What is the purpose of distinguishing between valid reasoning and invalid reasoning - if it doesn't have anything to do with the truth?
When do you get a soul? & related questions.
- Thread starter Dinosaur
- Start date
What is the purpose of distinguishing between valid reasoning and invalid reasoning - if it doesn't have anything to do with the truth?
Would life be any different for any lifeform whether or not the concepts of a soul were acknowledged.
Reality has fallen victim to a fantasy driven understanding of how the world works.
Reality has fallen victim to a fantasy driven understanding of how the world works.
Because validity is a necessary condition of truth.
A valid argument, regardless of the truth value of its premisses, may logically lead to truth. An invalid argument, even when all premisses are true, cannot lead to truth.
fancy that then, eh ...
actually issues of form are what categorizes logic
hence why this opens up with this comment
The concept of logical form is central to logic; it being held that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form, not by its content. Traditional Aristotelian syllogistic logic and modern symbolic logic are examples of formal logics.
Frankly it appears you are just trying to play some semantic game to cover up your initial blunder of ascribing the content of an argument as some major player in determining logical validity.
:shrug:
more correctly, any correctly formalized argument will result in a conclusion that ties in with the premises
incorrect
the more you slip into syllogistic logic, the larger the aperture
I sure did
now the question is why you insist on bringing truth value to a discussion of logic ....
Again, incorrect.
Introducing the truth value element brings the question to that of Soundness.
hehe
so you want to argue that predicate logic is assailed by just as many problems of validity as syllogistic logic?
depends whether we are already working with the concept that life is materially reducible or not
To avoid shooting yourself in the foot, now might be a good time to explain how the concept of life being materially reducible is a reality.
errrr ... so please explain again how an issue of form touches on an issue of content
Feel free to do your own research.
No, formality differentiates valid argument structures.
As this nice quote you provided explains:
????
You seem to be having difficulty understanding the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions.
Incorrect again.
ibid
??
You're the one who keeps going on about relations between validity and premisses.
so you want to argue that predicate logic is assailed by just as many problems of validity as syllogistic logic?
That's already understood to be true (formally speaking).
LG,
Given that, at this point, I'm not even sure what we're arguing about, perhaps we could try to recover some of the original line of thought here.
My only point on this digression was to point out that validity and truth value are distinctly different. While both are conceptually bound to any logical argument, neither alone leads to the other: both are contingently related, and nothing beyond that. How any of this pertains to the notion of a 'soul', is, at this point, beyond me...
If you feel that truth value is inherently connected to logical argument, perhaps you could address what issues of form (IOW what patterns of inference) it meets (as opposed to issues of content .... which of course is something not attributed to logic)Given that, at this point, I'm not even sure what we're arguing about, perhaps we could try to recover some of the original line of thought here.
My only point on this digression was to point out that validity and truth value are distinctly different. While both are conceptually bound to any logical argument, neither alone leads to the other: both are contingently related, and nothing beyond that. How any of this pertains to the notion of a 'soul', is, at this point, beyond me...
I fail to see how this is relevant here but...
Not quite sure what you're saying here but.... as far as any logic goes, truth value is a function of the arrangement of constituent premisses [and their attendant truth value(s)].
I'm unclear as to what you mean by saying that "content" is "not attributed to logic".....
Not quite sure what you're saying here but.... as far as any logic goes, truth value is a function of the arrangement of constituent premisses [and their attendant truth value(s)].
I'm unclear as to what you mean by saying that "content" is "not attributed to logic".....
It goes back to what constitutes a logical and/or truthful assertion about the soul.
I would have though that validity is a function of the arrangement of constituent premises.
An argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion ......
What makes this a valid argument is not that it has true premises and a true conclusion, but the logical necessity of the conclusion, given the two premises: the argument would be just as valid were the premises and conclusion false. The following argument is of the same logical form but with false premises and a false conclusion, and it is equally valid:
All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.
.......
If you disagree please explain how the above is not valid
you mean content?
meaning that validity (and indeed logic as a whole) doesn't touch on determining whether premises are true or not, but rather focuses exclusively on the form of premises as they relate to a conclusion.
IOW logic is all about "If ... then .....".
Very well.
Note however, that a logical assertion need not be truthful, and vice versa..
Correct.
Note, that's not what I said above (my previous post).
I don't; it is 100% valid.
No. I mean the truth value of the premisses (singular propositions).
I agree with everything you say... with the exception of this:
which is where you go wrong.
Again, you're confusing validity with truth value.
To be clear: validity is a necessary, but not sufficient condition of a truth value.
You're right, ultimately, every argument (no matter how many constituent propositions) can be rendered as an implicative argument (your "If... then...").
But validity alone is not sufficient to determine 'truth'.
Thus, we have to investigate the truth value of each constituent proposition of an argument. The trick here is that each proposition itself is in turn an argument of its own (until of course, you get down to supposed 'atomic propositions', which we ultimately grant some sort of a priori status to... but that's another discussion entirely..).
LG, I really do think that we're not disagreeing with each other, but rather that the semantics are getting in the way...
The presumption of logic is that if one has true premises and uses valid reasoning then the truth of the argument can be shown to have been preserved.
Logic doesn't give you anything you don't start with, though it may reveal novel understandings and relationships you weren't previously aware of concerning your premises.
Invalid reasoning may or may not result in the truth and that truth may or may not have a relationship to the premises.
It is important to distinguish between the two when it is important to have a conclusion known to be true and the process by which it was derived known to be valid.
show me some verifiably knowable truthful assertions concerning the soul the process by which they can be verified.
I thin instead of "logically envision" you actually mean to say is you can't personally imagine a world without a god.
Given how rabid your average atheist is for logic, I think we could presume that it is quiet possible to logically envision a reality without a god and give how logic works, if such a world were logically envisioned using valid means, any one else could go through it an arive at the same conclusion.
You theists! What on earth does believing have to do with it? Does your gas tank fill with gas if you believe it is full? We are what we are and that seems plenty.
Points are not imposed on you be some other being. You make your own points and what could possibly be better than that?
I doubt we have consensus. To some, it's patently obvious. To others, well....
What's more relevant to me however, is whether or not a logical argument is really applicable in this context. The 'soul' is ordinarily regarded to be such that whatever its ontological status may be, its assertion is always a matter of belief (faith...).
...
-=-
IF we were under control of gods, that would make life pointless.
IF we were under control of gods, that would make life pointless.