Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/20/04 1:09pm
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "This is how it seems to me" on 03/19/04 11:18am
>It seems to me that you two rascals are simply
>fighting two different battles. On one hand, we have
>Wade asserting that his argument is sound as long as
>the conclusion logically follows from the premises and
>the premises are good. This is true. In the system
>of deductive arguments that we humans have created,
>Wade is operating nicely.
>
>On the other hand, we have Damoclese, who seems to be
>approaching it from a more practical standpoint, by
>which I mean he feels that if he agrees that this is a
>sound argument, he must also be agreeing that what the
>argument says has to be true in reality.
>
>As I see it, Wade's argument is sound and coherent,
>but this does not in any way imply that I must agree
>that his conclusion must be true in reality.
Hmm, sounds like I need to introduce a bit of logic terminology. Valid just means that, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. A sound argument is one that is both valid and has all true premises. Is the argument valid? Yes, I've proved it. Is the argument sound? I don't have a formal proof for that, but if it isn't sound the only way the conclusion can be false is if one of the premises are false.
To me, the weakest part of the whole argument is the first premise. Attacking that seems to be the best way to refute the argument (if it does fail).
>His
>conclusion is true within the parameters of deductive
>arguments, and it is wise to remember that humans
>invented this system of thought. Although I generally
>think it is a good system, our thinking can never
>shape reality. We can only discover what is already
>there. And, as we all know, when it comes to hazy
>issues such as infinity (and beyond), things on paper
>and even in our minds often fail to deliver clear
>results.
I think that is true, provided the reasoning is unsound. But if a valid deductive argument doesn't work there has to be something wrong with the premises. (Hence my question, "which premise fails and why?")
>Perhaps it would help for Damoclese to admit that
>Wade's argument is sound, which I think he believes,
>but to clarify that this does not create in him a need
>to believe that this must be true in reality.
I'd modify that, replacing sound with valid, unless Damoclese chooses to accept that an infinite past does not exist. One could accept that an argument is valid yet thinking that it is unsound and yet not know any clear reason why a premise(s) fails. (I have a similar relationship with the ontological argument, if it's any comfort.)
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 