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?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does logic equal truth?
- Thread starter God lover
- Start date
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?
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
Anyway, I will agree with EVERY logician in the world.
This debate reminds me of...click on the last site in my signature! LOL
The site right after PS I love debate!
This debate reminds me of...click on the last site in my signature! LOL
The site right after PS I love debate!
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 validity. Lay your argument out here for all to see. I have not seen one premise from you.
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 argument that leads to the conclusion logic is about validity. I bet you can't without at least one false premise.
I also realized you never even gave hat you think the notion of validity is so that we are all speaking about the same thing. Can you define validity so we are clear for the record?
Last edited:
Curious George
Veteran Member
Hmm, did I say logic was only about validity? From where is this "still" coming?
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
What ??? If a syllogism commits a fallacy (such as denying the anticedent ) of course it is invalid!
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
What??? So now you are claiming a conspiracy of mathematicians??? To destroy logic!
Aristotle claimed that logic was about validity. But I guess he was kind of a mathematician .So he was part of the conspiracy also!!!
Aristotle claimed that logic was about validity. But I guess he was kind of a mathematician .So he was part of the conspiracy also!!!
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
Denying yhe anticedent is a fallacy (invalid)
1. A therefore B
2. Not A
3. Therefore not B
1.All dogs are mammals
2. That is not a dog
3. Therefore it cannot be a mammal
Obviously invalid. I could have been pointing at a cow.
1. A therefore B
2. Not A
3. Therefore not B
1.All dogs are mammals
2. That is not a dog
3. Therefore it cannot be a mammal
Obviously invalid. I could have been pointing at a cow.
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
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!
Who said it was not? Are speaking to an imaginary friend?
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.
Last edited:
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
Ummm
You claimed that if I do not agree that if someone commits a logical fallacyit is not valid,then I am saying that logic is not about validity.
Of course if one commits a fallacy (like denying the anticedent ) then the argument is invalid! However ,the argument can still be true!
1. All dogs are mammals
2. That is not a dog
3. Therefore it is not a mammal
If I am pointing at a fish the argument is true but still invalid !
You claimed that if I do not agree that if someone commits a logical fallacyit is not valid,then I am saying that logic is not about validity.
Of course if one commits a fallacy (like denying the anticedent ) then the argument is invalid! However ,the argument can still be true!
1. All dogs are mammals
2. That is not a dog
3. Therefore it is not a mammal
If I am pointing at a fish the argument is true but still invalid !
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 does matter in many instances in using logic?
NO that is NOT what I said. Are you new to English?
Where are you pulling this stuff from?
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
There are many brilliant people with asbergers. Wittgenstein for example. Perhaps that is why you continually fail to understand generalizations.
For example, I keep giving you examples that show that a logical argument does not necessarily have to be true.
You are like person A!
A: "All humans have brown eyes"
B: " So I have brown eyes? But I have blue eyes!"
A: "I never said you have brown eyes! Stop making stuff up!"
For example, I keep giving you examples that show that a logical argument does not necessarily have to be true.
You are like person A!
A: "All humans have brown eyes"
B: " So I have brown eyes? But I have blue eyes!"
A: "I never said you have brown eyes! Stop making stuff up!"
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?
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
If a logical argument (valid) is not true that necessarily means that logic is not about truth!
Where is the logi
First of all a logical argument does not need to be VALID. There are indeed invalid logical arguments.
Are you sneaking in NEW information? it seems like it: all "logical arguments" to you must be valid for them to be LOGICAL.
Thanks for sharing-- a bit late but. . . this maneuver is called changing the context.
Secondly, where are all the premises and conclusion? You made one statement!!!! Is that an argument to you????? in what logic book is that an argument?
Please explain this.
First of all a logical argument does not need to be VALID. There are indeed invalid logical arguments.
Are you sneaking in NEW information? it seems like it: all "logical arguments" to you must be valid for them to be LOGICAL.
Thanks for sharing-- a bit late but. . . this maneuver is called changing the context.
Secondly, where are all the premises and conclusion? You made one statement!!!! Is that an argument to you????? in what logic book is that an argument?
Please explain this.
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
By the way,
I was not insulting you when I "accused" you of having asbergers. My daughter has asbergers and she is smarter then me! However ,she has a problem withmetaphors and generalizations.
I was not insulting you when I "accused" you of having asbergers. My daughter has asbergers and she is smarter then me! However ,she has a problem withmetaphors and generalizations.