|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Philosophical debate- what does it take to constitute a valid argument? 1
#14262239 - 04/09/11 09:01 AM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I've noticed that many people seem to advocate for their position by essentially stating their conclusion... and nothing else. Another tactic is to sometimes state your conclusion and follow it with an affirmation that the conclusion is the proponent's opinion.
What makes an argument valid or invalid? What is required, if anything, for an argument to have logical force, to be rationally supported?
Are arguments of the type mentione above: where a conclusion is stated or a conclusion is stated following which it is stated also that the conclusion is whomever's opinion, valid?
Has anyone else noticed and perhaps been puzzled by what appears to be the common use of these tactics: simply declaring your conclusion as if it was a fact?
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Philosophical debate- what does it take to constitute a valid argument? [Re: johnm214]
#14262258 - 04/09/11 09:10 AM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
A valid argument should have the pathway that leads to such a conclusion, but all too many merely state opinion and that's that. And then pretend that debating is beneath them.
This is mainly done to cover up an item of faith.
--------------------
|
Kid_Orgo
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 5,514
Loc: Hale-Bopp
|
Re: Philosophical debate- what does it take to constitute a valid argument? [Re: johnm214]
#14262261 - 04/09/11 09:11 AM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Some UNC Prof Says: A valid argument is one in which the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion. An invalid argument is one in which the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
Obviously validity is not enough.
-------------------- He was a cowboy in one of the seven days a week fights. No business, no hangout; no friends, nothing; just what you pick up and what you need.
|
Obey
The Analocalypse
Registered: 10/19/08
Posts: 270
Loc: Dirty South
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
|
Re: Philosophical debate- what does it take to constitute a valid argument? [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#14262280 - 04/09/11 09:17 AM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: but all too many merely state opinion and that's that. And then pretend that debating is beneath them.
This is mainly done to cover up an item of faith.
Truer words could have not been spoken. I always find when you do present a valid argument somebody always has to attempt to undermine it by picking out completely pointless semantics as well. Sometime semantics can be valid in a discussion but more often than not they are used as nothing more than attacks by unfounded opinionated individuals who cling to faith or supernatural belief.
-------------------- Anything that is posted by myself Obey is completely fiction. Any pictures posted come from an external unknown source.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Philosophical debate- what does it take to constitute a valid argument? [Re: Kid_Orgo]
#14262318 - 04/09/11 09:40 AM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kid_Orgo said:
Quote:
Some UNC Prof Says: A valid argument is one in which the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion. An invalid argument is one in which the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
Obviously validity is not enough.
Interesting. Thanks for the post, I agree: a valid argument should be one that provides the path from the premises to the conclusion such that the conclusion is a consequence of the premises (and logic).
This is what Orgone was saying as well.
Why then do so many people simply state conclusions in this forum- it seems especially ridiculous in a philosophical debate forum? It seems even more strange that they do so when their conclusions are different from another's- when they are actually disagreeing and taking exception to someone's position, but don't make an argument for even prima facia support of their conclusion, let alone demonstrating why the other position is incorrect.
|
Epigallo
Stranger
Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 8,155
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
Re: Philosophical debate- what does it take to constitute a valid argument? [Re: johnm214]
#14262521 - 04/09/11 10:37 AM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I was listening to rap and that guy in the Last Supper painting synced up perfectly with the beat and the lyrics. I was confused about what was going on for a second.
|
NetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck
Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
|
Re: Philosophical debate- what does it take to constitute a valid argument? [Re: johnm214]
#14262544 - 04/09/11 10:41 AM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Top 20 Logical Fallacies
One that I know is used frequently around here is Ad ignorantiam- "You can't prove it isn't true, therefore it is!"
Specifically, the whole "scientific instruments can't detect spirit!!" thang.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Philosophical debate- what does it take to constitute a valid argument? [Re: NetDiver]
#14262564 - 04/09/11 10:48 AM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Well, it can't.
--------------------
|
Kid_Orgo
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 5,514
Loc: Hale-Bopp
|
Re: Philosophical debate- what does it take to constitute a valid argument? [Re: johnm214]
#14262632 - 04/09/11 11:05 AM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said: Interesting. Thanks for the post, I agree: a valid argument should be one that provides the path from the premises to the conclusion such that the conclusion is a consequence of the premises (and logic).
This is what Orgone was saying as well.
Why then do so many people simply state conclusions in this forum- it seems especially ridiculous in a philosophical debate forum?
I like that the rule about arguments ad hominem is well-enforced, but it's clear that that rule alone doesn't guarantee productive debate.
The problem may well be that there's no clear line what is constructive and isn't, and things can either drag on or lose coherence. People failing to support their assertions don't start doing so when called on it, it generally prompts more assertions.
I'm not sure that there's any cure for that, though, aside from heavy-handed "back up what you said or be b&;" it seems what's "constructive debate" is inherently subjective, and this may be as good as it gets in terms of enforcing content while being reasonably fair.
In that case, the best you can do is call out each instance of this and then ignore further assertions to avoid prolonging the pointless.
-------------------- He was a cowboy in one of the seven days a week fights. No business, no hangout; no friends, nothing; just what you pick up and what you need.
|
ZenXi6
Illuminate
Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 1,173
Loc: Melbourne, Australia
Last seen: 2 months, 21 days
|
Re: Philosophical debate- what does it take to constitute a valid argument? [Re: NetDiver]
#14281662 - 04/13/11 12:24 AM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Samurai Drifter said: Top 20 Logical Fallacies
One that I know is used frequently around here is Ad ignorantiam- "You can't prove it isn't true, therefore it is!"
Specifically, the whole "scientific instruments can't detect spirit!!" thang.
^^This.
There are so many different argumentative tactics, so many different ways to manipulate something from so many different perspectives that it is hard sometimes.
I don't think we should stop arguing, for one, but nor should we become bogged down.
OBEY mentioned semantics, and sometimes you are right, but what words mean and what a sentence means is the KEY to some pretty fundamental philosophical things. It's why we have such a large amount of people within the field of LAW - Because often it comes down to semantics.
Stating simply a conclusion is not much use to anyone, and usually comes across as arrogant, ignorant, obnoxious, naive or a mix of all of the above.
I think generally, in an argument, people need to aim to be as objective as possible - aim to write and portray something so that people can understand it from their direct perspective, so that they can re-create or view it should they need.
Arguments in the subjective territory (spirituality, and pseudo-science of all sorts) are hard, because they rely on faith and logic. If someone refuses another logic, due to a faith-ridden thing.. then the argument ends there. It really doesn't seem possible to argue with those who don't wish to logically discuss the basis of something they have faith in.
I think it is ALWAYS on someone who is making an unprovable claim to prove their claim, rather than the other way around.
Otherwise, anyone can claim anything, and proving that wrong can be somewhat difficult...
--------------------
We are the Divine Universe, Incarnate!
|
morrowasted
Worldwide Stepper
Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,400
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 3 hours, 40 minutes
|
Re: Philosophical debate- what does it take to constitute a valid argument? [Re: ZenXi6] 1
#14284674 - 04/13/11 03:44 PM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
In its true terminological sense, a valid argument is one for which there is no counterexample. A counterexample is a proven demonstration that an argument has at least one instance in which, according to the rules of logic, all the premises are true while the conclusion is false.
But since most people have never received formal logic education, they throw around words like validity as if they are synonymous with truth or sometimes even utility.
Since none (as far as I know) of the discussion that takes place on the Shroomery is held to any formally recognized standards, it is basically impossible to demonstrate that another poster's argument is "invalid", since posts are (as far as I know) never presented in true argument form
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Philosophical debate- what does it take to constitute a valid argument? [Re: morrowasted]
#14284728 - 04/13/11 03:53 PM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
You say a lot of things but don't seem to support any of them. Would you care to substantiate your conclusions? That was kind of the point of the discussion
|
Blondell_Letrange
No other.
Registered: 11/08/10
Posts: 418
Loc: OZ
|
Re: Philosophical debate- what does it take to constitute a valid argument? [Re: morrowasted]
#14285196 - 04/13/11 05:08 PM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
morrowasted said: In its true terminological sense, a valid argument is one for which there is no counterexample. A counterexample is a proven demonstration that an argument has at least one instance in which, according to the rules of logic, all the premises are true while the conclusion is false.
To expand, this is often referred to as "possible worlds" and does not necessarily relate to the truthfulness of the premises.
John doesn't love Mary therefore They shouldn't get married.
Can you think of an example where they should get married, despite the absence of love? I can, it is not valid.
Quote:
But since most people have never received formal logic education, they throw around words like validity as if they are synonymous with truth or sometimes even utility.
There is also a difference between an argument being "valid" and an argument being "sound."
Sound arguments will cover 2 requirements of a good argument.
1. The given premise/s is/are true. 2. There is a strong connection between the premise/s and the conclusion.
Truth of premises + validity = sound argument.
Quote:
Since none (as far as I know) of the discussion that takes place on the Shroomery is held to any formally recognized standards, it is basically impossible to demonstrate that another poster's argument is "invalid", since posts are (as far as I know) never presented in true argument form
I would say it is attempted here by a few posters, but as soon as an argument goes beyond a simple premise to conclusion format, it gets a lot trickier to sort through. Plus there is the added confusion of getting emotionally involved in the arguments.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Philosophical debate- what does it take to constitute a valid argument? [Re: Blondell_Letrange]
#14285237 - 04/13/11 05:18 PM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Blondell_Letrange said:
Quote:
Since none (as far as I know) of the discussion that takes place on the Shroomery is held to any formally recognized standards, it is basically impossible to demonstrate that another poster's argument is "invalid", since posts are (as far as I know) never presented in true argument form
I would say it is attempted here by a few posters, but as soon as an argument goes beyond a simple premise to conclusion format, it gets a lot trickier to sort through. Plus there is the added confusion of getting emotionally involved in the arguments.
The last one seems to be the problem much of the time. How much space and time is wasted with people posting nonsense for various emtoinal reasons? Gets old. If they aren't going to discuss the issue but rather defend their honor, intelligence, or whatever they felt was called into question by the fact that their claims were questioned, it would be nice if they would at least let folks know up front they've abandoned the discussion, so we know the crap that follows can be ignored. Geneally it seems like it takes at least three post-reply cycles for the person to reveal they have no intention of supporting their assertion.
|
ShroomScape
Sexplorer
Registered: 07/31/06
Posts: 706
Loc: ation
Last seen: 11 years, 9 days
|
Re: Philosophical debate- what does it take to constitute a valid argument? [Re: johnm214] 1
#14285494 - 04/13/11 06:02 PM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
|
xFrockx
Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,457
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 12 days, 10 hours
|
Re: Philosophical debate- what does it take to constitute a valid argument? [Re: johnm214]
#14286113 - 04/13/11 07:36 PM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
"Has anyone else noticed and perhaps been puzzled by what appears to be the common use of these tactics: simply declaring your conclusion as if it was a fact? "
Maybe a little.
Edited by xFrockx (04/13/11 07:37 PM)
|
|