Fallacy of Validity

[Speakpigeon]

Please provide an authoritative reference.
EB

And since you claim that you trust your "intuition":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic

Irrelevant.
No mention of fallacy of validity.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

Do you want me to edit the wikipedia article and add the word "validity" in there, or can you actually use your own brain?

If you can't articulate your point, nobody is going to do it for you.
EB

[Logik]

Please provide an authoritative reference.
EB

And since you claim that you trust your "intuition":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic

Irrelevant.
No mention of fallacy of validity.
EB

Have you checked in the Bible maybe?

[Logik]

Do you want me to edit the wikipedia article and add the word "validity" in there, or can you actually use your own brain?

If you can't articulate your point, nobody is going to do it for you.
EB

If you can't parse the criteria for inductive and deductive reasoning by yourself, nobody is going to do it for you either.

There is a clear distinction between induction and deduction. Can you see it ?

it's in the definition!

I neither want to, nor have to articulate my point. You aren't paying me to educate you. I am doing you a favour by pointing you to reading given the gaps in your knowledge I am spotting.

Take it or leave it.

[Speakpigeon]

Take it or leave it.

I leave it.
EB

[Logik]

Take it or leave it.

I leave it.
EB

I expected nothing less from a dogmatist.

[Speakpigeon]

Do you want me to edit the wikipedia article and add the word "validity" in there, or can you actually use your own brain?

If you can't articulate your point, nobody is going to do it for you.
EB

If you can't parse the criteria for inductive and deductive reasoning by yourself, nobody is going to do it for you either. There is a clear distinction between induction and deduction. Can you see it ? it's in the definition! I neither want to, nor have to articulate my point. You aren't paying me to educate you. I am doing you a favour by pointing you to reading given the gaps in your knowledge I am spotting. Take it or leave it.

You're the believer. So, I asked you to prove God exists. But all you did so far is refer me to the Bible.
I'm asking you to articulate your point. If you can't, then you have no point. Simple.
EB

[Logik]

If you can't articulate your point, nobody is going to do it for you.
EB

If you can't parse the criteria for inductive and deductive reasoning by yourself, nobody is going to do it for you either. There is a clear distinction between induction and deduction. Can you see it ? it's in the definition! I neither want to, nor have to articulate my point. You aren't paying me to educate you. I am doing you a favour by pointing you to reading given the gaps in your knowledge I am spotting. Take it or leave it.

You're the believer. So, I asked you to prove God exists. But all you did so far is refer me to the Bible.
I'm asking you to articulate your point. If you can't, then you have no point. Simple.
EB

How articulate would you like my point to be?

What you are really doing is asking me to explain it in a way you can understand it.

Before I can do that constructively you need to drop your ego and stop trying to measure your dick.

You don’t know the first thing when it comes to intuitive logic.

I have more knowledge than you. And I am far more skilled at being an asshole.

Do you want to “win an argument” or learn something?

[Speakpigeon]

Do you want to “win an argument” or learn something?

I'm asking you to articulate your point. If you can't, then you have no point. Simple.
EB

[Logik]

Do you want to “win an argument” or learn something?

I'm asking you to articulate your point. If you can't, then you have no point. Simple.
EB

You are asking me to articulate the error you are making.

If I can’t articulate it, you are still making an error.

For starters - throw away LEM.

[Speakpigeon]

Asked you what's your point long enough.
No reply.
I guess I have to accept you don't have any.
I think I can live with that.
EB

[Logik]

Asked you what's your point long enough.
No reply.
I guess I have to accept you don't have any.
I think I can live with that.
EB

I articulated it in formal logic.
I pointed you to references.
I explained to you why in this universe deduction is impossible and that you are mistaking Induction for deduction.

At some point I must conclude that there is no pleasing you.

Do you even know what evidence you require to be convinced?

[Speakpigeon]

Asked you what's your point long enough.
No reply.
I guess I have to accept you don't have any.
I think I can live with that.
EB

I articulated it in formal logic.

Your formal logic was flawed and I have shown you it was flawed.

I pointed you to references.

Reference that doesn't address the question of validity in relation to empirical evidence.

I explained to you why in this universe deduction is impossible and that you are mistaking Induction for deduction.

No, you didn't.
You've appeared to think that there's a problem between our logical notion of implication and empirical evidence but you haven't articulated any coherent point in relation to that. Until you articulate a coherent point, there's no rational debate possible. Your call.

At some point I must conclude that there is no pleasing you.
Do you even know what evidence you require to be convinced?

Yes, that you articulate a coherent point.
EB

[Logik]

Your formal logic was flawed and I have shown you it was flawed.

It wasn't.

You think you understand logic.
I think you don't.

How are we going to overcome this disagreement?

No, you didn't.
You've appeared to think that there's a problem between our logical notion of implication and empirical evidence but you haven't articulated any coherent point in relation to that. Until you articulate a coherent point, there's no rational debate possible. Your call.

Naturally. We can't even even agree on the correctness of logical expressions, you think we can agree via free-form argumentation. Nah.
Coming to consensus with idiots is too much effort for Saturday evening.

You go and demonstrate what you think is valid deduction and I will provide falsification.

Yes, that you articulate a coherent point.

Which part of "'deductive logic is impossible in this universe?" is incoherent to you?

[Speakpigeon]

You go and demonstrate what you think is valid deduction and I will provide falsification.

I already asked you to explain how the modus tollens would be wrong or could be somehow empirically falsified a you seem to believe. I'm still waiting.
Still, here are a few. Pick the one you fancy, but only one and make it short and not typo this time:

¬¬A ⊢ A
A ⊢ ¬¬A
A ∧ A ⊢ A
A ∨ A ⊢ A
⊢ A ∨ ¬A
⊢ ¬(A ∧ ¬A)
A ∧ A ⊢ A ∨ A
A ∨ A ⊢ A ∧ A
A ∧ B ⊢ A
A ∧ B ⊢ B
A ⊢ A ∨ B
B ⊢ A ∨ B
A ∧ B ⊢ A ∨ B
(A → B) ∧ (B → A) ⊢ A ≡ B
(A → B) ∧ (B → C) ⊢ A → C
(A ∨ B) ∧ (¬A ∨ C) ⊢ B ∨ C

I fear the worst.
EB