![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Originally posted by Vagrant Zero
Read what I said a bit closer, I was refuting the argument posted above my own inductively. I wasn't making a deductive one of my own, hence the I THINK in my 'conclusion'. Again, decent reading comprehension is a plus when dealing with Symbolic Logic. Actually, knowing Symbolic Logic is plus when dealing with Symbolic Logic.
It is called a non-argumentative refutation [though well presume to be an argument structured inductively for the sake of argumentation]. Its primary purpose is to more or less poke holes in another argument without actually strutting the refutation in a premise/conclusion format and thus leaving it open to the same tactics. Secondly, would it have been in an actual premise/conclusion format, it would have been an ANALOGICAL ARGUMENT, and thus a fallacy by definition [Appeal to Analogy]. There is no such fallacy as a 'hasty generalization'. Genius.
I suppose I should bring it to your minuscule attention that there is no such thing as inductive validity and therefore an inductive argument cannot be valid or invalid. Let us see what THE LOGIC BOOK [Bergmann, Moor, and Nelson] Third Edition has to say about inductive arguments.
An argument that is not deductively valid can still be a useful argument. The premises can make the conclusion likely even though not certain. Such arguments are said to have inductive strength, the strength being proportional to the degree of probability the premises lend to the conclusion. An argument has inductive strength to the extent that the conclusion is probable given the premises.
But since that aforementioned tiny mind of yours would probably balk at having to decipher Predicate Logic, Im going to do you a favor and limit it to Sentential Logic which is ill-equipped for inductive arguments, but again, I dont want to confuse you, you do that to yourself adequately enough.
We will use the following as our UD [Universe of Discourse]
A = Adam [Vagrant Zero is a net handle you dunce]
H = Human
B = Invalid argument [the inclusion of the word most would nullify any inductive strength the argument would have had as an inductive argument by depiction is not required to consider all possible premise to conclusion scenarios as it does not have to adhere to the validity standards of deductive arguments, in other words you were being redundant and I chose not to make your mistake]
C = Adam made an invalid argument [you made the same mistake here as you did in the second premise, namely the inclusion of the tertiary variable probably]
We will also use the following as our computer SD counterparts.
& = Conjunction
|v| = Disjunction [Inclusive]
Horseshoe = Conditional
Tripple-Bar = Bi-Conditional
The argument you tried to make but failed miserably at:
H [Horseshoe] B
A [&] H {note that AND is being used in place of IS as SD does not support the syntax}
--
(A [&] H) [Horseshoe] B
That is what the argument would look like if it was in SD format. Of course the argument is invalid since the proper substitution from premise 2 to conclusion is the Conditional and not the Bi-Conditional. The Bi-Conditional however would make the argument unsound (not invalid), and when were dealing with inductive forms soundness is far more important considering validity does not exist for such forms.
Firstly, as Ive mentioned before [as have Bergmann, Moor, and Nelson] inductive arguments do NOT have a measure of validity. Thus pointing out that C does not follow from A is like telling Bill Gates that hes rich, its unnecessary and adds nothing to the conversation short of promoting your inadequacies [which would take you all day]. Secondly, to put it mildly, I would be affronted if someone of your caliber were to agree with me on anything. It would also likely make me reconsider my stance on the matter. Lastly, fallacious argumentation is a by-product of the constitution of deductive validity, but as you have so plainly pointed out, were not dealing with a deductive argument. Thus, I suggest that you not use philosophical terms that are beyond you [which would be all of them]. I also do find it funny how you bemoan my use of fallacies [of which I made none] while correcting me with a few of your own, most notably Argumentum ad logicam or:
The "fallacy fallacy" of arguing that a proposition is false because it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument. Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions. Example:
"Take the fraction 16/64. Now, canceling a six on top and a six on the bottom, we get that 16/64 = 1/4."
"Wait a second! You can't just cancel the six!"
"Oh, so you're telling us 16/64 is not equal to 1/4, are you?"
Instead of spending time 'owning' people on the net, you should maybe consider actually TAKING the course, that way you wont come off sounding like a complete ignoramus to someone who has.
Edit: No Vagrant Zeros, Adams, Humans, or Invalid arguments were harmed in the making of this pwnage. Well, ok maybe just the humans that told me majoring in Philosophy would not benefit me in any way.
sigh... I didn't read most of this dribble. I bow down to your superior intellect. I obviously never took Proof and Persuasion.
gobbledygook! gobbledygook!edit: nice mugshot
edit2: nice unibrow
edit3: shit, this is personal attack isn't it? sigh
