Does logic equal truth?

[raw_thought]

I am saying that a logical argument can be false!
Therefore ,logic is not about truth,it is about validity!!!
Once again
1. All Martians eat snakes
2. Bob is a Martian
3. Therefore Bob eats snakes
That is a logical argument but it is not true!

 

[Logikal]

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!!

 

[Logikal]

Sound and valid are different.

Valid is just without fallacy. Sound is valid and true premises.

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. Mathematical Logic changed that aspect to only formal validity. Hence why 80 % of students think logic is math and logic is only about validity. They know nothing about Material Logic. Read my post about Material logic ahead of this one. You can prove that material logic existed at one time. You just need to put an effort to it. Hence logic is not ONLY about validity. In math it is all about validity! Philosophers cared about SOUNDNESS. There is a difference in quality there! All sound arguments MUST be valid. What is the point at the end of the day to say an argument is valid but the conclusion is false? Will that impress a girl or something? It is useless in the real world to say such a thing: logic is about validity only. logic is concerned with validity but it is not coming out every ten second from a philosophers mouth who specializes in logic.

 

[raw_thought]

Sound and valid are different.

Valid is just without fallacy. Sound is valid and true premises.

Yeah, I got sloppy there.
But that does not effect the debate about ,is logic about validity.
What I meant to say was that Aristotle was concerned about validity (meta). He used the words diffently then we do. There is also disagreement about translations.

 

[raw_thought]

What ??????
Logikal disagreed with what Curious George said???
So many times he defends me and attacks his own position without even knowing it!

 

[Curious George]

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. Mathematical Logic changed that aspect to only formal validity. Hence why 80 % of students think logic is math and logic is only about validity. They know nothing about Material Logic. Read my post about Material logic ahead of this one. You can prove that material logic existed at one time. You just need to put an effort to it. Hence logic is not ONLY about validity. In math it is all about validity! Philosophers cared about SOUNDNESS. There is a difference in quality there! All sound arguments MUST be valid. What is the point at the end of the day to say an argument is valid but the conclusion is false? Will that impress a girl or something? It is useless in the real world to say such a thing: logic is about validity only. logic is concerned with validity but it is not coming out every ten second from a philosophers mouth who specializes in logic.

How exactly am I wrong. If there is an equivocation the argument would not be valid. Therefore it would not be sound.

 

[raw_thought]

I am saying that a logical argument can be false!
Therefore ,logic is not about truth,it is about validity!!!
Once again
1. All Martians eat snakes
2. Bob is a Martian
3. Therefore Bob eats snakes
That is a logical argument but it is not true!

If you agree that that was a logical argument then you must agree that logic is not about truth!

 

[Curious George]

Yeah, I got sloppy there.
But that does not effect the debate about ,is logic about validity.
What I meant to say was that Aristotle was concerned about validity (meta). He used the words diffently then we do. There is also disagreement about translations.

I think Aristotle was concerned about truth and focusing on validity and soundness allows helps in finding truth. I imagine it is like dissecting an argument. In order to deal with the procedural problems and the substantive problems we see a focus on both validity and truth, but what was the endgame? It has always been about pursuing truth.

 

[Logikal]

I am saying that a logical argument can be false!
Therefore ,logic is not about truth,it is about validity!!!
Once again
1. All Martians eat snakes
2. Bob is a Martian
3. Therefore Bob eats snakes
That is a logical argument but it is not true!

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.

 

[raw_thought]

Yes!Logic helps us find the truth but it is not based on truth. Truth is for empirical validation (at least for the premises ). Then logic kicks in! If A is true and B is true and the syllogism is valid then C must be true.

 

[raw_thought]

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.

Then you agree that logic is not about truth!!!

 

[raw_thought]

If you agree that that was a logical argument then you must agree that logic is not about truth!

 

[Logikal]

If you agree that that was a logical argument then you must agree that logic is not about truth!

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.

 

[Logikal]

Then you agree that logic is not about truth!!!

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.

 

[Curious George]

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. Mathematical Logic changed that aspect to only formal validity. Hence why 80 % of students think logic is math and logic is only about validity. They know nothing about Material Logic. Read my post about Material logic ahead of this one. You can prove that material logic existed at one time. You just need to put an effort to it. Hence logic is not ONLY about validity. In math it is all about validity! Philosophers cared about SOUNDNESS. There is a difference in quality there! All sound arguments MUST be valid. What is the point at the end of the day to say an argument is valid but the conclusion is false? Will that impress a girl or something? It is useless in the real world to say such a thing: logic is about validity only. logic is concerned with validity but it is not coming out every ten second from a philosophers mouth who specializes in logic.

Ahh, I see your point. Let me try again: valid is just without formal fallacy. Better?

 

[raw_thought]

Cant you see that when I gave you a logical argument that is not true,that means that logic is not about truth???

 

[Logikal]

Let's get to the root of the issue: who is it that you people told you logic is about validity only and has no truth component?

 

[Logikal]

Cant you see that when I gave you a logical argument that is not true,that means that logic is not about truth???

You proved that Validity is not about truth buddy. I am still waiting for your proof that logic is all about validity.

 

[raw_thought]

Validity is a over hyped concept???
So Modus Tollens is over hyped? Modus Tollens is exclusively about validity.

 

[raw_thought]

So you dont see how providing a logical argument that is not true proves that logic is not about truth!!!