Awesome! Thank you both for your expertise.
:) Jerry Rhee On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Jerry, > > You're attempting to discuss apples and oranges here. Here are the basics > as given in the syllabus for a first course in logic: > > > > *Introduction to LogicTruth, Validity, and Soundness* > I. Truth, Validity, and Soundness: probably the three most important > concepts of the course. > A. First, let us briefly characterize these concepts. > 1*. truth*: a property of statements, *i.e*., that they are the case. > 2. *validity*: a property of arguments, *i.e*., that they have a good > structure. > (The premisses and conclusion are so related that it is absolutely > impossible for the premisses to be true unless the conclusion is true also.) > 3. *soundness*: a property of both arguments and the statements in them, > *i.e*., the argument is valid and all the statement are true. > *Sound Argument*: (1) valid, (2) true premisses (obviously the conclusion > is true as well by the definition of validity). > B. The fact that a deductive argument is valid cannot, in itself, assure > us that any of the statements in the argument are true; this fact only > tells us that the conclusion must be true* if *the premisses are true. > > Best, > > Gary R > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *C 745* > *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks Gary, >> >> What about my last question? Would you say there's an intention to >> deduction or using syllogisms or is that so ambiguous we leave it alone? >> >> I guess the reason I ask is because if everyone agrees that all swans are >> white, then there's no problem...but it's often the case that arguments >> happen because they don't agree on the premise that all swans are white and >> syllogisms are of little help. >> >> Best, >> J >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Jerry wrote: >>> >>> The swan example: >>> >>> >>> >>> Rule: All swans are white >>> >>> Case: Jimmy is a swan >>> >>> Result: Jimmy is white. >>> >>> >>> >>> Except, all swans are not white. Some are black. But people thought >>> swans were only white long ago...or so they say. Also, given our awareness >>> of genetics, there was always the possibility that swans could have been >>> black...blue, even. >>> >>> [, , ,] >>> >>> So, is the deductive swan example necessary reasoning? Is it >>> correct? Is the intention of deductive reasoning and syllogisms in general >>> to promote correct reasoning or necessary reasoning? >>> >>> >>> The form of the syllogism is correct. For deductive reasoning the >>> conclusion will necessarily be true if the rule is true. In the swan >>> example it is not true that all swans are white, so the conclusion is not >>> necessarily correct, although its form most certainly is. This is pretty >>> basic logic. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Gary R >>> >>> [image: Gary Richmond] >>> >>> *Gary Richmond* >>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >>> *Communication Studies* >>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >>> *C 745* >>> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> List, >>>> >>>> Not to be taken too seriously--as this was just a bit of play which >>>> occupied me for an hour or so today-- but based on the bean example, here's >>>> how I see the three inference patterns and their paths (vectors) through >>>> the 3 categories. >>>> >>>> *Inference patterns and categoriality:* >>>> 1ns, Result (for deduction only) == 'Character' (for >>>> abduction/induction) >>>> |> 3ns, Rule >>>> 2ns, Case >>>> >>>> Middle term: That which is the middle term in deduction is put in *bold >>>> *in all 3 patterns >>>> Vectorial order: In each case start at * and conclude at *** >>>> >>>> *Deduction* (vector of involution): >>>> ***3rd, 1ns: *conclusion*-It is NECESSARY that Jesus die. >>>> |> *1st, 3ns: All *men* die, >>>> **2nd, 2ns: Jesus is a *man*; >>>> >>>> *Abduction* (vector of representation): >>>> **2nd, 1ns: Jesus died; >>>> |> *1st, 3ns: I make the supposition that all *men* die, >>>> ***3rd, 2ns: *conclusion*-It is POSSIBLE that Jesus was but a *man*. >>>> >>>> *Induction* (vector of determination): >>>> **2nd, 1ns: Jesus dies; >>>> |> ***3rd, 3ns: *conclusion*-It is PROBABLE that all *men* die. >>>> *1st, 2ns: Jesus is a *man, * >>>> >>>> Well, again, one doesn't want to make too much of this except to note >>>> that both deduction and abduction begin with a rule (in abduction, a mere >>>> 'supposition'), while induction concludes with a rule (which has some >>>> probability). >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Gary R >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >>> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to >>> PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe >>> PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at >>> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
