your made up premises as if I stated them. This is deception.
I would say it was a VALID argument and not a "Logical" one. Logical in that context is different from the academic just to prove it makes no sense other than SHOWING OFF to say something can be valid and not be true. The original purpose of logic was to preserve TRUTH.
WHY are you stating the obvious. I already KNEW that. Show me where I said it was not so!!! Please stick to the topic and stop making stuff up out of the blue.
Again I have studied logic over 20 years, my friend. I am not a new student or something. I am not new to the topic of logic.
No you are wrong. There are arguments that are formally valid but commit informal fallacies. For instance please look into the fallacy of Equivocation. This will show why validity is an overhyped concept pushed by math. Originally logic had two components: a formal side and a knowledge side...
The point of me bringing up MATERIAL Logic is because most beginners to logic never knew such a thing existed.
I two was taught once upon a time ago logic was deductive or inductive. Later on I found out that was a false proposition!!
Let me STOP you! Show me where I said logic has nothing to do with validity. I know some parts are about validity. Why have you not answered or addressed any of the issues I brought up. I know you can have validity with false premises. I never stated otherwise. Show me where I said you...
There is no question that once upon a time logic was NOT all about validity.
Proof: There is still today evidence of logic being a form of having knowledge gaining knowledge; today this is a field called Epistemology. Look up "Material Logic" on Google. The term Material Logic has now been...
Again and again you are hooked up on what a math teacher says and NOT Aristotle. Give me an example of Aristotle using DEDUCTION that is not a FALLACY and uses FALSE Premises!!! I bet the only time Aristotle uses false premises are times he demonstrates there is an error in the reasoning.
I...