Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Doesn’t matter my credible definition still says otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If that’s the case then why was I able to find it in a general dictionary?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not according to the dictionary which defines valid as (of an argument or point) having a SOUND basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Yes, not all valid statements are necessarily sound.
Not according to the dictionary which defines valid as (of an argument or point) having a SOUND basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
i agree
Then why’d you say
Valid (only "true" conditionally or hypothetically)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
HYPOTHETICAL LOGICAL-NECESSITY and ACTUALLOGICAL-NECESSITY are NOT the same.
I didn’t say they were, if your arguing that the term valid is only limited to hypotheticals then that’s not true, it applies to EVERYTHING that’s true, your never going to find in any dictionary valid being defined by hypotheticals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
SOME AXIOMS ARE NOT LOGICALLY NECESSARY.
Once you add “IF” to the equation even the impossible is possible making anything logically necessary under that “IF” circumstance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Theirs no certainty in regards to what ifs so proof isn’t necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I read that the first time you posted it, you reposting it doesn’t make it valid/sound.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Typically, you paid attention to the bits that suited your argument and ignored the bits that didn't.
Did I ignore this too?
Check synonyms under the second definition for adjectives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
unless it is both Valid and Sound.
Which is always.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It was not so don't trouble yourself.
...🤔 That’s funny because last time that I checked 3RU7AL never said
It’s true under those circumstances.
I however did, so I find it interesting how I can live in your head rent free to the point of quoting me when addressing someone else, 😂 you say don’t trouble yourself but apparently I was worth the trouble of being quoted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's only "true" in the context of the hypothetical.
Ergo “under those circumstances”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Assuming that was for me, the answer is no. I said it before and I’ll say it again valid and sound are synonymous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
This is NOT a SOUND argument (because the premises are not TRUE).
It’s true under those circumstances.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So if said argument relates to something that is unprovable or unknowable, an existent God or an objective morality for example.
How do you know this?
Then all arguments are actually unsound, irrespective of what may or may not be conclusive.
This makes no sense, conclusive arguments are also sound arguments.
In these circumstances any sincere argument is valid but not sound. Nonetheless that does not imply that an argument in itself is not reasonable, and in this respect sound.
You just contradicted one minute you say “but not sound” and in the next breath you say “in this respect sound” which one is it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Note that an unsound argument may have a true or a false conclusion.
...So? I said nothing about a conclusion only the argument, you’re conflating a separate narrative, and on a last note an invalid argument may also have a true or false conclusion so you’ve failed to make a point in terms of differentiating the two.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Moreover I have supplied a definition which is specific.
So have I, and unlike yours it’s supported through the dictionary.
If you understand my definitions
If your definitions contrasts valid and sound then there’s nothing to understand because your definitions are wrong period.
your behavior is not improved I am going to assume any refusal of my specific definitions as you wishing to discontinue our conversation.
In regards to this discussion I don’t need to improve a damn thing, you’re the one that conceded which is an improvement on your end, and you can assume all you want but you know what they say when you assume.
When you are ready to compromise
I don’t have to compromise when I’m right, you being wrong as much as you are it’s understandable why compromise is your goal. Lastly I don’t care if you respond or not, you still conceded at the end of the day and that’s good enough for me ✌🏾 .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
And I am informing you before you accuse me of not knowing the differences between terms (even though they’re synonymous) maybe you should get your facts straight and utilize the internet because by the looks of it you don’t have the slightest clue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well Google didn’t use those definitions you provided.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Your wrong on so many levels, first of all, all sound arguments are valid AND all valid arguments are sound. Second those definitions just like the words are synonymous. Third any novice can say Google but unless you cite the source it means nothing, although I have no qualms with that definition. Fourth, all I said was those words were synonymous and now you want to add extra variables to the equation because you can’t handle the fact that your wrong once again. Lastly, you conceded dude end of story.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
https://www.lexico.com/definition/sound
Under the second definition for adjectives you can see the synonyms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No they are not. Validity refers to the structure of an argument
Yes they are. If validity refers to the structure of an argument then what does invalidity refer to?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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 ✌🏾.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please just re-state your current argument in your own words.
No
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Coming from the guy that ASKED ME what valid meant, nonetheless you still conceded so YOUR THE ONE that’s bad at this 😛 .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Bad at what? Knowing a concession when I see one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Nah, you conceded that’s good enough for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
There’s no correlation between this dog syllogism and the one I constructed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Then please supply/paraphrase the entirety of my statement
Nah, you conceded that’s good enough for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
To read my mind
Your mind no, your quotes yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I did not concede to your argument
Yes, you did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
And I’m already happy with your concession.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You don’t need to make YOUR OWN syllogism to understand MY ARGUMENT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
My point is having desire makes no sense and judging by this quote
having that desire makes no sense
you agree, I rest my case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You already conceded to my argument several posts back so I basically got what I wanted from you already, have a nice day ✌🏾 .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
For arguments sake I’ll ride with that, let’s move on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If we are not accepting any definition of any word
Don’t be dramatic, I didn’t say ANY word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
but you offered a specific definition (thank you).
And I later said to forget about the definition (or any definition for that matter) not that it’s subjective but to just forget about all of it all together for arguments sake.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Not at all.
Then keep the same energy in regards to this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That logic is incredibly flawed, so if you have your own preferences pertaining to music and you ask me mine and I opt not to discuss it in your mind that means I agree with you? You’re even more far gone than I thought because that makes absolutely no sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You observe me saying the words “I concede” or anything remotely close? I’m sure you don’t so unless you have a direct quote then like I said before it’s a flat out lie period.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So far every definition presented leads unequivocally to meaning being subjective.
I never conceded to this, so once again that’s another flat out lie you told.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If we fundamentally disagree on what meaning is how shall we resolve the issue?
By not discussing it, especially since I’m no longer arguing in favor of objective meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The second subset of the noun meaning is most relevant to the context of this discussion, important or worthwhile quality; purpose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What is MEANT by a word, text, concept, or action is by definition dependent on the mind or an individual's perception for their existences.
No it’s not.
Created: