grayskull wrote: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.
-----------------------------
A very narrow application of a term is always risky.
marg stated:
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.
That observation is correct.
marg stated:
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.
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.
That analysis is also correct. It is precisely the reason I suggest that Aquinas use an illustration which did not carry vagueness of words.
It is critical to keep in mind that a correct form does not result in a reliable conclusion. That was and has been the point of what marg has stated and what I have stated. Aquinas appears to have equated correct form with sound conclusions. That’s a flawed analysis.
In my example:
All women are stupid,
I had a correct form, but the conclusion was not sound, not reliable.
grayskull stated:
"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.
JAK:
On the contrary, no apology is warranted from marg or me. Aquinas has a religious position which he admitted in the statement:
“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.” Aquinas
Aquinas wrote from a very narrow perspective of his own religious indoctrination and attempted (and failed) to produce any Major Premise.” It was flawed from the start.
Aquinas does not write or assemble dictionaries. Nor does he constrain the context of word usage -- nor do you.
And it’s a moot point in that I suggested to Aquinas that he might use unreliable if he wished. The issue was reliability of his Major Premise. He failed to establish that and revealed that his own religiosity was committed to particular religious dogma.
grayskill is also incorrect regarding where and who made a shift of focus. Aquinas, being unable to establish his Major Premise, chose to shift the debate to definitions and make that a new issue. He abandoned his pursuit of the claims of his Major Premise when challenged to do so.
My criticism was not only the original construction but of the unreliable and unsound conclusions. Invalid is so defined in the context of my statements in standard dictionaries. Since Aquinas was unable to support his assertion God, it was he who shifted the focus to an argument about constraining words. Even though I suggested that he might use “unreliable” as a result of his shift of subject, he continued to ignore that option. And he made clear that he subscribes to religious dogma which uses truth by assertion. Claiming: God this or God that or heaven, etc. is truth by assertion. He presented no evidence for his assertions.
If his genuine intent was to look at the syllogism, his choice of religious dogma for a subject was poor. It was poor because religious doctrines do not agree. Absent agreement on terms in the structure of a deductive construction, the result is unreliable or unsound. That was one of marg’s points and one of mine.
Neither “two Aquinases,” “One God,” nor “a Tooth Fairy” (as you state) is relevant.
JAK