Page 1 of 7
POLL 3 on the validity of a simple argument on Joe the Squid
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2019 4:02 pm
by Speakpigeon
This is a poll on the logical validity of the following argument:
A squid is not a giraffe
A giraffe is not an elephant
An elephant is not a squid
Joe is either a squid or a giraffe
Joe is an elephant
Therefore, Joe is a squid
Is this argument logically valid?
Either way, please articulate why.
EB
Re: POLL 3 on the validity of a simple argument on Joe the Squid
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2019 9:47 pm
by Skip
At last!! You've hit upon an argument that really schmecks.
Because it doesn't contain a maybe whatever if only we knew.
Re: POLL 3 on the validity of a simple argument on Joe the Squid
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:14 am
by Impenitent
therefore joe needs a tattoo
-Imp
Re: POLL 3 on the validity of a simple argument on Joe the Squid
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:12 am
by Skip
What, like giant Jesus on his back? Or snakes winding up all his tentacles. That be pretty cool.
Re: POLL 3 on the validity of a simple argument on Joe the Squid
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:05 am
by surreptitious57
The first four premises are logically valid in relation to each other but not the last premise or conclusion
Re: POLL 3 on the validity of a simple argument on Joe the Squid
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:49 am
by Speakpigeon
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:05 am
The first four premises are logically valid in relation to each other but not the last premise or conclusion
There's a couple of things to say here but I won't comment on that unless you vote first. Valid or not?
EB
Re: POLL 3 on the validity of a simple argument on Joe the Squid
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:05 am
by surreptitious57
As an argument it is not valid even if some of the premises are but I dont want to discuss it anymore
Re: POLL 3 on the validity of a simple argument on Joe the Squid
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:22 am
by Speakpigeon
OK, so apparently no one on this forum is competent enough or has enough logical sense to even articulate why he thinks the argument is valid or invalid.
Even though it is a simple argument.
That sort of explains why most posters here exclusively post bullshit.
EB
Re: POLL 3 on the validity of a simple argument on Joe the Squid
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:59 am
by Age
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:22 am
OK, so apparently no one on this forum is
competent enough or has enough logical sense to even articulate why he thinks the argument is valid or invalid.
Even though it is a simple argument.
That sort of explains why most posters here exclusively post bullshit.
EB
Is the argument logically valid?
Either way, please articulate why
Re: POLL 3 on the validity of a simple argument on Joe the Squid
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:35 am
by surreptitious57
The last two premises contradict each other so the argument is invalid
Re: POLL 3 on the validity of a simple argument on Joe the Squid
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 12:09 pm
by Atla
Two ways come to mind to show that it's invalid:
1. Squid, giraffe and elephant are all distinct, so Joe can't be both elephant and another one at the same time.
2. We can drop 3 lines
Joe is an elephant
An elephant is not a squid
Therefore, Joe is a squid
Third line here contradicts the first two.
Re: POLL 3 on the validity of a simple argument on Joe the Squid
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:48 pm
by Speakpigeon
Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:59 amIs the argument logically valid?
Either way, please articulate why
This is my thread.
This thread asks a simple question. So, either you think you know the answer and you just vote before posting any comment, or you don't have a view and you can go play in the courtyard.
And if you want to know what I think, you can start your own thread and see what happens.
EB
Re: POLL 3 on the validity of a simple argument on Joe the Squid
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:57 pm
by Speakpigeon
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:35 am
The last two premises contradict each other so the argument is invalid
So what?
Here is the definition of validity broadly accepted in "classical" mathematical logic:
An argument is usually said to be logically valid if all cases in which the premises are true, the conclusion is also true.
Or, equivalently, an argument is said to be valid if there is no case in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false.
And here is what you yourself say of validity:
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:09 am
A valid argument is one where the conclusion is true in relation to the premises but only within the context of the argument and nothing else
So, how does that justify your answer?
EB
Re: POLL 3 on the validity of a simple argument on Joe the Squid
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:58 pm
by Speakpigeon
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:57 pm
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:35 am
The last two premises contradict each other so the argument is invalid
So what?
Here is the definition of validity broadly accepted in "classical" mathematical logic:
An argument is usually said to be logically valid if all cases in which the premises are true, the conclusion is also true.
Or, equivalently, an argument is said to be valid if there is no case in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false.
And here is what you yourself say of validity:
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:09 am
A valid argument is one where the conclusion is true in relation to the premises but only within the context of the argument
and nothing else
So, how does that justify your answer?
EB
Re: POLL 3 on the validity of a simple argument on Joe the Squid
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:01 pm
by Age
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:48 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:59 amIs the argument logically valid?
Either way, please articulate why
This is my thread.
So what? And,
Who cares?
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:48 pmThis thread asks a simple question.
Just like I did, in this thread.
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:48 pm So, either you think you know the answer and you just vote before posting any comment, or you don't have a view and you can go play in the courtyard.
Or, there are other things in play here.
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:48 pmAnd if you want to know what I think, you can start your own thread and see what happens.
EB
Or, I can just ask you a simple question in this thread. If you do not like to answer it, then so be it but some could then say; so apparently someone on this forum is not competent enough or has enough logical sense to even articulate why they think the argument is valid or invalid.
Even though it is a simple argument.
That sort of explains why some here exclusively post bullshit.
One could also suggest that some are not capable of doing what they are expecting others to do here.