-->
@secularmerlin
You don’t need to make YOUR OWN syllogism to understand MY ARGUMENT.
Our most basic axioms
Posts
Total:
1,302
-->
@Tarik
You don’t need to make YOUR OWN syllogism to understand MY ARGUMENT.
Are you now proposing to read my mind? To know what I understand and to what degree better than I do?
-->
@secularmerlin
Are you now proposing to read my mind? To know what I understand and to what degree better than I do?
No, considering the narrative is MY ARGUMENT I am however proposing to read MY OWN MIND, with that being said I know what’s necessary to understand MY ARGUMENT and it’s NOT YOU making YOUR OWN syllogism period.
-->
@Tarik
No, considering the narrative is MY ARGUMENT I am however proposing to read MY OWN MIND, with that being said I know what’s necessary to understand it and it’s NOT YOU making YOUR OWN syllogism period.
I would be happy to evaluate any syllogism you would care to construct.
They go
IF a THEN b
IF premise THEN conclusion
-->
@secularmerlin
And I’m already happy with your concession.
-->
@Tarik
I did not concede to your argument I was trying to evaluate it. To see what the practical implications are. IF your argument (such as I understand it) is valid THEN you should not care about any life including your own and yet I wager you do in reality care about life very much. This suggests that YOU are experiencing some cognitive dissonance. We cannot move past this issue until the dissonance is resolved.
-->
@secularmerlin
I did not concede to your argument
Yes, you did.
-->
@Tarik
So now you propose to know my own position better than I do? To read my mind and know what I am really prepared to agree to even when I patiently explain that you are incorrect?
-->
@secularmerlin
To read my mind
Your mind no, your quotes yes.
-->
@Tarik
Then please supply/paraphrase the entirety of my statement and not just the logical conclusion of my best understanding of YOUR PREMISE.
IF all dogs are blue AND IF you have a dog THEN you have a blue dog.
This is not a concession that you own a blue canine it is a logical syllogism in which the conclusion is logically derived from the premises. If the conclusion is incorrect then the trouble is actually with the premises.
-->
@secularmerlin
Then please supply/paraphrase the entirety of my statement
Nah, you conceded that’s good enough for me.
-->
@Tarik
IF all dogs are blue AND IF you have a dog THEN you have a blue dog.
This is not a concession that you own a blue canine it is a logical syllogism in which the conclusion is logically derived from the premises. If the conclusion is incorrect then the trouble is actually with the premises.
-->
@secularmerlin
There’s no correlation between this dog syllogism and the one I constructed.
-->
@Tarik
You haven't constructed any full syllogisms that are logically necessary whatever as yet.
-->
@Tarik
Would you mind terribly putting our current discussion on the back burner? I'd really like to talk with you about what makes an argument valid and how to structure one. I think it might make worlds of difference in any discussions we have moving forward.
-->
@secularmerlin
Nah, you conceded that’s good enough for me.
-->
@Tarik
Ok have a nice day then. If you ever want to stop being real bad at this let me know.
-->
@secularmerlin
Bad at what? Knowing a concession when I see one?
-->
@Tarik
Bad at what?
At forming and recognizing valid arguments.
At formulating and recognizing sound arguments.
At recognizing the difference between valid and sound.
At recognizing premises and differentiating them from conclusions.
At forming and evaluating syllogisms.
Really just doing this in general.
Look this isn't about your bad argument, although it is bad, and it isn't about arguing in bad faith although you have, it is about giving you this skills necessary to participate effectively on this platform at all.
If that is what you want let me know but we are going to discuss the basics of logic and argumentation before we discuss anything else.
-->
@Tarik
Instead of accepting my premise and conclusion at face value you run with your own and claim it’s based on mine (which it isn’t) that’s what’s wrong.
Please just re-state your current argument in your own words.
-->
@3RU7AL
Instead of accepting my premise and conclusion at face value you run with your own and claim it’s based on mine (which it isn’t) that’s what’s wrong.Please just re-state your current argument in your own words.
That is apparently problematic as is making any logical inferences from any argument that your interlocutor has not explicitly already made. At least Tarik has objected to my following one logical conclusion of the idea that if we cannot prove that our lives are objectively meaningful to him that we should no longer care about our lives. I think what he objected to was being held to the same standard although I'm not sure as he claimed I was lying instead of examining the structure of my argument for flaws.
-->
@secularmerlin
Coming from the guy that ASKED ME what valid meant, nonetheless you still conceded so YOUR THE ONE that’s bad at this 😛 .
-->
@3RU7AL
Please just re-state your current argument in your own words.
No
-->
@Tarik
Coming from the guy that ASKED ME what valid meant
How else am I to know if you understand the term and are using it properly in the context. The problem was your using the word to describe something other than an argument and you seemed to be confused and using valid to mean sound and also to want to skip having a sound argument.
Look it's none of my business and you are not obligated to improve but if you would like to I don't think taking the time to help you improve would be time wasted on my part.
The purpose of a debate or philosophical discussion is to determine firstly what is logically valid and secondly if the valid argument is sound. ONLY once both these criteria are met can we determine a conclusion to be "correct".
Until you know how to evaluate an argument's structure you cannot be certain of its validity and the process stops there.
-->
@3RU7AL
Please just re-state your current argument in your own words.No
Reasonable expectations based on past experience allowed me to predict this post.
-->
@secularmerlin
How else am I to know if you understand the term and are using it properly in the context. The problem was your using the word to describe something other than an argument and you seemed to be confused and using valid to mean sound and also to want to skip having a sound argument.
I can say the same back to you, that YOU DON’T understand the term and YOU AREN’T using it properly in the context. Validity isn’t limited to just arguments. Lastly valid and sound are synonymous (and you accuse me of being pedantic smh).
Reasonable expectations based on past experience allowed me to predict this post.
Well I predicted your concession so I guess we’re both psychic 😛 .
help you improve
There’s nothing to improve on, you conceded case closed ✌🏾.
-->
@Tarik
valid and sound are synonymous (and you accuse me of being pedantic smh).
No they are not. Validity refers to the structure of an argument, soundness refers to the truth value of its conclusion. They are separate though related terms.
-->
@Tarik
There’s nothing to improve on, you conceded case closed
Tarik is the winner!!!
-->
@3RU7AL
Tarik is the winner!!!
Hurray for Calvin Ball!!!