Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Logic

jedipengiun
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 5:00:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So I've just had my first Mind, Reason and Reality lecture today and I cuoldn't quite put my finger on something that I'd always considered to be true.
Does an Argument have to have two premises or more?

For example, he said this was an (invalid) Argument.
"Resulting from the fact that all dogs are mammals, all dogs have teeth."
The only premise here that seems implied is that Dogs are mammals. With the conclusion being Dogs have teeth.
(p1) - All dogs are mammals
--------------------------------
(c) - Therefore dogs have teeth.

Should there not be a second premise "All mammals have teeth" Does the word Resulting have anything to do with it, I could understand it so then.
I can't understand how a conclusion can follow only one premise,
Any help? :)
Things that make me happy!

: At 6/22/2012 1:46:11 PM, Kinesis wrote:
: Also, as an Englishman I'm obligated to be prejudiced against gingers and the French.

: At 8/27/2012 10:00:07 PM, FREEDO wrote:
: Every self-respecting philosopher needs to smoke a pipe.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 5:16:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Logical arguments are analytic, meaning the conclusion is simply a restatement of the premises. So if there was only one premise the conclusion could at best be it written somewhat differently. For instance,

P1: Socrates is a man

The premise can't tell you Socrates is mortal. The only way to analytically reformulate the statement and have it be true and justified would be if the conclusion was say "One man is Socrates" or something. If you want to get anything else out of it you have to enter another premise. Like:

P2: All men are mortal

Now you can deduce the hidden conclusion in the two premises, that Socrates is mortal. Without at least two premises though it would be impossible.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
jedipengiun
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 5:39:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 5:16:30 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Logical arguments are analytic, meaning the conclusion is simply a restatement of the premises. So if there was only one premise the conclusion could at best be it written somewhat differently. For instance,

P1: Socrates is a man

The premise can't tell you Socrates is mortal. The only way to analytically reformulate the statement and have it be true and justified would be if the conclusion was say "One man is Socrates" or something. If you want to get anything else out of it you have to enter another premise. Like:

P2: All men are mortal

Now you can deduce the hidden conclusion in the two premises, that Socrates is mortal. Without at least two premises though it would be impossible.

Ok, cheers. :) I thought this is how it would work. I'd never seen arguments (other than tautologies) that consist of one premise and it confused me.
Things that make me happy!

: At 6/22/2012 1:46:11 PM, Kinesis wrote:
: Also, as an Englishman I'm obligated to be prejudiced against gingers and the French.

: At 8/27/2012 10:00:07 PM, FREEDO wrote:
: Every self-respecting philosopher needs to smoke a pipe.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 8:38:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 5:00:14 PM, jedipengiun wrote:
So I've just had my first Mind, Reason and Reality lecture today and I cuoldn't quite put my finger on something that I'd always considered to be true.
Does an Argument have to have two premises or more?

For example, he said this was an (invalid) Argument.
"Resulting from the fact that all dogs are mammals, all dogs have teeth."
The only premise here that seems implied is that Dogs are mammals. With the conclusion being Dogs have teeth.
(p1) - All dogs are mammals
--------------------------------
(c) - Therefore dogs have teeth.

Should there not be a second premise "All mammals have teeth" Does the word Resulting have anything to do with it, I could understand it so then.
I can't understand how a conclusion can follow only one premise,
Any help? :)

It seems you're missing a premise. The argument should look like this:

p1 -- All dogs are mammals.
p2 -- All mammals have teeth.
C -- Therefore, all dogs have teeth.

Although this seems to be a valid argument. I'm not sure why your teacher said it's invalid. It's certainly not a sound argument. Whales are mammals but not all whales have teeth.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2012 4:52:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 5:39:34 PM, jedipengiun wrote:
At 9/28/2012 5:16:30 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Logical arguments are analytic, meaning the conclusion is simply a restatement of the premises. So if there was only one premise the conclusion could at best be it written somewhat differently. For instance,

P1: Socrates is a man

The premise can't tell you Socrates is mortal. The only way to analytically reformulate the statement and have it be true and justified would be if the conclusion was say "One man is Socrates" or something. If you want to get anything else out of it you have to enter another premise. Like:

P2: All men are mortal

Now you can deduce the hidden conclusion in the two premises, that Socrates is mortal. Without at least two premises though it would be impossible.

Ok, cheers. :) I thought this is how it would work. I'd never seen arguments (other than tautologies) that consist of one premise and it confused me.
Tautologies aren't arguments BUT an argument can be tautological (ie. circular.) For example, "existence exists" is a tautology but it is not an argument.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 6:13:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 8:38:01 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 9/28/2012 5:00:14 PM, jedipengiun wrote:
So I've just had my first Mind, Reason and Reality lecture today and I cuoldn't quite put my finger on something that I'd always considered to be true.
Does an Argument have to have two premises or more?

For example, he said this was an (invalid) Argument.
"Resulting from the fact that all dogs are mammals, all dogs have teeth."
The only premise here that seems implied is that Dogs are mammals. With the conclusion being Dogs have teeth.
(p1) - All dogs are mammals
--------------------------------
(c) - Therefore dogs have teeth.

Should there not be a second premise "All mammals have teeth" Does the word Resulting have anything to do with it, I could understand it so then.
I can't understand how a conclusion can follow only one premise,
Any help? :)

It seems you're missing a premise. The argument should look like this:

p1 -- All dogs are mammals.
p2 -- All mammals have teeth.
C -- Therefore, all dogs have teeth.

Although this seems to be a valid argument. I'm not sure why your teacher said it's invalid. It's certainly not a sound argument. Whales are mammals but not all whales have teeth.

P2 is invalid. Not all mammals have teeth.
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 6:30:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oops. it"s unsound, not invalid.
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 10:30:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 6:13:13 AM, Muted wrote:
At 10/2/2012 8:38:01 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 9/28/2012 5:00:14 PM, jedipengiun wrote:
So I've just had my first Mind, Reason and Reality lecture today and I cuoldn't quite put my finger on something that I'd always considered to be true.
Does an Argument have to have two premises or more?

For example, he said this was an (invalid) Argument.
"Resulting from the fact that all dogs are mammals, all dogs have teeth."
The only premise here that seems implied is that Dogs are mammals. With the conclusion being Dogs have teeth.
(p1) - All dogs are mammals
--------------------------------
(c) - Therefore dogs have teeth.

Should there not be a second premise "All mammals have teeth" Does the word Resulting have anything to do with it, I could understand it so then.
I can't understand how a conclusion can follow only one premise,
Any help? :)

It seems you're missing a premise. The argument should look like this:

p1 -- All dogs are mammals.
p2 -- All mammals have teeth.
C -- Therefore, all dogs have teeth.

Although this seems to be a valid argument. I'm not sure why your teacher said it's invalid. It's certainly not a sound argument. Whales are mammals but not all whales have teeth.

P2 is invalid. Not all mammals have teeth.

Really? Which one's do not?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 5:54:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 5:16:30 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Logical arguments are analytic, <(XD)

meaning the conclusion is simply a restatement of the premises. So if there was only one premise the conclusion could at best be it written somewhat differently. For instance,

P1: Socrates is a man

The premise can't tell you Socrates is mortal. The only way to analytically reformulate the statement and have it be true and justified would be if the conclusion was say "One man is Socrates" or something. If you want to get anything else out of it you have to enter another premise. Like:

P2: All men are mortal

Now you can deduce the hidden conclusion in the two premises, that Socrates is mortal. Without at least two premises though it would be impossible.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 6:25:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 10:30:55 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/9/2012 6:13:13 AM, Muted wrote:
At 10/2/2012 8:38:01 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 9/28/2012 5:00:14 PM, jedipengiun wrote:
So I've just had my first Mind, Reason and Reality lecture today and I cuoldn't quite put my finger on something that I'd always considered to be true.
Does an Argument have to have two premises or more?

For example, he said this was an (invalid) Argument.
"Resulting from the fact that all dogs are mammals, all dogs have teeth."
The only premise here that seems implied is that Dogs are mammals. With the conclusion being Dogs have teeth.
(p1) - All dogs are mammals
--------------------------------
(c) - Therefore dogs have teeth.

Should there not be a second premise "All mammals have teeth" Does the word Resulting have anything to do with it, I could understand it so then.
I can't understand how a conclusion can follow only one premise,
Any help? :)

It seems you're missing a premise. The argument should look like this:

p1 -- All dogs are mammals.
p2 -- All mammals have teeth.
C -- Therefore, all dogs have teeth.

Although this seems to be a valid argument. I'm not sure why your teacher said it's invalid. It's certainly not a sound argument. Whales are mammals but not all whales have teeth.

P2 is invalid. Not all mammals have teeth.

Really? Which one's do not?

LOL...I just realized that error. Apologies. That is a real BIG mistake
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 8:29:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Another premise you have to analyze is having teeth is a temporary thing, it is not permanent, conditional logic..........

Teeth are able to be lost.......
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 9:37:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Whether we are now providing logical reasoning through premises and conclusion, deduction and induction or any other possible reasoning. But, ...

What is thinking?

- Thinking is activity(ies) that typically by associating and connecting (whether emotionally or not) among associated, then tracing limits between them.

And something was logic because our thinking found connections (whether emotionally or not). That's why sometimes we saw people did something to be considered "not logic" (emotionally), but for them, they did reasonably. It's because they found connections. But for others they did improperly (not logic) just merely because of comparison to the specific ethics or morality or general assumptions (it doesn't have to be like that, etc ...).
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!