When Debate Doesn't Make Sense

[_Loquacious Lurker]

do you doubt that Mormonism doesn't permit "righteous disobedience of the prophet speaking as the prophet?"

I'm an exmo -- my request for an avalanche of brandy-cask-bearing St. Bernard proportions was for the edification of the rest of the class.

[_marg]

"Logic" is in the leaps made between premises, not the premises themselves. Presumably, one must have some sort of argument to support each premise until you hit the problem of infinite regress. But when we talk about whether some argument is logical we are just talking about whether the leaps in reasoning made followed good rational practice or not. Those leaps can either be deductive or inductive in nature.

No logic is not the leaps between premises. First off, there are no leaps in deductive reasoning. All the data for the conclusion is in the premises, such that by virture of the structure/form of the argument's construction, the conclusion follows conclusively. If you think there's a leap in deductive reasoning, please give an example. In inductive reasoning, a reasoned leap to a probable (best fit guess) conclusion is required. One can have totally independent premises from one another but all of them together lead to or warrant a probable particular conclusion. So the premises only need be connected to the conclusion

I gave you Copi's definition of what "logic" is. Had Copi said "logic" is solely about deductive forms as you have been arguing, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But you agreed with Copi and I asked you, given what Copi said, how do you acting as a logician know that if 2 + 2= 4, God exists, 2 + 2 = 4, therefore God exists...is a bad argument. You didn't answer me on that.

Now you are focussing on the word "logic" and how Tal intended to use it. And while I disagree with you on this matter, it is a minor issue in this whole discussion. The discussion progressed into what makes an argument "logical" and you had been arguing with others and myself, that the "2 + 2 etc" argument was a logical one. While the argument may be fit into deductive form, it is not a logical argument. Just because words are written up and placed into deductive format..does not make an argument logical.

The only occasion a deductive argument has any value is when the premises are true, the argument is valid, valid being that the conclusion given the structure of the argument follows necessarily and is conclusive, when all that is available, then and only then, can the conclusion be relied upon as true. So the argument is dependent upon true premises. If one premises is false, the argument has no merit, nothing can be inferred from it. If it's blatantly obvious that inductively a premise is false, the argument has no value.

Teach me about the nature of science. Tell me what this "scientific realism" stuff is about:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

If you have a point, let me know. Don't expect me to read links you put up for no apparent reason.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

No logic is not the leaps between premises. First off, there are no leaps in deductive reasoning.

I don't think you understood what is meant by this. This is predictable, but nonetheless unfortunate. A "leap" between the premises refers to the relationship between statements in an argument . When statements follow, deductively or inductively, that is good logic. When they do not, this is bad logic. Logic as a philosophical discipline is largely concerned with studying the nature and quality of those relationships. That's what logic is. Good logic and bad logic is a matter of making one's statements follow one another. Fallacies are instances in which things do not follow. There are only so many ways I can say it.

All the data for the conclusion is in the premises, such that by virture of the structure/form of the argument's construction, the conclusion follows conclusively. If you think there's a leap in deductive reasoning, please give an example.

All balloons are yellow
I am holding a balloon

Therefore, the balloon I am holding is yellow.[/quote]

My conclusion requires a leap from the premises. It is a good one. Notice this is a false argument. But it is a logical one. Or, put another way, it is valid but unsound.

I gave you Copi's definition of what "logic" is. Had Copi said "logic" is solely about deductive forms as you have been arguing, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I have not been arguing that logic is solely about deductive form. I've said the opposite, in fact. This stems from your confusion about what deduction and induction actually are. The problem with you relying on Copi's definition is that you don't understand that it isn't supporting the point you want to make. You actually just plain don't get it.

But you agreed with Copi and I asked you, given what Copi said, how do you acting as a logician know that if 2 + 2= 4, God exists, 2 + 2 = 4, therefore God exists...is a bad argument. You didn't answer me on that.

Of course it is a bad argument. One of the premises is blatantly wrong. The logic of the argument is fine. The implicit logic of one of the premises is not. You are incapable of understanding the difference.

Now you are focussing on the word "logic" and how Tal intended to use it. And while I disagree with you on this matter, it is a minor issue in this whole discussion.

Yeah, but your disagreement is utterly misguided for reasons I just laid out. It is relevant to the discussion because it forms the context for how the term logic is being used. There is a lay-sense in which "logical" and "reasonable" are synonyms. Logic isn't being used in that sense.

The only occasion a deductive argument has any value is when the premises are true, the argument is valid, valid being that the conclusion given the structure of the argument follows necessarily and is conclusive, when all that is available, then and only then, can the conclusion be relied upon as true.

We're not concerned with the truth of the conclusion in this discussion. We are concerned with whether the argument uses proper logic, such as not violating the law of noncontradiction. As I already said, more than once, since soundness is a property of true arguments, and we want true arguments, soundness matters to us. That just doesn't matter to the discussion at hand. Honestly, you're not that bright. This is Ok by itself. I do not begrudge you for it. But when you are so stubborn and arrogant at the same time, it comes hard to interact with.

Teach me about the nature of science. Tell me what this "scientific realism" stuff is about:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

If you have a point, let me know. Don't expect me to read links you put up for no apparent reason.

My point is that "modern rational empiricism" is not some standard term for referring to scientific methodlogy (a single scientific method is a myth). This is a term you got for who knows where that belies a cursory understanding of philosophy of science. I took a dominant school of thought in contrast to the empiricists on the nature of science and linked a detailed discussion on it. I rhetorically asked you to explain it to me so you could see how shallow your understanding is. I wouldn't normally do this, but you felt the need to give me a condescending lecture.

[_marg]

I'm using a web site link and posting portions from it to support what I've been saying. Inductive reasoning always has leaps to conclusions, in fact the term is "inductive leap" and a leap is required because the argument doesn't have all the information in order to make a conclusive conclusion. Deductive reasoning does not leap to conclusions, the information is embedded within the premises. Note below, that fallacies are faults in premises (truth)or in reasoning (validity). I've made the point and I'm not going to continue to repeat it, if there is a fault in any premises, the argument is not logical. It may be in valid format, but that does not make the argument logical. Note below..it says a "A deductive argument must be both valid and true. A true argument is based on generally accepted, well-backed premises." In other words LD, a deductive argument doesn't exist, unless premises are true and valid. So if one doesn't have a deductive argument, nor an inductive one, then they don't have a logical argument.

How To Think Logically : http://www.trinitysem.edu/Student/Lesso ... cally.html

INDUCTIVE REASONING: When you reason inductively, you begin with a number of instances (facts or observations) and use them to draw a general conclusion. Whenever you interpret evidence, you reason inductively. The use of probability to form a generalization is called an inductive leap. Inductive arguments, rather than producing certainty, are thus intended to produce probable and believable conclusions. As your evidence mounts, your reader draws the conclusion that you intend. You must make sure that the amount of evidence is sufficient and not based on exceptional or biased sampling. Be sure that you have not ignored information that invalidates your conclusion (called the “neglected aspect”) or presented only evidence that supports a predetermined conclusion (known as “slanting”).

DEDUCTIVE REASONING: When you reason deductively, you begin with generalizations (premises) and apply them to a specific instance to draw a conclusion about that instance. Deductive reasoning often utilizes the syllogism, a line of thought consisting of a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion; for example, All men are foolish (major premise); Smith is a man (minor premise); therefore, Smith is foolish (conclusion). Of course, your reader must accept the ideas or values that you choose as premises in order to accept the conclusion. Sometimes premises are not stated. A syllogism with an unstated major or minor premise, or even an unstated conclusion, needs to be examined with care because the omitted statement may contain an inaccurate generalization.



FALLACIES: A deductive argument must be both valid and true. A true argument is based on generally accepted, well-backed premises. Learn to distinguish between fact (based on verifiable data) and opinion (based on personal preferences). A valid argument follows a reasonable line of thinking.

Fallacies are faults in premises (truth) or in reasoning (validity). They may result from misusing or misrepresenting evidence, from relying on faulty premises or omitting a needed premise, or from distorting the issues. The following are some of the major forms of fallacies:

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Again, this is why it is a bad idea to try and support yourself with a random website written by some dude. When you went to a more credible resource (Copi and Cohen), you weren't able to support your argument; hence your need to misread what it said.

(Notice all the examples of fallacies listed do not involve false premises.)

Deduction involves leaps. When X follows Y, that "follows" is a leap. It is the logical inference. The difference is they are formally certain given the rules of logic.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

And no, it isn't lost on me to watch an Anti-Mormon so desperate to support their agenda they'll deny introductory logic and engage in transparent quotemining rather than admit to others (and possibly themselves) a tangential point that will hurt some random attempt at attacking the LDS faith.

[_marg]

Again, this is why it is a bad idea to try and support yourself with a random website written by some dude. When you went to a more credible resource (Copi and Cohen), you weren't able to support your argument; hence your need to misread what it said.

(Notice all the examples of fallacies listed do not involve false premises.)

It's not necessary to list, it was already said. "Fallacies are faults in premises (truth) or in reasoning (validity)."

Deduction involves leaps. When X follows Y, that "follows" is a leap. It is the logical inference. The difference is they are formally certain given the rules of logic.

It is no surprise you are arguing about leaps in deduction, but in deductive logic, there is no missing information in the premises to deduce the conclusion it is all there in the premises but said in different words.

[_marg]

And no, it isn't lost on me to watch an Anti-Mormon so desperate to support their agenda they'll deny introductory logic and engage in transparent quotemining rather than admit to others (and possibly themselves) a tangential point that will hurt some random attempt at attacking the LDS faith.

"Nonsense" arguments in valid format are not logical LD. The premises may fit in with logic rules in a very restricted narrow sense by being in a valid form, but that's it.

Any deductively constructed argument which has a false premise is not an argument for a conclusion which can be relied upon, so in a larger sense it's not even an argument. So to argue to others that "nonsense" arguments are "logical" is rather petty and silly.

And by the way, I have no idea whether you are Mormon or not, though I suspect you aren't atheist, given your initial posts on this board, but I'm not certain. Your religious beliefs have been completely irrelevant to anything I've said in this thread.