rainbow walking

of logic that dictates whether your syllogism must be presented as a deductive or inductive argument?

Bill Snedden

IIRC, a syllogism is, by form, a deductive argument in that the conclusion follows logically from the premises.

Inductive arguments can be in this form, but contain premises that render the conclusion probable rather than definite.

I'm not sure if it's a "law", per se, but it is part of the definition of "syllogism".

See here for more information.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

rainbow walking

What I meant was, is there a rule that says you can't form a syllogism with evidence that is factual? That such an argument has to be inductive?

Philosoft

This is very confusing. Can you give an example of a syllogism that would be invalid if there was such a rule?

jpbrooks

Hello rw!

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your question, but I'm not certain that there is such a rule in Logic. And I don't see why one would be needed, Why (and when) would it be legitimate to place such an evidential restriction on a syllogism? However, if I am wrong about this, and there is such a rule, it probably wouldn't be a formal rule.

jpbrooks

Duplicate post deleted.

rainbow walking

rw: Hi philosoft,
In a debate on the evidential problem of evil I submitted a deductive syllogistic argument and my opponent seems convinced I should have submitted an inductive argument. The example of evil I used as evidence is so ironclad that it's actually factual so there's no degree of probability involved in establishing its truth value. I just wanted to be sure that his complaint wasn't legitimate.

rainbow walking

rw: Exactly jp, that's why I submitted my argument in deductive syllogistic form. I realize the exacting nature of the syllogism but the value of the conclusion is irrefutable...thus my choice of argument form. But my opponent has insisted my form should have been inductive. I wasn't aware of any such rule dictating the form in which one must argue but I wanted a clarification before I continue to defend the syllogistic form.

theghostinthemachine

I can clear this up. Rainbow Walking and I are debating the evidential problem of evil, and Rainbow has decided to use a deductive argument in his opening. I pointed out to Rainbow that his conclusion must follow necessarily from his premises or his argument fails.

The form that Rainbow Walking is using is Modus Tollens:

if p, then q
~q
therefore, ~p

Rainbow has argued that:

if p (an omni-max god), then q (a state of affairs sans religion in any form that appeals to an omni-max god)
~q
therefore ~p

Rainbows evidence is the 'evil' that has occured in the name of religion.

I pointed out to Rainbow that while his argument is valid, it is not sound. Not only does his argument beg the question, but as I pointed out, the conditional statement in his argument - if p, then q - is not apparent. Conditional statements express a relationship between necessary and sufficient conditions. And I am afraid that this is where my opponent has failed.

Be that as it may, Rainbow is not arguing the evidential problem of evil (and we agreed to debate the evidential problem of evil), he is arguing from the fact of evil, and attempting to deduce a guaranteed logical conclusion.

Now, would anyone care to point out to Rainbow the difference between the evidential problem of evil (inductive) and the logical problem of evil (deductive)?

Regards,

~ The Ghost In The Machine

rainbow walking

And ghost has yet to support any of these claims...of course.

The fact of evil is my "evidence" so it is an evidential argument. Now show me where and why evidential argumnents are necessarily inductive when the evidence is factual.

Both inductive and deductive are logical arguments so the dichotomy between evidential and logical is artificial. I gave you an argument from evil. I made no promises that it would be inductive.

Show me why, just because the evidence is factual and not probable, that it ceases to be evidence and we can parlay...otherwise the syllogism is just as valid an evidential argument as induction.


ghost: Conditional statements express a relationship between necessary and sufficient conditions. And I am afraid that this is where my opponent has failed.


rw: A god, endowed with the attribute of omni-benevolence, must necessarily act in accord with that attribute such that his actions sufficiently establish that attribute. That such a being acted to introduce his existence to humanity via religion, and the fact of evil and suffering that has ensued due to religion...are sufficient connectives to necessarily negate this attribute.