An argument is sound if and only if the premises are true and the logical form is valid. Only then the conclusion follows from the argument with logical necessity.
Corollary: Logical validity alone never established an argument as sound and the conclusion may therefore be either true or false depending on the truth of the premises, all of which must be true.
Mathematics is a type of logical form. Syntactics alone can never be used to prove something about the world because syntactics is about signs only and it is semantically vacuous until interpreted semantically, that is, signs are assigned empirical content as symbols that have referents.
No amount of hand waving can change this.
Moreover, the attempt to get more out an argument than the premises will bear is called "sophistry," "making the worse appear the better." A sophist is one who makes a living doing this. Nowadays they are called con men. This goes back to Socrates as depicted in the Platonic dialogues.
Lars P. Syll’s Blog
Econometrics — formal modelling that has failed miserably
Lars P. Syll | Professor, Malmo University
Lars P. Syll’s Blog
Econometrics — formal modelling that has failed miserably
Lars P. Syll | Professor, Malmo University
13 comments:
“ An argument is sound if and only if the premises are true”
How do you know if something is true if you are already making the argument?
Look at your “argument” here as a thesis...
You’re saying: “ A thesis is sound if and only if the premises are true”
So all you have to do is to get a bunch of people to agree that your premises are true then the thesis is accepted as sound...
Nothing is ever tested either before or after...
If you're going to fail, fail spectacularly.
A thesis is sound if and only if the premises are true” So all you have to do is to get a bunch of people to agree that your premises are true then the thesis is accepted as sound... Nothing is ever tested either before or after...
Uh, no. This is taught as one of the fallacies. Agreement doesn't establish propositional truth. Facts do. Agreement needs to be about facts, confirmation, disconfirmation, first order logic in involving quantification in addition to propositional logic, etc. What constitutes a fact needs to be defined and there needs to be a criterion for distinguishing between fact and opinion.
Generally Logic 101 sticks with simple cases as do all other 101 courses. Logic 101 is more concerned with correct logical form and being able to distinguish fallacious reasoning from correct based on form.
Application of logic to critical thinking at the intro level is more concerned with documenting assertions by citing sources, which one will have to do in classes in other subjects that involve writing papers, than in delving into the nitty gritty of meaning and truth. Meaning and truth quickly get complicated with abstraction and also choice of criteria.
The more advanced aspects of meaning and truth are not studied until epistemology and philosophy of science, which are upper division courses and grad level subjects, and they are still hotly debated in professional papers. The issues spill over into statistics, for example. In 101, students are just told that these issues exist and must be taken into account as one progresses in one's learning.
Logic 101 doesn't pretend to make a person a logician or an accomplished critical thinker, but only to teach the basics, which is what all into course do. Unfortunately, most people don’t even take Logic 101 at the college level and HS doesn't cover it either unless a teacher sticks it in. But unless the curriculum has changed it is not part of the general curriculum in HS. So the collective level of critical thinking is low, as social media reveals.
“If you're going to fail, fail spectacularly.”
Yes everybody and I mean EVERYBODY has to see the failure... then you make the adjustment and test it again...
GFC nobody saw the failure.... so no adjustment and here we still are...
Then if you cite sources that are false as long as you cite them your thesis is accepted as sound...
Why not just test?
Where is testing in Socrates/Plato method?
They don’t have it ... they instead use reason... which accepts any thesis whether it is true or not...
Why not just test?
If testing is appropriate. It is not for every truth claim. It applies mostly to what we now call science. For simple truth claims, it is just look and see. For others, analyzing a truth claim (assertion) is more complicated, especially if abstraction is involved.
Where is testing in Socrates/Plato method?
Regarding Socratic/Platonic method — what we know of Socrates and his thinking is from the Dialogues — Socrates showed how people who made claims involving abstractions like justice didn't now what they were talking about by questioning them. He did this by asking them to define their terms, which it turned out that they could not do on further questioning that brought up objections.
Once when queried about who the smartest person in Greece was, the Oracle at Delphi responded that it was Socrates. Socrates said he was puzzled by this since he didn't know anything of note. So he concluded that the Oracle meant that he was the only one that knew he didn't know. Others just thought they knew.
Socrates hypothesized certain things, like forms as an explanation for universals, but he didn't claim to know their truth. Some of the dialogues confront Socrates on these hypotheses and he could not answer satisfactorily. Some of these issues constitute the enduring questions that are still a matter of debate.
As a result, the Dialogues hold up even in the present regarding dialogic method based on questioning, and they were mandatory reading for anyone considered educated until about fifty or so years ago, when Greek and Latin ceased to be taught as the basis of a classical education.
Then if you cite sources that are false as long as you cite them your thesis is accepted as sound
Not if someone checks the documentation and calls you on it. That is taught in Logic 101 too.
While critical thinking used to be taught in Philosophy 101, which included Logic 101, now there are fields specifically devoted to creative and critical thinking, and they are also taught as foundational in various subjects.
Critical Thinking. v. Creative Thinking
The Synergy of Creative and Critical Thinking
Ooops. No link.
Critical Thinking. v. Creative Thinking
Looks like Critical and Creative Thinking are now being taught beginning in grade school.
Critical and Creative Thinking Strategies, Grades K-6
Here is an intro level college course
PHIL102: Introduction to Critical Thinking and Logic
Post a Comment