[Wittrs] Bogus Claim 3: Argument Validity Depends on Axiom Truth
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:20:52 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>SWM wrote:
>>>I am challenging the validity of that conclusion for the reason that
>>>the third premise is misleading BECAUSE it equivocates its meaning,
>>>shifting from a denial of identity (undoubtedly true) to a denial of
>>>causality (not undoubedtly true based on the CR and very likely
>>>false, if the Searlean idea of consciousness as a process-level
>>>property is mistaken as, I think, it is as Dennett's model adequately
>>>accounts for everything we mean by "consciousness").
>>Stuart, you are conflating argument validity and axiom truth (again).
>>in a deductive argument the question of validity turns on whether the
>>conclusion follows from the premises --- *irregardless* of the truth
>>of the premises.
>The CRA does not establish its case because the premise is untrue. I
>agree that if all the premises were demonstrably true it would prove
>its case. But it doesn't.
a deductive argument, even when shown to be valid, does not establish
the truth of its premises. that's always a separate issue.
>An argument that contains an equivocation is invalid even if that
>equivocation is not easily seen.
you have yet to establish that there is an equivocation in the argument
(as opposed to a conflation read into the argument the way someone might
'see' a bat in an inkblot).
>What makes it invalid is that the third premise shifts its meaning
>(suffers from the fallacy of equivocation). The third premise IS true
>on one reading, not established as true on the other but the conclusion
>needs the other reading to be true to work.
no. that's not an equivocation. the third axiom is a compound statement
(notice the conjunction 'and'). it makes two claims.
to paraphrase one of the examples given by one of the sources you cited:
all men have reason to fear man-eating sharks
no woman is a man
no woman has any reason to fear man-eating sharks.
here there is an equivocation between two meanings of a single term.
'man' meaning 'human' and 'man' meaning 'male human'.
the fallacy can be exposed by making the appropriate substitutions:
all humans have reason to fear human-eating sharks
all women are humans
all women have reason to fear human-eating sharks
this syllogism is valid in form whereas the former is invalid even apart
from the equivocation that conceals that formal invalidity.
[why, you ask? hint: compare it to 'all dogs are mammals. no cat is a
dog. (therefore) no cat is a mammal'. obviously invalid].
in any case, there is no such shift in the meaning of a specific term in
the third axiom. instead, the third axiom is the conjunction of two
statements, each of which makes a distinct claim:
[1] syntax does not constitute semantics
[2] syntax is not sufficient [for causing] semantics.
>No, it says "syntax does not constitute and is not sufficient for
>semantics"
you have stated the third axiom correctly. notice the 'and' that it
contains. that indicates that the third axiom is a complex statement.
I'm breaking it down so that we can look for the alleged equivocation.
I am interpolating the words 'for causing' into the second claim for the
sake of clarity. since we both acknowledge that the third axiom makes a
claim that syntax does not cause semantics, I am not adding anything
that isn't already there. I merely making explicit what is already
there.
>Both "constitute" and "sufficient for" can be read as both a
>non-identity and a non-causal claim as I have already shown.
to be precise, statement [1] above makes a claim of *non-constitution*.
it may well be that a claim of non-constitution entails a conclusion of
non-identity; but, that's beside the point.
the point here is causation and constitution are separate and distinct
claims that are mutually exclusive concepts. consequently, you would
have to be conflating these two terms in order to read 'syntax does not
constitute semantics' as if it read 'syntax does not constitute
semantics and syntax does not cause semantics'.
after assigning the non-constitution claim to the [1] above, it is clear
that [2] makes the non-causality claim. the same need to avoid
conflating causation and constitution applies to [2]; hence, the only
legitmate reading is to read it as making *only* the non-causality
claim.
hence, there is no basis for your bizarre theory that each part of the
compound statement (the third axiom) makes each claim made by each part.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
