The Instigator
RLBaty
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
autodidact
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Conditional statements may be determined to be true whether or not the conditions are true.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
autodidact
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,761 times Debate No: 29616
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

RLBaty

Pro

I recently affirmed the proposition offered here again for your consideration.

Some seemed to be lulled into believing that posted, incomplete effort by TSH rebutted my simple truth claim regarding the fundamental, true principle accepted amongst critical thinking authorities and practitioners:

Proposition:

Conditional statements may be determined to
be true whether or not the conditions are true.

Example, with a little, simple symbolism:

If p, then q.
p.
q.

The conditional there is the statement "if p, then q", and that is proposed as true in the context of proposing a logically valid, sound argument justifying the conclusion q.

The condition is the "if p" portion of the conditional.

The meaningfulness of the issue as to the conditional may be summarized as follows, not intended to be an exhaustive exposition on its meaningfulness:

First, if the conditional is determined to be true, then one can move on to the next step of determining whether or not, in fact, the condition is true and the conclusions reached by the argument proposed.

Second, if the conditional is determined not to be true, then one can disregard the argument in favor of one more suitable to the support of the conclusion q.

In either case, the conditional statement is meaningful.

In the earlier failed effort to rebut my truth claim regarding conditional statements, TSH got sidetracked by an effort to rebut the truth claim as to the example I presented, ran out of space and failed to rebut the truth claim as to my example and, more importantly, and failed to come anywhere near close to rebutting the following claim:

Conditional statements may be determined to
be true whether or not the conditions are true.

I suspect that TSH now recognizes the failure even while so many have been deceived by the effort; thinking something was posted that actually rebutted my simple, commonly and professionally accepted principle.

That TSH may have been aware of the failure even at the time of the posting is implied by his conclusion; a conclusion which was NOT, NOT, NOT:

THEREFORE, conditional statements may NOT, NOT,
NOT be determined to be true whether or not the
conditions are not true.

NO, NO, NO!

What TSH concluded was only a faulty, subjective opining regarding a universal negative:

http://www.debate.org...

- If the condition is wrong,
- then the conditional is meaningless.
-
-- TSH

In the context of the discussion of these important issues, that statement implies an inability to rebut my claim that the following is true:

Conditional statements may be determined to
be true whether or not the conditions are true.

If you like the humor to be found in the antics of my adversaries here, you might appreciate this observation of the hypocrisy so common amongst them:

- It is meaningful to be able to determine
- when conditional statements used in support
- of a conclusion contain conditions that
- are "wrong" (i.e., that the argument so
- proposed is unsound), so TSH's conditional
- statement above can be easily determined
- to be false.

I am posting this additional challenge in order to give my primary adversaries, TSH, Mangani, Bladerunner060, et al, another chance to try and rebut a simple, almost universally accepted truth for my further consideration; or to find a champion to send forth to do their bidding for them.

The vote in the previous debate currently stands at:

- TSH 24
- RLBaty 0

That itself is a further testimony to one or more of utilitarian "points" to be made as a result of observing the behavior and claims of those coming monitor to monitor with my little critical thinking exercises.

I again thank y'all for the contributions to the popular public discussion of these important issues.

In closing, and with a little more clarity this time around, here is the proposition for consideration of any Debate.Org champion who may not agree with my position:

Proposition:

Conditional statements may be determined to
be true whether or not the conditions are true.

Affirm: RLBaty
Deny: ???

As before, I propose the following in support of my affirmative:

Arguments are built with propositions.

Propositions assert that something is the case or that something is not the case.

A proposition may be affirmed or denied.

Propositions are either true or false.

A conditional statement asserts that in case the antecedent is true, its consequent will be true also.

A conditional statement does not assert that its antecedent, or any portion thereof, is true, but only that if its antecedent is true, then its consequent is true also.

A conditional statement does not assert its consequent is true, but only that its consequent is true if its antecedent is true.

To understand the meaning of a conditional statement one must understand what the relationship of implication is.

The relationship may be logical, definitional, causal, or decisional; for example.

And so I conclude for reasons stated above and others, that a conditional statement may be determined to be true whether or not its conditions are true, which would be an issue for the minor premise in the example provided above, and so present the following for your further consideration and rebuttal should you have one:

Proposition:

Conditional statements may be determined to
be true whether or not the conditions are true.

Affirm: RLBaty
Deny: ???
autodidact

Con

I would like to thank RLBaty for this debate.

Conditional statements can allow people to argue from positions that are not their "home turf"
I love them.

It is my contention that conditional statements are neither true or false but rather valid or invalid
At the core it is the difference between "fact" and "belief".

This reminds me of debates with creationist when the subject is DNA and information. In which DNA is perceived as having information because what it does when it it active. The rebuttal is what information do we see when it is inactive? like the perception of information when it comes to DNA conditional statements must be in an active role in an argument to be seen true or false.

Are these conditional argument true or false?

If Yahweh exists then we should worship him
If Allah exist then we should not eat pork
(or the one I like)
If Yahweh exists then he is a child abuser (If you feel offended, sorry, challenge me to a debate on this one)
If this is not a solipsistic world then the people on DDO may be real
If this is a solipsistic world then where did this post come from?
If the world start 43 seconds ago then all our memories are false.

Yes, they are all validly reasoned, but are they true? Are they false? Are they indeterminable?
a few of those examples are arguments for or against internally consistent realities, unprovable.

"First, if the conditional is determined to be true"
Believers in gods will argue that it is determined that their particular god does exist, while asserting the conditional others put forth to be "not determined true".

Now pro is smart and uses true and not true this leaves this in the realm of belief. It is the difference between "guilt and not guilty"(belief) and "guilty, innocent, and BoP not met."(fact).

The problem is then we are not determining conditional statements to be true or not true we are only believing them to be a such. Problem is people and conditionals get wrongly convicted everyday.

"....may be determined to be true" sounds nice and soft and all but it is from the cold harsh land of facts. At least Pro was nice enough to wrap it in a nice downy "may be".

In a very simplistic way of looking it a "conditional statement" is a thing, it is a noun. Things can not be true or false, they just are. Its contents may be true or false but the conditional statements is just the container, a template a jig.

conditional statement
A conditional statement, symbolized by p->q, is an if-then statement in which p is a hypothesis and q is a conclusion.[1]

By themselves they are nothing it is only when they are active in an argument that they are seen as true or false. My example above, the one I noted I like, is not active when used but is rather used as frame work since the opponent accepts the condition the debate centers on the reasoning between p and q.

Conditional statements are not, true or not true
They are valid or invalid.

[1] http://www.mathgoodies.com...

(I hope if Pro is unsatisfied with this debate that they not make another debate to which a sizable portion be dedicated to ranting. )
Debate Round No. 1
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by RLBaty 3 years ago
RLBaty
KroneckerDelta,

Thanks for the latest demonstration that a lack of simple, critical thinking skills continues to be a problem amongst Debate.Org members, despite my ministry here over the last couple of weeks or so.

I turned a light on for you at my place if you, unlike the others here, are willing to get out a bit and openly, honestly engage in a discussion of your problems regarding the simple, almost universally accepted principles I have espoused here.

Here's the link:

http://groups.yahoo.com...

You don't have to be a member to post there. If you prefer, you can just address an email to the following address, changing the (at) to @:

Maury_and_Baty(at)yahoogroups.com

See you there, or not!
Posted by KroneckerDelta 3 years ago
KroneckerDelta
Pro did a poor job of framing the problem. Ultimately, I don't think Pro understands the position they are taking. Unfortunately, I don't think Con did a great job of explaining either. I do not understand their examples and how they relate to the resolution.

I wish Con had done a better job of defining the distinction between a conditional being true or false vs. valid or invalid. In formal logic, valid means tautology (meaning it's a theorem) which basically means the formula is always true. For instance, if a polygon is a triangle, then it satisfies the Pythagorean Theorem is an example of a conditional that is sometimes true, but sometimes false and thus is NOT a tautology (i.e. NOT a theorem).

I also strongly disagree with Pro that a proposition is either true or false--this is not correct and is obvious with the above example. On the other hand, if a proposition can be proved to be always false it complicates things. For instance the following conditional is true (null hypothesis): if a person can travel from inside the universe to outside, then pigs can fly. Assuming you accept current cosmology, then this is equivalent to saying if false, then pigs can fly. I do agree that such a conditional is meaningless, but logically it is a valid statement (it is a tautology).

Ultimately, I think Pro could have won the debate merely because they put in the word "may". First, I think Pro really means valid vs. invalid when saying True or False. Otherwise, they would argue that "If a polygon is a triangle, then it satisfies the Pythagorean Theorem" is a true statement (because it CAN be true). If you take the position that the hypothesis is false, then the conditional is trivially satisfied. So in proving a conditional is valid, one must either prove the hypothesis is always false or show that when the hypothesis is true so too is the conclusion. This means there IS a case where you can show a conditional to be valid and yet the condition is not met.
Posted by autodidact 3 years ago
autodidact
To further support my view.
http://www.debate.org...
An example of a conditional statement that is not true or false.
Posted by RLBaty 3 years ago
RLBaty
Me too! :o)
Posted by lit.wakefield 3 years ago
lit.wakefield
interested to see if someone takes this again
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Daktoria 3 years ago
Daktoria
RLBatyautodidactTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con makes a correct point about validity, but it's a nonsequitur. A conditional can be empirically true whether or not empirical proof happens to be presented at any given moment in time. Yes, conditionals can be rationally valid across time as well, but Pro didn't dispute that.
Vote Placed by Mangani 3 years ago
Mangani
RLBatyautodidactTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with the other assessments. Pro's complaints of other debates, repeated invites to other venues, and insistence on being right are becoming pretty petty. His one round debate format not only corners him due to his lack of debating ability, but it allows for Con to make a superior point unrebutted.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 3 years ago
Jarhyn
RLBatyautodidactTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a six point victory for CON. First, conduct goes to CON because PRO's resolution was logically disproved in the previous debate. Only the insane and the dishonest would ignore the proof in front of their eyes, and lunacy does not excuse poor conduct. Given PRO's linking of the previous debate, which included the disproof of his premise, he fails in every conceivable way to be convincing; he squarely defeated himself, even before CON opened his mouth. Sources go to CON as PRO's source defeated his own argument.
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
RLBatyautodidactTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: 75% of Pro's post was sour grapes regarding another debate. Minus conduct for the sour grapes and the wasted time skimming through it. Arguments/Sources: Pro explained his position, but did not provide any sources in support of his resolution, nor provide a logical proof for it. Con did provide both an explanation for why the resolution was false and a source that supported his view, unrebutted. Points to Con. Spelling/Grammar: Tied. *** Again, I will note a one-round debate was a poor format choice by Pro that heavily favors Con.