Logic lessons for Jak and Marg

[_Aquinas]

First off, are you Marg?

JAK:
I am not marg.

Marg, I took you up on your challenge, now I’d appreciate a decent argument of your own.

I guess you don't believe what you wrote: "marg speaks well for herself." and prefer to play the savior role yet again

JAK: Irrelevant side track.

Nope, the relevance is to illustrate that while you play the victim and accuse me of not addressing issues but using personal attacks, you are guilty of ganging up on me with Marg, even though my entire post was addressed to Marg. Both of you are independently challenging my claims, putting me at a disadvatange in this debate. If I were to have 5 other like-minded debaters arguing for my points, you would experience what I mean. I realize the title of the thread, but this post was specifically addressed to Marg. You are obviously free to do as you wish, but don't expect me not to call you out on what you are doing.

In this post, you do nothing but make claims. You make one after another with no evidence to support any.

Ok JAK, you’ve done nothing but ask for a demonstration:

1. If JAK accuses religion to be flawed because of truth by assertion and JAK primarily uses truth by assertion to argue, then JAK is a hypocrite
2. JAK accuses religion to be flawed because of truth by assertion
3. JAK primarily uses truth by assertion to argue
4. Therefore, JAK is a hypocrite

This is a modus ponens valid argument

Assuming we agree on premise 1 and 2, let's see the claims you've made as evidentiary support for my argument, to establish premise 3:

Here are 26 assertions JAK has made, JUST IN HIS LAST POST, that incorporate his principle of truth by assertion:

While influential in Christian mythology, his [TA] views were based on mystical experience.

Of course we know today (most of us) that there is significant conflict between “reason and faith.”

There is no “proof” in your web reference. Information and reason in the 1200s is unreliable in the light of information which we can access today.

No evidence has established the various claims for gods and later for God.

Religious dogma/doctrine is unreliable. Lack of agreement and various religious claims which are contradictory has been well documented.

His [TA] assertions/claims are not established as you wish.

None [of the many religious views] has been established as correct.

It is typical of religion(s) to pile on assertions while establishing none of them.

Your reference to Thomas Aquinas (circa 1200) established no reliable evidence for your claims today.

TA did not live in a time of reason

TA merely made claims/assertions. He established no proofs in your reference. He made assumptions and built on those assumptions as if they were established. His assumptions were not established.

[quote=”JAK”]He engages in claims/assertions. While he and you (since you remain of the 1200 mentality) may regard there were “proofs,” there were/are no proofs in the TA assertions.

Evidence strongly supports that gods were human inventions in an attempt to explain what they did not understand. Likewise the invention of God was an attempt to explain. However, over many centuries, scientific evidence has exposed the contradictory claims for gods and for God.

Clearly, any religious study funded at a college which receives funding from believers in a particular religious myth lacks objectivity. That’s why I specify as I do here. There are many religious colleges which could not have courses that call into question the religious dogma of the parent group which supports them financially.

I don’t think your religious blinders allow you to recognize that TA began with conclusions which were not established. God was not established then, nor is God established today.

Religious propaganda/dogma/doctrine should be recognized as the invention of those who attempt to perpetuate it.

Your reliance on a philosopher from the 1200s is misplaced.

Historically, we can establish from any accurate historical documentation that TA was a product of the religious dogma of his time.

TA asserted that God exists. Those assertions are entirely lacking in evidence. TA and other philosophers of his time had no concept of evidence as we do today and as I have described in this and other posts.

The “five proofs” to which you refer are built on the assumptions I outlined here of TA. He did not begin by collecting evidence (inductive analysis).

Reasoning and logical analysis begin with specific evidence and observation. To have reliability, such evidence requires skeptical review. TA was not even close to that.

I do not think you, Aquinas, comprehend at all what was happening 800 years ago. You do not acknowledge that TA started with a conclusion of religious doctrine.

TA tried to combine science and religion (although in the 1200s concepts of science were often flawed and contaminated with religion).

I don’t think your religious blinders allow you to recognize that TA began with conclusions which were not established. God was not established then, nor is God established today.

In fact, god inventions moved from many to few to one. Many things once attributed to God are today understood by informed analysis. Blind claims have given way to rational, scientific evidence which can be tested and is skeptically reviewed.

As information has increased, God myths have been discredited.

TA began with assumptions that were not established then nor have they been established as his mentality of the 1200s configured them.

What we have today in religion is a multitude of weasel words (ambiguity) which allow for plug-in meaning. We have continuing re-invention of God in Christianity as well as in other religions which have constructed God inventions.[/color]

You continue to substitute claims (TA) with authentic evidence which is as I have described. He wrote as one indoctrinated in the Christianity of his time.

For you to establish TA’s views of the 1200s with “proof,” you need skeptical review which comes to the same conclusions as did TA. You need evidence independently established which supports TA’s views. You have none of that.

Religion begins with unreasoned claims. From those unreasoned claims, religion builds further claims upon those. Hence, religion is the antithesis of reason. It makes claims first and secondarily attempts to assimilate on-coming information.

He [TA] began with unreasoned beliefs religious doctrine. He accepted religious doctrine on faith.

God claims are not built on reason. TA did not build on reason because he began with unreasoned conclusions. [/color]

JAK, you made other assertions as well, the above were just the ones I disagree with, so let’s see your evidence. JAK, you accuse religions of relying on your principle of “truth by assertion” but almost your entire last post was reliant on that same principle!

[_marg]

I'm finding Aquinas that with each response it is becoming more apparent how poor your knowledge of logic is and that you aren't really interested in a discussion with serious honest intent.

You've stated you have presented a sound argument for the oneness of God.

I told you based on inductive reasoning God has not been proven and therefore your premise "God exists" is not established hence one can not assume it true. Accordingly you have presented no sound argument.

It is irrevelant that you want to discuss only with like believers. That is fallacious reasoning.

You started up this thread to call out me and JAK, because apparently you felt you could teach us, where we didn't understand words such as logical and valid.

We have explained to you that there is much more to reasoning and logic than deductive forms. It is obvious given your response on categorical syllogisms that you don't have a good grasp of deductive valid forms.

If someone is an illogical individual, if someone lacks the ability to appreciate critical thinking concepts, if someone simply wants to be antagonistic, they can play games and of course nothing productive results. You seem to have a poor knowledge of logic, are also antagonistic and look upon anyone in disagreement with you as the problem. Many arguments, probably the majority on message board go nowhere simply because one or both parties are intellectually dishonest or don't have the ability or motivation to appreciate concepts and reasoning which doesn't support their position. The only reason it is of value to continue in those sorts of situations is that lurkers or even other participants can judge for themselves and even learn. For example I continually learn from reading JAK's posts with others, and I've been reading them for years. And I know that others have expressed the same sentiment.

I think in that one post to me Aquinas, you demonstrated your extremely poor knowledge level of deductive logic. I can appreciate it, because I appreciate categorical syllogisms. I know you are clueless on formal logic. So it's only apparent to anyone who does appreciate categorical syllogisms. I don't expect you to be honest and admit it. However there is a limit to how much time I should spend with someone who does not have serious intent, or perhaps is simply too mentally immature for me to discuss with.

Your previous post to JAK was an attempt to shift burden of proof and the focus was to waste his time. If I can see through it I'm sure others can as well.

[_marg]

As I understand it, logic deals, in part, with internally consistent arguments, which requires the conclusions follow from the premises. If I understand you, what you are asserting is that the above argument is a valid logical argument because the conclusion follows from the premises.

Yes, when Aquinas says an argument is "valid" he is limiting valid to mean in form only. What he is also asserting is that the argument is sound based on his presumption that T.Aquinas' 5 proofs of God, do prove a God exists.

If I understand Marg, what she is asserting, in part, is that an argument may be internally consistent but still illogical, because its premises are false.

I've never said his argument is not in valid form. I said his argument wasn't sound. I've said his argument is not logical because the premises are too ambiguous. That essentially the argument is nonsense. It's ridiculous to say truth is all good. If we were to learn that the earth will be destroyed tomorrow, would that be a good thing. Well according to Aquinas, sure because he believes in an afterlife. But that's a restricted view, not everyone believes in an afterlife. So his premises are ambiguous as well as not something which would gain consensus acceptance as true.

I agree with Marg; I think your premises are flawed. Your argument assumes the existence of God, something which you have not demonstrated, and which I dispute. Even were I to concede the existence of God, I further dispute the premise that "in God all goodness resides." Further, I dispute the premise that all truth is good.

I'm in agreement as well with what you say.

Given that I find all three of your principle premises wrong (one implied, two explicit), I find your conclusion wrong also.

Consequently, I find your logic, if that's what we want to call it, wholly unpersuasive.

And that is what I said, his conclusion is unreliable. The point of deductive logic is to be able to determine that one can rely upon the conclusion being true. The only combination which allows that is if one can assume true premises. Without true premise, no conclusion is relevant.

In it's place, I would like to put forward the following argument conforming to Aquinas' definiton of logic:

If George W Bush is all good, then truth must lead to George W Bush, since all truth is good. George W Bush is all good, therefore, all truth must lead to George W Bush

This argument fits the the definition of a valid deductive argument, here's the defense I give:

If in George W Bush, all goodness resides (thus to say of an object "A" that it is good, means that it participates in George W Bush's goodness in some way) and truth is good, then truth necessarily leads to George W Bush, since in George W Bush all goodness resides. The goodness of truth itself is found by following true things. Thus, given these explainations, here is an argument:

1. In George W Bush all goodness resides
2. all truth is good and
3. Therefore, truth leads to George W Bush

I've followed Aquinas' logic exactly, having pasting in George W. Bush for God.

So I pose the question to the rest of you. Is this a logical argument? Do you agree? Why or why not?

What's the difference between this argument and the one put forward by Aquinas?

The main difference between this argument and Aquinas's is that he uses a word God which is defined within the premise. So the reasoning is completely circular.

Whatever one defines the word to mean, one can conclude a conclusion based on that definition. George Bush is something which is transparent. If someone doesn't know George Bush they can be given evidence. In Aquinas's argument "God" has no tranparency. There is no way of determining anything about this God other than what we are told within the stated defintions. So any conclusion reached is simply based upon whatever definition one wants to give to the word "God" or Gods. There is really nothing logical about it. There is no predictive value which can be tested to confirm this God, no means of verifying this God. God is simply a claim absent evidence.

[_marg]

I think some here may not be using the terminology correctly. They are mistakenly calling unsound arguments illogical. Whether one believes the premises to be true or not, as long as the form of the argument is correct, or in other words if the argument is valid, the argument is considered logical. It is logically valid, though not sound.

So, rather than calling the argument illogical, simply refer to the argument as unsound.

Neither JAK, nor I have used the terms valid, invalid, logical, illogical incorrectly.

From answers.com

logical: illogical

adjective

Containing fundamental errors in reasoning: fallacious, false, invalid, sophistic, specious, spurious, unsound. See correct/incorrect, true/false.

Not governed by or predicated on reason: irrational, unreasonable, unreasoned. Idioms: out of bounds. See reason/unreason.

Notice that illogical ..means not sound. So why should anyone do as you suggest, when "illogical" is a perfectly appropriate word to use to describe an unsound argument.

Let's look at Jak's use of the word "invalid"

"Right. And Aquinas established nothing. Superb analysis -- that if the major premise is not established, the conclusion is invalid. And, your correct “(Aquinas’) conclusion can not be relied upon.”

He's referring to the conclusion, not the argument. No conclusions are invalid in the sense of deductive validity forms. From answers'com the def'n of invalid:

invalid: Falsely based or reasoned; faulty: an invalid argument.

Again, JAK used a perfectly appropriate use of the word. The only problem is that you and Aquinas, don't appreciate the various uses of the words. You both are so caught up in deductive valid forms as if that is the end all and be all of logic.

(For a more detailed explanation, see: Validity and Soundness )

Also, if some people question the verity of the premises, that does not make the argument universallyunsound. It only makes the argument unsound to the person questioning the verity of the premises. For those who believe the premises of a valid argument, the argument is sound.

Well of course, but one must assume an intelligent audience able to reason well. There are concepts in critical thinking which do have consensus acceptance, such as burden of proof, affirmative claims have the burden of proof. Of course, individuals can reject or deny these. And then there are words which have consensus acceptance. Initially in an argument there might be disagreement on what words means but through discussion that can be worked out to agreement. It was one of the reasons I started the discussion with Aquinas, asking him for his definitions of truth, god, good, goodness. If there is no acceptance the argument/discussion can not proceed. It doesn't mean though that an intelligent well reasoned audience could not come to an agreement on the words used. By well reasoning, I'm assuming the audience appreciates the necessity for transparency of what words means.

By well reasoned audience, I'm assuming a hypothetical audience, one which is objective, unbiased, good critical thinkers etc.

In this case, there is no way to definitively test the verity of the first premise ( "In God all goodness resides" ), and depending upon how one defines "good", the verity of the second premise (I.e. "all truth is good") may be limitied in its testability (It may be a "truth" that some people dispise the notion of God. Is that truth "good"). As such, it may not be very useful as a deductive argument within interfaith dialogue.

I hope this helps.

Well anytime anyone uses a word which either has no transparency or is unknown and they assert that word with a definition but offer not evidence, the premise can not be verified as true. Without a true premise, one can not proceed to a conclusion which can be relied upon as true. It's possible the conclusion is true, but that claim or assumption can not be relied upon.

[Guest]

Near the end of a post, Aquinas stated this:

Aquinas:
Marg and Jak keep asserting that to "prove" something, you need evidence and inductive reasoning, my question is what evidence do they rely on to make that claim? Show me what scientific evidence, Jak or Marg, that allows you to assert that inductive reasoning is the only way we know truth?

JAK:
A significant difference exists between “proof” and evidence which supports a conclusion. Science is concerned first with accumulating evidence. Science covers the broad field of human knowledge concerned with facts held together by principles (rules).

Scientists test facts and principles by the scientific method. That method is an orderly system which gathers facts, tests facts, and arrives at tentative conclusions.

Contrary to your statement, neither marg nor I make assertion here. Rather we are pointing to the scientific method.

Reliable conclusions are acquired by accumulating and organizing facts (evidence). That is not merely an assertion. It’s a description of how science works. Your computer is a product of applied science (rules) which have been gathered and tested.

Science is interested in reliable conclusions. Science withholds conclusion in the absence of sufficient evidence to warrant that conclusion.

As early as 400 B.C.E., Hippocrates taught that diseases have natural rather than supernatural causes.

200 B.C.E. Archimedes performed experiments and discovered physical principles.

100s C.E. Galen laid the foundation for the study of anatomy and physiology.

These were early scientists whom we know from historic record. But it is fair to conclude that many scientific principles were practiced in more ancient times yet.

No one knows who invented the wheel. We all rely on the scientific principles of that invention, its reliability, and its tested results.

JAK

[_JAK]

Aquinas wrote his argument in valid form:

1. God is the source of all good things
2. all truths are good things
3. Therefore, God is the source of all truths

Good, now you get a chance to demonstrate your knowledge on formal logic. I want you to put this into symbolic form, tell me what kind of syllogism/syllogisms you used and give the name of the valid argument form/forms used. After I'll address soundness of arguments and I'll look at the rest of your post.

This is a categorical syllogism, introduced originally by Aristotle. Here is the argument in symbolic form:

God= P
good things= Q
truths= R

1. P is the source of all Q
2. All R are Q
3. Therefore, P is the source of all R

Premise 2 puts all "R" into category "Q," thereby making "P" the source of all "R," assuming the truth of both premises. By the way, I in no way claim supiriority in logic over anyone, I am an ametuer logician, as is plainly obvious to anyone who knows about logic. I studied logic at university, I took special interest in deductive logic. But, I believe Marg, JAK, or anyone with comparable intelligence are clearly capable of the level of education/understanding I have, since it is very minimal. However, you both have made mistakes in your responses, and your incorrect use of terms ("valid" "logical") is one of the primary reasons I started this thread. As it turns out, JAK is the one who is using these terms most incorrectly, your mistake Marg has been in defending the incorrect usages. I know you are probably most likely going to respond "JAK said the conclusion was invalid, making it clear he was using another sense of the word valid." Wrong... all that makes clear is that he not only misunderstands the term "valid" in context of deductive logic, but he misunderstands deductive logic! If it is not a misunderstanding, it is clearly an improper use of the term, since we have been dealing with deductive logic in our debate. If he JUST said "unreliable" I wouldn't complain, that would have been a decent criticism. Learn your logic terms and use them correctly, or just don't use them at all.

----------------------------------------------------

JAK:
References: valid

From Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus

See these references to valid:

accurate, attested, authentic, authoritative, binding, bona fide, cogent, compelling, conclusive, confirmed, convincing, credible, determinative, efficacious, efficient, good, in force, irrefutable, just, legitimate, logical, original, persuasive, potent, powerful, proven, right, solid, sound, stringent, strong, substantial, telling, tested, true, trustworthy, ultimate, unadulterated, unanswerable, uncorrupted, weighty, well-founded, well-grounded

See:

logical

JAK

[_grayskull]

Again, JAK used a perfectly appropriate use of the word. The only problem is that you and Aquinas, don't appreciate the various uses of the words. You both are so caught up in deductive valid forms as if that is the end all and be all of logic.

Actually, if you ever do take a logic course, that's about all you'll ever be caught up in. Textbook logic examples are almost always absurd. I doubt in fact, you could ever take a serious logic course which gives a flying s* about soundness. As there exist no rules to establish soundess. JAK's recent link to the definition of "valid" is misguided because the only definition of valid anyone should care about in a discussion of formal logic is the one Aquinas gave. And from the beginning of this thread, wasn't Aquinas clear that you have to accept the first two premises in order to accept the third? It is in fact, wrong to use "valid" in any way other than Aquinas is using since it's prone to create confusion. There is no standard use of the word "logical" by which one can insist it mean soundness. In fact, using it in the way Aquinas is using it, constricted to validity, is preferable.

Sherlock, "The gun has his fingerprints on it, it lay at the scene of the crime, Jones is, quite logically, the murderer."

Watson, "Yes, so it would seem. But we found an identical gun in Smith's closet, Jones's bitter enemy, and footprints that trace him to the murder scene. Clearly, the guns were switched. A logical analysis Homes, indeed, but highly suspect, if not false."

If an argument had to be sound in order to be logical, then no one could ever say anything is logical since no one has a formula for getting absolute truth.

[_marg]

previously: Again, JAK used a perfectly appropriate use of the word. The only problem is that you and Aquinas, don't appreciate the various uses of the words. You both are so caught up in deductive valid forms as if that is the end all and be all of logic.

Actually, if you ever do take a logic course, that's about all you'll ever be caught up in. Textbook logic examples are almost always absurd.

Having taken a course in logic I appreciate that informal logic is much more practical than formal. I suppose instead of saying "logic" in the above sentence I should have said "good reasoning", because some individuals in this thread seem to have difficulty with context of words. My statement was a comment about Wade and Aquinas being so focussed on structure of valid deductive forms that they don't appreciate the purpose for those forms.

This is from Intro to Logic, 11th Ed. Copi& Cohen

p58 "Logic, we have said is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning. Reasoning is the process with which one advances argument, from premises known (or affirmed for the purpose) to conclusions."

If logic was simply about valid forms that's what Copi and Cohen would have said. But it's more than that. It's about good reasoning which would bring one to best fit, reliable conclusions given available data. In other words, the logic course and study of valid forms gives one tools, but the logician or individuals applying those tools have to learn how to use them correctly for the purpose intended, which is to reach best fit most reliably true conclusions. So while the valid forms enables one to appreciate whether the conclusion follows logically, valid forms do not enable one to appreciate if the premises provide good reasons for accepting the conclusion. And that is also part of logic, with the ultimate goal being reliable best fit/true conclusions.

I doubt in fact, you could ever take a serious logic course which gives a flying s* about soundness.

That's irrelevant. This discussion is also also about an actual argument presented by Aquinas. He seems to think he has a right to restrict his argument to a select audience and then call it sound. He doesn't accept that one can apply critical thinking concepts to it and the reasoning for why it's not sound.

As there exist no rules to establish soundess. JAK's recent link to the definition of "valid" is misguided because the only definition of valid anyone should care about in a discussion of formal logic is the one Aquinas gave.

Formal logic is ultimately meant to be applied to real arguments. If for a real argument it is obvious that a premise is false, or if the words used are ambiguous, or if one with good reasoning argues against a premise, it can in fact be shown that the argument presented is fallacious or not sound despite it being put into valid deductive form.

And from the beginning of this thread, wasn't Aquinas clear that you have to accept the first two premises in order to accept the third?

in my opinion, this is what Aquinas is not clear about. He doesn't appreciate the various ways in which valid, logic, illogical, invalid can be used, quite legitimately. But most of all, he doesn't seem to appreciate what the main purpose of logic is and how to apply the tools of logic to real arguments successfully.

It is in fact, wrong to use "valid" in any way other than Aquinas is using since it's prone to create confusion. There is no standard use of the word "logical" by which one can insist it mean soundness. In fact, using it in the way Aquinas is using it, constricted to validity, is preferable.

Your beliefs on this matter do not overturn or supercede dictionary definitions.

Sherlock, "The gun has his fingerprints on it, it lay at the scene of the crime, Jones is, quite logically, the murderer."

Watson, "Yes, so it would seem. But we found an identical gun in Smith's closet, Jones's bitter enemy, and footprints that trace him to the murder scene. Clearly, the guns were switched. A logical analysis Homes, indeed, but highly suspect, if not false."

If an argument had to be sound in order to be logical, then no one could ever say anything is logical since no one has a formula for getting absolute truth.

Well you are arguing for a restricted meaning of the use of the word "logical." What you are saying is that only when an argument is in valid deductive form should one refer to that argument as being logical.

As above, you are arguing for a restricted definition which supercedes present dictionaries' definitions. Perhaps you should contact all the dictionary companies and get them to change the meaning to yours. But in the meantime, until you do that and they comply, it would be ridiculous in my opinion to refer to an argument which is nonsense or its premises are far from being established as true, as an argument which is logical, simply because it is in valid deductive form. in my opinion that would create much confusion especially for people who do not understand the technical use of those words in formal logic. You like Aguinas, are not appreciating the practical purpose of the tools of formal logic. They are to be used, they are not in and of themselves all that logic entails.

Once again, From Intro to Logic, 11th Ed. Copi& Cohen

p58 "Logic, we have said is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning. Reasoning is the process with which one advances argument, from premises known (or affirmed for the purpose) to conclusions."

The point is, that reasoning entails much more than the "form" of the argument. The premises must be clearly understood to have any relevancy to the truth determination of the conclusion. While premises may be incorrectly assumed to be true, and an absolute true conclusion is no guarantee, none the less when fallacies or weaknesses in reasoning are evident in the argument and pointed out, the soundness of the argument can justifiably be rejected. That is the "good reasoning" aspect entailed as part of the purpose in the study of logic.

[_grayskull]

The point is, that reasoning entails much more than the "form" of the argument.

Most reasoning is informal. But the Aquinas proof is a formal. And that sets the context. So if Aquinas brings to the table a formal argument, the context naturally begins with formal argumentation. And if someone uses a word like "valid" to critique that argument, then the sense of the word "valid" should be in the sense of formal arguments. It sounds to me like someone accused Aquinas of an invalid argument that he felt had no structural problems. A different word should have been used. If someone were to use the word "valid" in this context, while feigning an education in logic, then Aquinas naturally called him or her out. And rather than wasting 500 pages of cyber paper over it, he or she, the opponent of Aquinas, should have admitted "valid" was a poor choice of words and gotten over it so that the discussion could have progressed into something more interesting.

[_grayskull]

I also appreciate your recognition of context in some of my posts. I do think Aquinas is disingenuous when he appears to deliberately strain to exclude all meanings except the one he wishes to be applied in his attacks.

You mean all the meanings of the word "valid" except the one which is applicable to formally stated arguments? It's not disingenuous if part of the rejoinder to him implied a heady grasp of the study of logic while displaying ignorance of terminology. I can't imagine anything less relevant to today's world than medieval proofs but in countering one, I'd be careful not to critique it as "invalid" unless it was inconsistent. And if I did slip up on terminology, upon having it served back to me with gloating, I'd just admit the mistake or ignore it and move on with more important issues.