the issue is that maybe Y really is part of objective logic but X doesn’t know it. — Need Logic Help
“P1: X cares about objective logic, P2: X does not care about Y, C: Y is not included in objective logic” — Need Logic Help
That's a good point. How do you think that the first premise could be more clearly stated? — Need Logic Help
Dillahunty makes a logical error here because he presents the argument “P1: X cares about objective logic, P2: X does not care about Y, C: Y is not included in objective logic”, but imagine the argument “P3: Lois Lane believes Superman can fly, P4: Lois Lane does not believe Clark Kent can fly, C: Clark Kent is not Superman”—the issue is that maybe Y really is part of objective logic but X doesn’t know it. — Need Logic Help
So does P1 fail or does it not? If it fails, why? — Need Logic Help
"There are more objective logics in heaven and earth than are cared about in X's philosophy." — bongo fury
If not, why not? — Need Logic Help
If P1/P2 are correct in what you laid out, — Need Logic Help
then does C follow? — Need Logic Help
If not, — Need Logic Help
doesn't there need to be some error of logic? — Need Logic Help
And if P3/P4 are correct in what you laid out, then does C follow? If not, doesn't there need to be some error of logic? — Need Logic Help
Thanks! This is interesting. Curious to see what the other users in this thread think of your breakdown!
Can you explain the two tests that you performed? — Need Logic Help
Dillahunty's argument
P1: All things X cares about are things that are logically objective
P2: No things X cares about are things identical to Y
Ergo,
C. No things that are logically objective are things identical to Y
Tests for validity of Dillahunty's argument:
1. Distributed middle term test: Passed
2. Distributed conclusion test: Fail. The category "things that are logically objective", distributed in the conclusion, isn't distributed in the premises. It should be if the argument is to be valid.
Dillahunty's argument is invalid. — TheMadFool
What if you say that you like ALL fruit, I mean, and not tomatoes, and then find out that tomatoes are fruit. — Need Logic Help
I guess that we need to know exactly what argument Matt was presenting. Right? — Need Logic Help
P1: All things X cares about are things that are logically objective — TheMadFool
C follows, unless you want to get bogged down in a bigger and more controversial logic (one of belief). — bongo fury
If it is true that Tom cares about all objective truths, and also true that Tom does not care about Y, then we can conclude that Y is not an objective truth. — Bartricks
If - if - Dilahunty made this argument:
1. If P then Q
2. Not Q
3. Therefore not P
Then his argument was valid. — Bartricks
The superman example is different. — Bartricks
thinking in the same way as Aristotle (roughly 2 millennia ago) and Gottlob Frege (approximately a century ago). That's like going to a modern pharmacy with a prescription made out by none other than Hippocrates — TheMadFool
No, it's like knowing what you're talking about. — bongo fury
And how exactly does the fallacy of division apply to Matt's argument? — Need Logic Help
Thanks! Are these two tests commonly performed in logic? — Need Logic Help
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.