Logic lessons for Jak and Marg

[_marg]

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.

The context, centers around the real argument of Aquinas'. The discussion was never limited to the tools of formal logic..which is what a textbook gives. But even a logic textbook also teaches more than the tools. It also explains how those tools are to be used, what the purpose is for them. I didn't argue Aquinas argument fallacious due to invalid form, nor did JAK.

As it turns out though when I pressed Aquinas further to put his argument into valid form, and explain it, he revealed he didn't know what he was doing.

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.

Why don't you go back and read the discussion and see what was said, and how it developed. And if you see problems that you disagree with quote. Because at this point, you are arguing over things which didn't occur.

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.

The discussion is about "lessons" and it is quite apparent that Aquinas doesn't understand formal logic well, given his reply to me that he had presented the argument as a categorical syllogism. JAK, has been kind enough and myself as well, to spend time time addressing his posts, in an attempt to teach him that there is more to logic than he appreciates.

[_marg]

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.

It is quite apparent you don't know what you're talking about and haven't followed this thread well. In subsequent posts in which you have criticisms of what was said, please quote what was actually said to warrant the criticism. That will save some time and cut down on needless posts that are apparently bothering you indicated by your words "And rather than wasting 500 pages of cyber paper over it".

[_marg]

This post if for those who still think deductive validity is the sole criteria in the study of logic and what makes an argument logical.

Logic courses teach about fallacies in argumentation. When a fallacy can be pointed out in an argument, it means the reasoning has gone awry, the conclusion is unreliable. When the reasoning has gone awry one does not refer to the argument as being logical, that would be a misuse of the word.

In this particular example, I as well as JAK had issue with the words used in Aquinas' argument. We first wanted his definitions. The words he used were vague. One can not determine the truth of a proposition without a clear understanding of the terms used.

Another problem with Aquinas' argument was that his reasoning was circular. He created the definition for where "good things" come from, attributed them to a God for which he offered no definition, nor transparent evidence. From the assertions made by the premises, the conclusion was derived. This is the fallacy of Begging the Question.

From http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfall ... allacy.htm (sorry Bryan Inks I'll shorten later)

"Fallacies are defects in an argument that 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. Informal fallacies are defects which can be identified only through an analysis of the actual content of the argument."

For an explanation of informal and formal fallacies see http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfall ... erview.htm


See http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfall ... estion.htm for an explanation of begging the question.

In addition, when a claim is made, such as the premises of Aquinas' argument, the burden of proof is on the claimant, unless stipulated otherwise for extraordinary reasons. It's not on others to disprove, that would be the fallacy of ignorance being used by the claimant. Critics can point out, that the claims lack transparency, are not warranted by sufficient evidence nor reasoning. Without establishment of true premises the argument fails, the conclusion is unreliable. The argument is not sound, it's not logical. One can also say and quite justifiably without intention of referring to the structure of the argument, that it is invalid and/or the conclusion is invalid. The claimant has the burden to overcome those objections. That doesn't mean the critic is proving the claim false, it means the argument can justifiably be rejected and the conclusion ignored.

[_grayskull]

The use of "valid" for something beyond consistency could be relevant in informal logic only, and even then, it's a bit confusing given it has a specific definition. JAK apparently didn't know this when he took on Aquinas's formal demonstration. It's a similar blunder similar to those who "beg the question" when they really mean to raise one. We can grant the phrase to mean raising the question, but it's an odd use and more often than not shows a lack of understanding on the part of the user. Which is amplified if the user of the phrase feigns dealing a lecture on logic. So we got a chuckle out of JAK's fumbling use of "valid" during his lecture on the ways of dry pedantary.

He created the definition for where "good things" come from, attributed them to a God for which he offered no definition,

As Aquinas pointed out, his target audience would already have background assumptions about God, he was not addressing an audience where God's goodness needed to be argued for.

[_marg]

“The use of "valid" for something beyond consistency could be relevant in informal logic only, and even then, it's a bit confusing given it has a specific definition.”

Informal & formal fallacies are applied to deductive arguments. If a fallacy can be shown, it renders the conclusion irrelevant.

Formal fallacies are the focus of you and Aquinas in this discussion. In formal fallacies, “valid” has a specific meaning. Outside of formal fallacies “validity does not have that exact meaning, but has a similar meaning with regards to the reliability of the conclusion’s truth claim.

Formal fallacies is when the argument is not in a valid form.structure such that the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises. If a formal fallacy is noted, the conclusion is not reliable. It is irrelevant .

In informal fallacies, the conclusion is also rendered unreliable, irrelevant but for a different reason, the actual contents in the premises do not successfully warrant the conclusion.

JAK’s main focus as was mine, was on the content. Though we recognized Aquinas hadn’t worded or translated his argument into deductive form. But that wasn’t our main focus. Our focus was on the content,i.e. the vagueness of words, the burden of proof not having been met, and the whole argument was circular..based on assertions made absent evidence from which a conclusion followed. In effect begging the question fallacy committed.

“JAK apparently didn't know this when he took on Aquinas's formal demonstration.”

I notice you haven’t quoted as I asked you, to support your criticisms of what either I or JAK said. Until you do your complaints are unwarranted as far as I’m concerned.

It's a similar blunder similar to those who "beg the question" when they really mean to raise one. We can grant the phrase to mean raising the question, but it's an odd use and more often than not shows a lack of understanding on the part of the user. Which is amplified if the user of the phrase feigns dealing a lecture on logic. So we got a chuckle out of JAK's fumbling use of "valid" during his lecture on the ways of dry pedantary.

JAK’s posts in this thread go way above and beyond your knowledge level of logic. He has written extensively and thoroughly in this thread. You and Aquinas have not addressed his words other than your erroneous rather small minded notion that in a discussion on the logic of an argument the word "invalid" is restricted to one meaning only.


Previously: He created the definition for where "good things" come from, attributed them to a God for which he offered no definition,

As Aquinas pointed out, his target audience would already have background assumptions about God, he was not addressing an audience where God's goodness needed to be argued for.

You and Aquinas are like kids who are arguing about a toothfairy belief you have with other kids. You’ve taken a lesson on logic and you proudly say to the others who believe something different than you about this fairy, that they are wrong. You assert your premises and make the conclusion fit within a valid deductive format and proudly declare to all others that your argument is sound, logical and valid. That's sound like you know what you are talking about, and that you must be right.

Well the argument may be in valid form, but the conclusion is not valid which is what JAK said. The argument is not sound and it is not logical. So when a teacher with more knowledge on logic points this out, you both complain that's not fair the argument was meant for friends.

Aquinas made the mistake of assuming everyone on this board accepts the existence of a God or Gods. He was arguing with Vegas when he pointed out to Vegas that Vegas didn’t understand logic, and that was the reason for his rejection of Aquinas's argument. I was within my rights to step in and inform Aquinas his argument was not sound. And it was not logical.

[_grayskull]

I notice you haven’t quoted as I asked you

here..

Superb analysis -- that if the major premise is not established, the conclusion is invalid

"Major premise" means formal logic. The conclusion, as you and JAK now know thanks to Aquinas, is not invalid. "Validity" refers to internal consistency, and only internal consistency in formal logic. There never need be any "establishing" of the "major premise" in order for a conclusion to be valid. I realize JAK meant "sound" but there are two problems with this. 1) He said "valid" and thereby revealed he wasn't familiar with the terminology, though subsequently, after he dusted off an old textbook, we've been treated to pedantic hair-splitting that would have put Duns Supreme Court to sleep. 2) He shifted the focus of this thread (I don't know anything about the vegasbright thread) from the issue Aquinas clearly established. You both owe two Aquinases, One God, and possibly a Tooth Fairy an apology.

[Guest]

The use of "valid" for something beyond consistency could be relevant in informal logic only, and even then, it's a bit confusing given it has a specific definition. JAK apparently didn't know this when he took on Aquinas's formal demonstration. It's a similar blunder similar to those who "beg the question" when they really mean to raise one. We can grant the phrase to mean raising the question, but it's an odd use and more often than not shows a lack of understanding on the part of the user. Which is amplified if the user of the phrase feigns dealing a lecture on logic. So we got a chuckle out of JAK's fumbling use of "valid" during his lecture on the ways of dry pedantary.

He created the definition for where "good things" come from, attributed them to a God for which he offered no definition,

As Aquinas pointed out, his target audience would already have background assumptions about God, he was not addressing an audience where God's goodness needed to be argued for.

If Aquinas were genuinely talking about deductive construction, it would have been to his advantage to use some neutral example to illustrate the syllogism. However that was not the case. Numerous times he made claims or admissions which made clear his religious bias.

For example, Aquinas stated:

I, my mother and my father all happen to believe in Jesus, so deafth would be a primary focus of my conversation with my mother or father, since he/she would be going to be with Him. I would enjoy being reminded of that and reminding him/her as well. To be a Christian, you have to fall in love with deafth. We are different on this point, so I could see why you would avoid the truth, but I would not.

found here.

(What’s is standard definition for “deafth”? Twice Aquinas used that “word” in the above paragraph. Exactly what is that?)

The above statement occurred well after he departed discussion of deductive construction, and it revealed his religious bias. While he was attempting to defend yet anotherbias all truth in all situations, Aquinas was disingenuous claiming to be talking about deductive reasoning. He demonstrated that by continuing to use the emotionally charged language of religious myth while pretending to be talking about deductive construction. He use ad hominem directed toward marg. Rather than address the issues she raised, he chose to attack her personally. All of this was an evasion of issues regarding rational thinking compendiously.

In examples for him, I used non-emotionally charged illustration so that the focus was on the structure. I also suggested the word unreliable as an appropriate substitute for invalid when he shifted his focus to stucture only. That suggestion was to avoid a tangent shifting issue. However, the definitions which I posted and which marg has posted or alluded to are standard, accepted usage.

grayskull stated:
As Aquinas pointed out, his target audience would already have background assumptions about God, he was not addressing an audience where God's goodness needed to be argued for.

JAK:
Aquinas’ target audience is irrelevant in that the discussion was at his insistance about logic. Principles of reasoning transcend that. He began with Major Premise which had not been established by him nor has it been established. He then continued to argue that he was demonstrating “reason.” He was not. A flawed major premise does not lead to a reliable conclusion. Comprehensive reasoning is not limited to form.

That was one of marg’s points and it is one of mine. In addition, and as marg pointed out, Aquinas’ “formal demonstration” was flawed from the Major Premise which he used. Again, that is the reason I suggested that he use a Major Premise about which there might be virtually universal agreement.

Example:
All humans will die.

A claim to the contrary requires the claiment to establish by transparent, skeptically reviewed analysis that the premise is false. I suggested that structure for Aquinas for the very reasons which I have described.

A major premise which has in it “God” is poor in any attempt to address the structure of a syllogism. In logic class, it may be fun to use correct form making a deductive argument which results in an absurd conclusion. But it is just for fun. It’s not done with the notion that all reasoning is encompassed in the syllogysm.

While I cannot improve on marg’s eloquent, impeccable analysis in numerous posts here, her analysis is correct and articulated with clarity.

Aquinas titled his post “Logic lessons for Jak (JAK) and Marg.”

But he quickly departed that topic in ad hominem, diversion, and evasion of analysis with which marg and I confronted him.

No post has been a refutation of what either marg or I have articulated.

Aquinas begs the question of how he might establish his Major Premise(s). He had or implied several Major Premises. That is the case because he chose language about which significant ambiguity can be established. God, truth, and goodness are ambiguous terms.

If his intent was genuinely to discuss “logic” since his title contained that very word, he chose poorly. As the quote from him above establishes, he is not objective on religion. Yet he used religion and religious terms in an attempt to teach: “Logic lessons for Jak and Marg.”

Meaning is achieved through language with words in contest. To suggest that context is irrelevant and that words have specific meaning outside of context is flawed analysis of language and thought.

JAK

[_grayskull]

A flawed major premise does not lead to a reliable conclusion

But it doesn't necessarily lead to an invalid one. Which is the topic of this thread Aquinas started and the primary object of his schooling.

In examples for him, I used non-emotionally charged

More computer-like you could not be, I won't disagree.

I also suggested the word unreliable as an appropriate substitute for invalid

Well, "unsound" would have been better considering the context. But that's an improvement. Now why does Marg insist on defending your use of the word "valid"? Why not just admit, "Thank you Aquinas, you are right. Can we move on to more important matters now?"

[_marg]

I notice you haven’t quoted as I asked you

here..

Superb analysis -- that if the major premise is not established, the conclusion is invalid

"Major premise" means formal logic.

You haven't been reading carefully grayskull. There are informal fallacies as well as formal to apply to deductive arguments. If one says the major premise is not established they are referring to an informal fallacy. They are critical of the content of the argument not the (validity)formal structure.

Not only did JAK mention conclusion so in that context he's not referring to formal deductive validity because that can only can only apply to an entire argument, not the conclusion but as well he's also talking about informal fallacies which again indicates his objective is not about structure.

The "validity" error you are focussing on is only about structure. That wasn't what JAK was referring to. Had Jak said the structure of the argument is wrong, it is not in valid form and no conclusion can be reached therefore the conclusion is invalid you'd be correct.

The conclusion, as you and JAK now know thanks to Aquinas, is not invalid.

I'm sorry I don't follow your statement.

"Validity" refers to internal consistency, and only internal consistency in formal logic.

Here is the def'n for validity in answers.com which refers to logic

val·id (văl'ĭd)
adj.
-Well grounded; just: a valid objection.
-Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument.
-Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion.

If one objects to an argument on the grounds of an informal fallacy as JAK did, he is correct to refer to the conclusion as invalid. The conclusion is not well grounded, it doesn't contain premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived and the conclusion does not correctly infer from the premise/premises.

There never need be any "establishing" of the "major premise" in order for a conclusion to be valid.

When the textbook are pointing out validity in structure their focus is not on content. But when you move into the real world and apply reasoning against arguments then contents of the argument are also criticized and can render a conclusion invalid.

realize JAK meant "sound" but there are two problems with this. 1) He said "valid" and thereby revealed he wasn't familiar with the terminology, though subsequently, after he dusted off an old textbook, we've been treated to pedantic hair-splitting that would have put Duns Supreme Court to sleep.

First of all, I dusted off my logic text, not JAK in order to refresh my memory on mood and figure of categorical syllogisms. JAK did not mean sound he specified "conclusion. One doesn't have a sound conclusion, one has a sound argument. The only reason we've been going on about this is that you and Aquinas fail to grasp some concepts.

2) He shifted the focus of this thread (I don't know anything about the vegasbright thread) from the issue Aquinas clearly established. You both owe two Aquinases, One God, and possibly a Tooth Fairy an apology.

JAK didn't shift the focus. You haven't been following well..and you also just like Aquinas don't appreciate validity in logic extends beyond structure (validity form) of the argument.

I was noting on the net last night that the latest edition 12th of Copi's Intro to Logic addresses this. It says"

Classification of Informal Fallacies
"The classification of informal fallacies has been a matter much discussed among logicians, many different classifications having been proposed over the years. Our extended treatment of this matter in chapter 5 of the present edition, has been adjusted to reflect what we now conclude is the classification most helpful to students. Where previously we had distinguished three clusters of informal fallacies—those of relevance, of presumption, and of ambiguity, we add now a fourth category, fallacies of defective induction, which are also appropriately distinguished and grouped. This schematism must be qualified throughout by the realization that much depends, in almost every case, on context and interpretation. There is no one right way to classify these very slippery fish; no pattern of inclusion or exclusion satisfies everyone. Nor is it the case, for many mistakes in reasoning, that there is only one right category to which that mistake may be assigned. We try here to achieve reasonable sophistication in analysis, with more clarity and more modesty. "

So grayskull, a "fallacy of defective induction" is when the premises are inadequate to warrant the conclusion though they may be relevant. That was the case with Aquinas' argument and the reason it was not sound, was not logical, was not valid.

[_marg]

Jak previously: "I also suggested the word unreliable as an appropriate substitute for invalid"

Well, "unsound" would have been better considering the context. But that's an improvement. Now why does Marg insist on defending your use of the word "valid"? Why not just admit, "Thank you Aquinas, you are right. Can we move on to more important matters now?"

Jak said the conclusion was invalid because the premises didn't warrant the conclusion. It is not better to say the conclusion is not sound. Soundness refers to the entire argument. An invalid conclusion is one which is unreliable, irrelevant, doesn't follow from the premises logically either because of a formal fallacy (which refers to structure or the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from true premises) or an informal fallacy.

You can chose to move on if you wish.