The argument invalid. The middle term is not distributed (it should be). That's why you're able to construct a counter-example. — TheMadFool
You're comparing letters in the first example — Harry Hindu
comparing categories (animals) to elements of categories (cats and dogs) in the latter. Essentially, a, c and are being defined in the same way as animals and dogs and cats, so the relationship between the letters vs animals and dogs and cats are completely different. — Harry Hindu
What is the middle term, and how should it be distributed? Where is the counter-example? Could you elaborate with more details and examples? — Corvus
I thought they are great practices in the Critical Argument studies. It is certainly helping me understanding the topics more.
It depends on from what angle you are looking at anything. If you feel sh*t, then everything looks sh*t. You can criticise anything, if you want. But it is just a psychology, not the objects out there. — Corvus
How right you are. The angle makes all the difference. From a certain angle, shit looks like shit, from another angle, shit looks like... :chin: — TheMadFool
I thought for the fact that you replied to this thread with the good write up, you must also be very much interested in the topic, but what made you feel that way, I am lost. :) But never mind. I hope you feel better. — Corvus
Ranting! Venting! Blowing off steam! Sorry you had to see this! By the way, did I say anything even mildly inappropriate? Apologies if I did. — TheMadFool
I would go with that. :grin:On a more serious note, logic is logic's own worst enemy (it fails its own tests). That's the beauty! — TheMadFool
All d -> a (true)
All c -> a (true)
Therefore c = d (true)
Above logical arguments look OK in the symbols. But when they are put in with the real objects in the world, it leads to the wrong conclusion.
All dogs are animals. (true)
All cats are animals. (true)
Therefore cats are dogs (false)
What are the actual problems here? — Corvus
symbolic logic can be a bit inadequate for arriving at true conclusions, even if the arguments look valid and consistent. — Corvus
I will try to learn more about it through time with more practicing — Corvus
The logical calculus doesn't permit that inference so your example is irrelevant. — TonesInDeepFreeze
You gave examples of arguments that symbolic logic rules as invalid. That's not a problem for symbolic logic; it's only a problem for you if you think symbolic logic does rule those arguments as valid. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Its a good bet that, if you're not taking a class, then the best way to learn is from a good textbook.
'Logic: Techniques of Formal Reasoning' by Kalish, Montague, and Mar is the best introduction, in my opinion based on having looked at a lot of logic books. — TonesInDeepFreeze
When logic is used in the debates, the debaters might get a false sense of security that they might arrive at true conclusions because they are using logical methods. But in many cases, it is not the case. Because logic can hide the traps. Just guessing :DHow so? — TonesInDeepFreeze
Logic by Wilfrid HodgesWhich books are those? — TonesInDeepFreeze
When logic is used in the debates, the debaters might get a false sense of security that they might arrive at true conclusions because they are using logical methods. But in many cases, it is not the case. Because logic can hide the traps. — Corvus
Logic by Wilfrid Hodges
Introduction to Logic by Gensler — Corvus
You are quoting from someone who is ignorant. — TonesInDeepFreeze
there were parts that resonated with my feelings about the books. — Corvus
he reviewer didn't sound like a newbie (she has many Logic books, and read them all) — Corvus
You just quoted her about the ill-effects of emotion in arguments. Your feelings about the books don't make her arguments about them sound. — TonesInDeepFreeze
But the quoted parts are what I felt was good points. — Corvus
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.