Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Koyaanisqatsi · 05-09-2002, 09:41 AM

Of note from the site anonymousj posted:

Quote:

CURRICULUM VITAE (of the site's sole creator): Garth Kemerling

EDUCATION: Milligan College: B.A. 1970
University of Iowa: M.A. 1972, Ph.D. 1974

Specialization in: Modern Philosophy, Human Nature, Ethics

Competence in: History of Philosophy, Logic, Political Thought

"Competence in?"

As for "if/then," I can't find it except in the author's prose:

Quote:

Argument Form

The general logical structure of an argument, considered apart from any of its specific content. In categorical logic, an argument form is any one of the 256 distinct varieties of categorical syllogism. In the propositional calculus, an argument form is a set of two or more statement forms such that the substitution of an actual statement for each of its statement variables would result in an argument.

Here are the examples of properly worded syllogisms from the site:

Quote:

AAA-1 (valid)
All M are P.
All S are M.
Therefore, All S are P.

AAA-3 (invalid)
All M are P.
All M are S.
Therefore, All S are P.

OAO-3 (valid)
Some M are not P.
All M are S.
Therefore, Some S are not P.

EOO-2 (invalid)
No P are M.
Some S are not M.
Therefore, Some S are not P.

IOO-1 (invalid)
Some M are P.
Some S are not M.
Therefore, Some S are not P.

Not a single format that I could find involves "if/then."

As I mentioned, his prose contained "if/then" conditionals, but nowhere do any of his venn diagrams listing the "256 distinct varieties of categorical syllogism" could I find an example of "if/then."

Conversely, from wordsmyth's link, directly contradicting your claim, anonymousj I found this in the third paragraph on:

Quote:

From "What is NOT an Argument": We will also see things like these:

4. If the Bible is accurate, Jesus was either a lunatic, a liar, or the Son of God.
5. If you want to improve the economy, you have to lower taxes.
6. If we don't act quickly, the environment will be damaged beyond repair.

These all look like arguments and, because of that, it isn't uncommon for them to be offered as if they were arguments. But they aren't: they are simply conditional statements of the if-then type. The part following the if is called the antecedent and the part following the then is called the consequent.

In none of the three cases (#4-6) do we see the premises which would supposedly support the conclusion. But, if you want to try and create a genuine argument when you hear such claims, you have to focus on the antecedent of the conditional and ask why it should be accepted as true. You can also ask why there is any connection between the hypothetical in the antecedent and the proposition in the consequent. To better understand the difference, look at these two similar statements:

7. If today is Tuesday, tomorrow will be Wednesday.
8. Because today is Tuesday, tomorrow will be Wednesday.

Both of these statements express similar ideas, but the second is an argument while the first is not. In the first, we have an if-then conditional (as you can see, sometimes the then is dropped). The speaker is not asking listeners to make any inference from any premise because it is not being claimed that today is, in fact, Tuesday.

And, from the same source but different <a href="http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/blfaq_logic_fallacy.htm" target="_blank">section</a> called "What is a Fallacy," we find this little nugget:

Quote:

Fallacies are defects in an argument - other than false premises - which cause an argument to be invalid, unsound or weak. Fallacies can be separated into two general groups: formal and informal. A formal fallacy is a defect which can be identified merely be looking at the logical structure of an argument rather than any specific statements.

Formal fallacies are only found only in deductive arguments with identifiable forms. One of the things which makes them appear reasonable is the fact that they look like and mimic valid logical arguments, but are in fact invalid. Here is an example:

1. All humans are mammals. (premise)
2. All cats are mammals. (premise)
3. All humans are cats. (conclusion)

Both premises in this argument are true, but the conclusion is false. The defect is a formal fallacy, and can be demonstrated by reducing the argument to its bare structure:

1. All A are C
2. All B are C
3. All A are B

It does not really matter what A, B and C stand for - we could replace them with "wines," "milk" and "beverages." The argument would still be invalid and for the exact same reason. Sometimes, therefore, it is helpful to reduce an argument to its structure and ignore content in order to see if it is valid.

Informal fallacies are defects which can be identified only through an analysis of the actual content of the argument rather than through its structure. Here is an example:

1. Geological events produce rock. (premise)
2. Rock is a type of music. (premise)
3. Geological events produce music. (conclusion)

The premises in this argument are true, but clearly the conclusion is false. Is the defect a formal fallacy or an informal fallacy? To see if this is actually a formal fallacy, we have to break it down to its basic structure:

1. A = B
2. B = C
3. A = C

As we can see, this structure is valid, therefore the defect cannot be a formal fallacy identifiable from the structure. Therefore, the defect must be an informal fallacy identifiable from the content. In fact, when we examine the content, we find that a key term, "rock," is being used with two different definitions (the technical term for this sort of fallacy is Equivocation).

Informal fallacies can work in several ways. Some distract the reader from what is really going on. Some, like in the above example, make use of vagueness or ambiguity to cause confusion. Some appeal to emotions rather than logic and reason.

Now, just out of curiousity, I then went back to your site, anonymousj and looked up your source's definition of sound/unsound (emphasis mine):

Quote:

sound/unsound:

Distinction among deductive arguments. A sound argument both has true premises and employs a valid inference; its conclusion must therefore be true. An unsound argument either has one or more false premises or relies upon an invalid inference; its conclusion may be either true or false.

I would suggest, anonymousj that you pay closer attention to other people's sources as well as your own.

Now kindly show this board you're a scholar and concede.

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]

Koyaanisqatsi · 05-09-2002, 10:04 AM

Strike some of that. I finally was able to find something from anonymousj's site regarding "if/then":

Quote:

From <a href="http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e10a.htm" target="_blank">this page</a>:

Implication
(truth table symbols): p q p � q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

The � symbol is used to symbolize a relationship called material implication; a compound statement formed with this connective is true unless the component on the left (the antecedent) is true and the component on the right (the consequent) is false, as shown in the truth-table at the right.

In this case, there is a reliable correspondence with the conditional statements that are commonly expressed in the English expression "If . . . , then . . . ." Although conditionals have many other uses in ordinary language (to assert the presence of a causal connection, for example), virtually all of them exemplify the basic sense of material implication symbolized by the � .

And what does he tell us regarding Implication?

Quote:

<a href="http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/i.htm#impn" target="_blank">implication</a>
Relation between two propositions, one of which may be inferred from the other.

A material implication is a compound statement that is true except when its first component statement (the antecedent is true and its second (the consequent) is false. Thus, the truth of the antecedent ensures that of the consequent. Material implication is symbolized here in the form:

p � q

Example: "If Bob is competent, then Bob should get the job."

A strict implication (or entailment) is a tautologous statement of the same form.

Example: "If George is the same height as Janet, then Janet is the same height as George."

And here from the site's definitions of <a href="http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06c.htm" target="_blank">fallacies</a> are a few relevant examples:

Quote:

Fallacies of Ambiguity

Ambiguous Language: In addition to the fallacies of relevance and presumption we examined in our previous lessons, there are several patterns of incorrect reasoning that arise from the imprecise use of language. An ambiguous word, phrase, or sentence is one that has two or more distinct meanings. The inferential relationship between the propositions included in a single argument will be sure to hold only if we are careful to employ exactly the same meaning in each of them. The fallacies of ambiguity all involve a confusion of two or more different senses.

Composition: The fallacy of composition involves an inference from the attribution of some feature to every individual member of a class (or part of a greater whole) to the possession of the same feature by the entire class (or whole).

Every course I took in college was well-organized.
Therefore, my college education was well-organized.

Even if the premise is true of each and every component of my curriculum, the whole could have been a chaotic mess, so this reasoning is defective.

Notice that this is distinct from the fallacy of converse accident, which improperly generalizes from an unusual specific case (as in "My philosophy course was well-organized; therefore, college courses are well-organized."). For the fallacy of composition, the crucial fact is that even when something can be truly said of each and every individual part, it does not follow that the same can be truly said of the

Division: Similarly, the fallacy of division involves an inference from the attribution of some feature to an entire class (or whole) to the possession of the same feature by each of its individual members (or parts).

Ocelots are now dying out.
Sparky is an ocelot.
Therefore, Sparky is now dying out.

Although the premise is true of the species as a whole, this unfortunate fact does not reflect poorly upon the health of any of its individual members.

Again, be sure to distinguish this from the fallacy of accident, which mistakenly applies a general rule to an atypical specific case (as in "Ocelots have many health problems, and Sparky is an ocelot; therefore, Sparky is in poor health"). The essential point in the fallacy of division is that even when something can be truly said of a whole class, it does not follow that the same can be truly said of each of its individual parts.

I'm sure there are more, but I think you get the point.

Just in case you don't, however, let's turn to what your mentor has to say regarding the avoidance of fallacies:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06c.htm" target="_blank">Avoiding Fallacies</a>

Informal fallacies of all seventeen varieties can seriously interfere with our ability to arrive at the truth. Whether they are committed inadvertently in the course of an individual's own thinking or deliberately employed in an effort to manipulate others, each may persuade without providing legitimate grounds for the truth of its conclusion. But knowing what the fallacies are affords us some protection in either case. If we can identify several of the most common patterns of incorrect reasoning, we are less likely to slip into them ourselves or to be fooled by anyone else.

Q.E.D.

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]

anonymousj · 05-09-2002, 10:21 AM

Koy,

If you look at the page that I mentioned, and click on argument form, you will find the a different representation of the symbolic argument form,

P -> Q
P
----
Q

At the site, you will find in place of the '->' something that looks like a 'U' on its side with the open end toward the left. This is the argument form called
modus ponens and the first line,
P->Q is the symbolic representation of conditional propositions-- If P, then Q.

It takes a bit of reading to see this at the site I mentioned-- my fault-- I forget at times what others do not know. Anyone on this board who knows a bit of symbolic logic symbolism will confirm what I have said.

As far as the rest of what you said, I have no idea what point(s) you are making. The notion of sound argument that the site-author employs is the notion that I have used from the very first post in this topic.

The other material you quote does nothing, as far as I can see, to support the contention that premises of arguments should not be 'If/then' propositions. But maybe that is not what you are contending. Perhaps, someone else out there can help Koy help me to understand what s/he (Koy) wants to convey. I might also suggest that those of you who know when those who oppose my views are off the mark of points (however small) might step in a say so-- it will, I think, speed things up.

I am always happy to concede when I am wrong, for it shows that I have learned something, but I have no idea what you think I should concede.

cheers,

anonymousj

Koyaanisqatsi · 05-09-2002, 10:24 AM

Here are few more relevant examples, just to bury this f*ckin' horse.

Remember, anonymousj, these are from your source:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06b.htm" target="_blank">Fallacies of Presumption</a>

Unwarranted Assumptions

The fallacies of presumption also fail to provide adequate reason for believing the truth of their conclusions. In these instances, however, the erroneous reasoning results from an implicit supposition of some further proposition whose truth is uncertain or implausible. Again, we'll consider each of them in turn, seeking always to identify the unwarranted assumption upon which it is based.

Accident: The fallacy of accident begins with the statement of some principle that is true as a general rule, but then errs by applying this principle to a specific case that is unusual or atypical in some way.

Women earn less than men earn for doing the same work.
Oprah Winfrey is a woman.
Therefore, Oprah Winfrey earns less than male talk-show hosts.

As we'll soon see, a true universal premise would entail the truth of this conclusion; but then, a universal statement that "Every woman earns less than any man." would obviously be false. The truth of a general rule, on the other hand, leaves plenty of room for exceptional cases, and applying it to any of them is fallacious.

False Cause: The fallacy of false cause infers the presence of a causal connection simply because events appear to occur in correlation or (in the post hoc, ergo propter hoc variety) temporal succession.

The moon was full on Thursday evening.
On Friday morning I overslept.
Therefore, the full moon caused me to oversleep.

Later we'll consider what sort of evidence adequately supports the conclusion that a causal relationship does exist, but these fallacies clearly are not enough.

Begging the Question (petitio principii): Begging the question is the fallacy of using the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises offered in its own support. Although this often happens in an implicit or disguised fashion, an explicit version would look like this:

All dogs are mammals.
All mammals have hair.
Since animals with hair bear live young, dogs bear live young.
But all animals that bear live young are mammals.
Therefore, all dogs are mammals.

Unlike the other fallacies we've considered, begging the question involves an argument (or chain of arguments) that is formally valid: if its premises (including the first) are true, then the conclusion must be true. The problem is that this valid argument doesn't really provide support for the truth of its conclusion; we can't use it unless we have already granted that.

WJ · 05-09-2002, 10:43 AM

anonyJ!

Have you considered, in some way, to translate your words 'if/then' into synthetic propositions about that which you intent to prove? Or are analytical statements/propositions the best syllogism/deduction has to offer here (with respect to discovering God's existence)?

Just a thought.

Walrus

Clutch · 05-09-2002, 10:43 AM

Ho-kay, since everyone else seems to be losing the plot, let me join in. There seems to be a sizable contingent of posters who believe that their atheism enfranchaises them with some expertise in logic. This belief is false.

Who the heck said that if-then statements should never be used in formal logic? For Pete's sake! Ever heard of modus ponendo ponens, the first rule that we teach logic students in modern logic? Or modus tollendo tollens, for that matter, the contrapostive of MPP. Koy, did you seriously mean to show that conditionals are not part of logic, by listing the valid inferences of Aristotelian logic? Welcome to the 20th -- oops, make that the 21st -- century...

aj's presenting a fallacy here. It is a pragmatic fallacy, though, and not strictly a logical fallacy. So what? The same is true of begging the question: instances of P; ergo P are trivially valid, and hence where P is true are sound. But to recite an instance of such an argument, even where P is true, is to commit a pragmatic fallacy, since one confers no warrant on the conclusion that it did not antecedently possess -- which is not what arguments are, but is what they are for. aj claims his argument is sound while offering no reason to think it sound. Pragmatically this is very like question-begging; the assertion of soundness itself simply misfires in the absence of a willingness to produce evidence for the claim.

But aj does not confront this problem, in the various forms I have raised it, since he can instead make hay with the inept pseudo-logicians who insist on telling him that his argument is sound, but the conclusion false; or that it's invalid; or that conditionals can't be used in formal logic. Sheesh.

wordsmyth · 05-09-2002, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by anonymousj:
Wordsmyth,

I took a quick look at the site you linked in your last post, but I don't see where it says what you say it says. Maybe I just need more help (on this point-- I know that many of you think that I need a great deal of help on a lot of other things).

The following is what I was referring to.

Quote:

7. If today is Tuesday, tomorrow will be Wednesday.
8. Because today is Tuesday, tomorrow will be Wednesday.

Both of these statements express similar ideas, but the second is an argument while the first is not. In the first, we have an if-then conditional (as you can see, sometimes the then is dropped). The speaker is not asking listeners to make any inference from any premise because it is not being claimed that today is, in fact, Tuesday.

In the argument which started all of this it begins with "If something exists" which immediatedly begs the question "Does something exist". Thats what makes it an invalid premise for an argument and shows why "if-then" should not be used in the premise. It can be easily fixed by simply rewording it to "Because something exists". This doesn't beg the question, but shows us a definite premise on which the argument is based.

Of course now the person asserting the premise gets to explain it and I can't wait to hear this load of malarky.

P.S. thanx for the links anonymousj

Koyaanisqatsi · 05-09-2002, 11:06 AM

It's painfully simple, anonymousj. Concede that you have deliberately misconstrued your own goddamned source in order to continue with this pointless charade.

Quote:

Originally posted by anonymousj:
If you look at the page that I mentioned, and click on argument form, you will find the a different representation of the symbolic argument form,

P -> Q
P
----
Q

If you will refer back to my post, I stated that only the site author's prose contained "if/then" terminology and that the correct format is what wordsmyth and your own source provided, thereby contradicting your earlier post and demonstrating your obvious petulant obstinance and desperation to maintain that your syllogism is "sound."

I then posted a section from wordsmyth's source to prove you a liar.

Quote:

MORE: At the site, you will find in place of the '->' something that looks like a 'U' on its side with the open end toward the left.

Yes, in case you didn't notice, I already addressed this in my post.

Quote:

MORE: It takes a bit of reading to see this at the site I mentioned-- my fault-- I forget at times what others do not know.

And childishly weasel out of what others demonstrate to be the case.

Quote:

MORE: Anyone on this board who knows a bit of symbolic logic symbolism will confirm what I have said.

As did I you superfluous third nipple; the point was in the manner you said it and the additional ommission you are clearly guilty of in the process.

Quote:

MORE: As far as the rest of what you said, I have no idea what point(s) you are making.

That you are:
<ol type="1">[*] a disingenuous and exceedingly poor scholar intent on obfuscation[*] guilty of the deliberate misapplication of terminology to further a biased agenda for no discernable purpose[*] employing semantics hair-splitting in order to avoid addressing your fallacious reasoning[*] a logic teacher who should be fired immediately[/list=a]

Quote:

YOU: The notion of sound argument that the site-author employs is the notion that I have used from the very first post in this topic.

Incorrect. You have maintained that your syllogism is sound. According to your mentor, however:

Quote:

A sound argument both has true premises and employs a valid inference.

P1 from your syllogism (as has been pointed out repeatedly) is not "true."

Let us put it into the proper format:

Your P1:"If something exists, then God exists" now is properly formatted as, "Because something exists, God exists."

This premise is not true; it is only asserted to be true, therefore your syllogism is not sound.

Quote:

MORE: The other material you quote does nothing, as far as I can see, to support the contention that premises of arguments should not be 'If/then' propositions.

"Should?"

Quote:

MORE: But maybe that is not what you are contending.

Semi-correct on two levels:
<ol type="1">[*] I was not "contending" anything[*] I was demonstrating your deceitful nature[/list=a]

You had stated:

Quote:

anonymousj: Therein you will find

1. If P then Q,
2. P
----
3. Q

presented as one of the most basic forms of argument.

This is a lie. No such symbolic representation is found on the site.

This goes directly to your dishonest scholarship here and the lengths you will go to split semantics hairs in order to backpeddle and weasel around your unsound syllogism, so I thought I'd split my own hairs in kind to demonstrate your lack of scholarly integrity.

Is that all right with you?

Quote:

MORE: Perhaps, someone else out there can help Koy help me to understand what s/he (Koy) wants to convey.

He, and it's abundantly clear by what you've avoided addressing; the fact that your own mentor of logic would agree with us that your syllogism is unsound and your reasoning fallacious.

Quote:

In addition to the fallacies of relevance and presumption we examined in our previous lessons, there are several patterns of incorrect reasoning that arise from the imprecise use of language. An ambiguous word, phrase, or sentence is one that has two or more distinct meanings.

The fallacies of presumption also fail to provide adequate reason for believing the truth of their conclusions. In these instances, however, the erroneous reasoning results from an implicit supposition of some further proposition whose truth is uncertain or implausible.

Quote:

MORE: I might also suggest that those of you who know when those who oppose my views are off the mark of points (however small) might step in a say so-- it will, I think, speed things up.

Insert cricket noises here as anonymousj awaits his alter ego WJ to come forward...oh and what a shock, come forward he did...

Quote:

MORE: I am always happy to concede when I am wrong, for it shows that I have learned something, but I have no idea what you think I should concede.

Again, from your mentor:

Quote:

Informal fallacies of all seventeen varieties can seriously interfere with our ability to arrive at the truth. Whether they are committed inadvertently in the course of an individual's own thinking or deliberately employed in an effort to manipulate others, each may persuade without providing legitimate grounds for the truth of its conclusion.

You do the math.

(edited for formatting and the comment regarding WJ - Koy)

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]

Koyaanisqatsi · 05-09-2002, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clutch:Koy, did you seriously mean to show that conditionals are not part of logic, by listing the valid inferences of Aristotelian logic? Welcome to the 20th -- oops, make that the 21st -- century...

See above post (and think about getting a new prescription

)

WJ · 05-09-2002, 12:09 PM

Koy!

I could have predicted where this discussion was/is going to end.

A miracle or common sense? Your logic has saved the human race!!!!
<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

When I grow up, I want to be just like you. Do you think that is logically possible?

Just curious.

Walrus

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-09-2002, 10:21 AM	#163
anonymousj Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 66	Koy, If you look at the page that I mentioned, and click on argument form, you will find the a different representation of the symbolic argument form, P -> Q P ---- Q At the site, you will find in place of the '->' something that looks like a 'U' on its side with the open end toward the left. This is the argument form called modus ponens and the first line, P->Q is the symbolic representation of conditional propositions-- If P, then Q. It takes a bit of reading to see this at the site I mentioned-- my fault-- I forget at times what others do not know. Anyone on this board who knows a bit of symbolic logic symbolism will confirm what I have said. As far as the rest of what you said, I have no idea what point(s) you are making. The notion of sound argument that the site-author employs is the notion that I have used from the very first post in this topic. The other material you quote does nothing, as far as I can see, to support the contention that premises of arguments should not be 'If/then' propositions. But maybe that is not what you are contending. Perhaps, someone else out there can help Koy help me to understand what s/he (Koy) wants to convey. I might also suggest that those of you who know when those who oppose my views are off the mark of points (however small) might step in a say so-- it will, I think, speed things up. I am always happy to concede when I am wrong, for it shows that I have learned something, but I have no idea what you think I should concede. cheers, anonymousj

05-09-2002, 10:43 AM	#165
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	anonyJ! Have you considered, in some way, to translate your words 'if/then' into synthetic propositions about that which you intent to prove? Or are analytical statements/propositions the best syllogism/deduction has to offer here (with respect to discovering God's existence)? Just a thought. Walrus

05-09-2002, 10:43 AM	#166
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	Ho-kay, since everyone else seems to be losing the plot, let me join in. There seems to be a sizable contingent of posters who believe that their atheism enfranchaises them with some expertise in logic. This belief is false. Who the heck said that if-then statements should never be used in formal logic? For Pete's sake! Ever heard of modus ponendo ponens, the first rule that we teach logic students in modern logic? Or modus tollendo tollens, for that matter, the contrapostive of MPP. Koy, did you seriously mean to show that conditionals are not part of logic, by listing the valid inferences of Aristotelian logic? Welcome to the 20th -- oops, make that the 21st -- century... aj's presenting a fallacy here. It is a pragmatic fallacy, though, and not strictly a logical fallacy. So what? The same is true of begging the question: instances of P; ergo P are trivially valid, and hence where P is true are sound. But to recite an instance of such an argument, even where P is true, is to commit a pragmatic fallacy, since one confers no warrant on the conclusion that it did not antecedently possess -- which is not what arguments are, but is what they are for. aj claims his argument is sound while offering no reason to think it sound. Pragmatically this is very like question-begging; the assertion of soundness itself simply misfires in the absence of a willingness to produce evidence for the claim. But aj does not confront this problem, in the various forms I have raised it, since he can instead make hay with the inept pseudo-logicians who insist on telling him that his argument is sound, but the conclusion false; or that it's invalid; or that conditionals can't be used in formal logic. Sheesh.

05-09-2002, 12:09 PM	#170
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Koy! I could have predicted where this discussion was/is going to end. A miracle or common sense? Your logic has saved the human race!!!! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> When I grow up, I want to be just like you. Do you think that is logically possible? Just curious. Walrus

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.