[lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 16:36:10 -0330
Quoting Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Gosh Phil,
Irrelevant to the soundness of any argument, no comment.
>A premise is an assumption.
True.
> An Assumption in an argument is a premise.
True. (Assuming that "assumption" is equivalent to "Assumption.") The converse
is true since the relation is one of equivalence.
> A premise in a syllogism is an assumption if the logic is valid.
False. A premise remains an assumption even if the logic of the argument is
invalid. (More fundamentally, your conditional statement here asserts that
validity is a sufficient condition for a premise being an assumption. Whether
an argument is formally valid is irrelevant to the fact that a premise is an
assumption.)
> My argument only needs to follow from its assumptions to be valid.
False. An argument doesn't follow from its premises or assumptions. The latter
are constituive features (necessary but not sufficient) of an argument and only
a conclusion can follow (or not) from premises or assumptions.
>That is, my conclusion only needs to follow consistently from its premises
> (assumptions) to be valid.
True. You render the point more accurately here. (Although your "that is"
implies equivalence between your two statements, which equivalence is false for
the reason I just gave.)
> My conclusion doesn't need to follow from your assumptions or premises to be
valid.
True only if your premises yield a validly drawn conclusion and comprise a sound
argument. False if your conclusion cannot be validly and soundly drawn from
your premises but can from Phil's.
But your claim isn't really to the point since you and Phil are concerned
ultimately with the soundness of your argument, not simply with its formal
validity.
>I studied logic in my philosophical youth which was a long time ago,
Unknown. I'll trust you though, out of love for mankind.
> but I don't think I'm mistaken about this.
I believe you.
> You can challenge my assumptions and argue or assert that they are wrong,
> but you can't say that my conclusions don't follow from my assumed premises.
Again, the epistemic norm that is most relevant here is soundness, not mere
validity. Phil is ultimately challenging the soundness of your argument.
> At least I don't think you can.
An admirable acknowledgement of finitude and fallibility! I'll join the
bandwagon, too. Even George W finally bought a ticket!
It's been a long time since I spent much
> time assembling formal syllogisms, but I don't think I've forgotten how.
A few mere reminders here and there. I think most of what I say above is right
... or close enough.
snip
Cheers,
Walter O
Memorial U
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
