Page 2 of 3
Re: Poll on the soundness of an argument about what a buoy does
Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:04 pm
by FlashDangerpants
Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:12 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:39 pm
If you want your collection of statements to add up to a deductive argument that could be valid you must formulate it such that the conclusion is dependent on the premises.
That is necessary but insufficient.
You must also structure the argument in such a way so that it's
impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true.
As soon as you produce such an argument, please claim your Nobel Prize in Physics for having discovered The Theory of Everything.
Good point. When you persuade SpankPenguin that the therefore must act as a
turnstile and indicate actual entailment, you probably deserve a prize yourself.
Re: Poll on the soundness of an argument about what a buoy does
Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:53 pm
by Skip
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:04 pm
This thread is explicitly about the soundness of the argument, not the soundness of Speakpigeon.
I suspect they're the same. There is no argument, just a bunch of indefinite suppositions.
If you can't get yourself to address the topic, go play in the courtyard.
Exactly!
Re: Poll on the soundness of an argument about what a buoy does
Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:55 pm
by Speakpigeon
This thread is a poll on the
soundness of a logical argument.
Here is the argument:
For all we know, a wave may be the state of some water in the sea;
What the buoy does is determined by the state of some water in the sea;
Therefore, for all we know, what the buoy does may be determined by a wave.
Is this argument
sound?
Thank you to vote before posting any comment here.
You will be able to change your vote if need be.
EB
Re: Poll on the soundness of an argument about what a buoy does
Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:58 pm
by Speakpigeon
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 1:49 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
An argument has a definitive conclusion to it but that one does not so its not an argument as such
The definitive conclusion is that therefore for all we know what the buoy does may be determined by a wave
The phrase
for all we know is the opposite of definitive and so the conclusion cannot be described as such
OK, this certainly shows either you don't understand English or you don't speak English.
So, from now on, please ignore my threads.
EB
Re: Poll on the soundness of an argument about what a buoy does
Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:04 pm
by Speakpigeon
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:39 pm
Sure those statements are true. But it makes no difference because this statement is true with or without them.
- for all we know, what the buoy does may be determined by a wave.
Deductive validity can only apply to deductions. Putting "therefore" in front of a statement that is true in it's own right does not make it a deduction from previous statements. That is an act of blatant misdirection.
If you want your collection of statements to add up to a deductive argument that could be valid you must formulate it such that the conclusion is dependent on the premises.
This thread is about the validity of the argument, not whether the argument is useful.
If you can't address the thread's question, you can leave.
From what you say here, it is obvious you haven't a clue what is a deductive argument and what is the validity of such.
It's up to you to articulate why the argument is or isn't valid.
Short of that, this is a derail.
EB
Re: Poll on the soundness of an argument about what a buoy does
Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:50 pm
by Logik
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:04 pm
it is obvious you haven't a clue what is a deductive argument and what is the validity of such.
Neither do you. You are yet to demonstrate one.
And you still haven't stepped up to the $100 challenge.
P1. If you are right, then you will win $100
P2. You believe to be right
C So you should be winning $100
As easy as deduction!
Re: Poll on the soundness of an argument about what a buoy does
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:32 pm
by Speakpigeon
Here is the OP again for those who are prepared to argue their point:
This thread is a poll on the
soundness of a logical argument.
Here is the argument:
For all we know, a wave may be the state of some water in the sea;
What the buoy does is determined by the state of some water in the sea;
Therefore, for all we know, what the buoy does may be determined by a wave.
Is this argument
sound?
Thank you to vote before posting any comment here.
You will be able to change your vote if need be.
EB
Re: Poll on the soundness of an argument about what a buoy does
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:56 pm
by surreptitious57
Speakpigeon wrote:
For all we know a wave may be the state of some water in the sea
What the buoy does is determined by the state of some water in the sea
Therefore for all we know what the buoy does may be determined by a wave
Is this argument sound
No that argument is not sound and neither is this one
A wave is the state of water in the sea
What the buoy does is determined by the state of the water
So therefore what the buoy does is determined by the wave
Re: Poll on the soundness of an argument about what a buoy does
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:58 pm
by Age
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:32 pm
Here is the OP again for those who are prepared to argue their point:
This thread is a poll on the
soundness of a logical argument.
Here is the argument:
For all we know, a wave may be the state of some water in the sea;
What the buoy does is determined by the state of some water in the sea;
Therefore, for all we know, what the buoy does may be determined by a wave.
Is this argument
sound?
No.
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:32 pmThank you to vote before posting any comment here.
You will be able to change your vote if need be.
EB
Re: Poll on the soundness of an argument about what a buoy does
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:21 pm
by Speakpigeon
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:56 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
For all we know a wave may be the state of some water in the sea
What the buoy does is determined by the state of some water in the sea
Therefore for all we know what the buoy does may be determined by a wave
Is this argument sound
No that argument is not sound
Why is it not sound?
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:56 pm and neither is this one
A wave is the state of water in the sea
What the buoy does is determined by the state of the water
So therefore what the buoy does is determined by the wave
Irrelevant.
Your argument has not the same logical form as my own.
EB
Re: Poll on the soundness of an argument about what a buoy does
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:23 pm
by Speakpigeon
Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:58 pm
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:32 pm
For all we know, a wave may be the state of some water in the sea;
What the buoy does is determined by the state of some water in the sea;
Therefore, for all we know, what the buoy does may be determined by a wave.
Is this argument
sound?
No.
So, why?
Can you explain?
EB
Re: Poll on the soundness of an argument about what a buoy does
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:28 pm
by Age
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:23 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:58 pm
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:32 pm
Is this argument
sound?
No.
So, why?
Can you explain?
EB
Yes.
The second sentence/premise is NOT necessarily true.
Re: Poll on the soundness of an argument about what a buoy does
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:30 pm
by surreptitious57
Speakpigeon wrote:
For all we know a wave may be the state of some water in the sea
What the buoy does is determined by the state of some water in the sea
Therefore for all we know what the buoy does may be determined by a wave
Is this argument sound
No that argument is not sound
It is not absolutely true both within and without the context of the argument as is required
As a sound argument has to be rigorous enough for there to be no alternative interpretation
Re: Poll on the soundness of an argument about what a buoy does
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:48 pm
by Speakpigeon
Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:28 pm
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:23 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:58 pm
No.
So, why?
Can you explain?
EB
Yes.
The second sentence/premise is NOT necessarily true.
OK, good point, but does that make the argument unsound? And why?
EB
Re: Poll on the soundness of an argument about what a buoy does
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:52 pm
by Speakpigeon
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:30 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
For all we know a wave may be the state of some water in the sea
What the buoy does is determined by the state of some water in the sea
Therefore for all we know what the buoy does may be determined by a wave
Is this argument sound
No that argument is not sound
It is not absolutely true both within and without the context of the argument as is required
You mean the premises are not true? Please clarify.
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:30 pmAs a sound argument has to be rigorous enough for there to be no
alternative interpretation
Just to claim it does isn't quite enough. You would need to articulate explicitly some "
alternative interpretation".
EB