Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

I see, that make sense.

I was thinking as a different usage of the term.

recognition or affirmation that a person or their feelings or opinions are valid or worthwhile.

Ah, OK. We were using different senses of the word. Fair enough. Happily, it's easy to tell the difference between the two possible meanings, because mine refers to the argument, while yours applies to the arguer. I misunderstood because your words seemed to be using the meaning I interpreted:

When someone does figure this out, others will tell that they do not like the answer and therefore will not accept it. This leaves us with an invalidated answer. Invalidated does not "feel" good. It is like a priest praying to have faith.


Plato's Cave......

You seemed to refer to the "answer", not the answerer, above.

[Sea Turtle]

I see, that make sense.

I was thinking as a different usage of the term.

recognition or affirmation that a person or their feelings or opinions are valid or worthwhile.

Ah, OK. We were using different senses of the word. Fair enough. Happily, it's easy to tell the difference between the two possible meanings, because mine refers to the argument, while yours applies to the arguer. I misunderstood because your words seemed to be using the meaning I interpreted:

When someone does figure this out, others will tell that they do not like the answer and therefore will not accept it. This leaves us with an invalidated answer. Invalidated does not "feel" good. It is like a priest praying to have faith.


Plato's Cave......

You seemed to refer to the "answer", not the answerer, above.

I understand how you tell.

I meant the same in both. In both cases I mean that the presenter of the idea is invalidated. Meaning not worthy of consideration.

I clearly can see how my usage looks blurry; thanks for pointing it out.

[Pattern-chaser]

I understand how you tell.

I meant the same in both. In both cases I mean that the presenter of the idea is invalidated. Meaning not worthy of consideration.

I clearly can see how my usage looks blurry; thanks for pointing it out.

Sorry, I keep getting confused between mentions of logic, the subject of this topic, and mentions of the way that humans make decisions, often without any logical involvement. Both are quite acceptable, but they refer to very different things. So I regret the ongoing confusion, and will try to do better.

[Fanman]

Pattern-chaser,

In this case, the argument justifies (or not) the act of rejection. So the lack of evidence results in the lack of a premise. To reject the idea, we need sufficient reason, but we have none.

I think the lack of evidence provides sufficient reason to reject the idea. And can be premise.

The 'argument' that leads to the rejection of <an idea for which there is no evidence> has no premises; it has nothing but a conclusion. This is not a logically-valid argument. It is more commonly known as an 'unfounded assertion'.

I’m not sure about that. Let’s look at the argument as a syllogism.

Premise 1. God’s existence is a maybe - because His existence cannot be proved or disproved.

Premise 2. There is no objective evidence for God’s existence - The evidence purporting His existence is anecdotal.

Conclusion. Since there is no objective evidence for God’s existence. And I do not believe the anecdotal evidence is strong enough. I reject the claim that God exists.

On the face of it, this syllogism doesn’t strike me as not logically valid. What are your thoughts?

[LuckyR]

Pattern-chaser,

In this case, the argument justifies (or not) the act of rejection. So the lack of evidence results in the lack of a premise. To reject the idea, we need sufficient reason, but we have none.

I think the lack of evidence provides sufficient reason to reject the idea. And can be premise.

The 'argument' that leads to the rejection of <an idea for which there is no evidence> has no premises; it has nothing but a conclusion. This is not a logically-valid argument. It is more commonly known as an 'unfounded assertion'.

I’m not sure about that. Let’s look at the argument as a syllogism.

Premise 1. God’s existence is a maybe - because His existence cannot be proved or disproved.

Premise 2. There is no objective evidence for God’s existence - The evidence purporting His existence is anecdotal.

Conclusion. Since there is no objective evidence for God’s existence. And I do not believe the anecdotal evidence is strong enough. I reject the claim that God exists.

On the face of it, this syllogism doesn’t strike me as not logically valid. What are your thoughts?

A perfectly reasonable conclusion concerning an unprovable situation.

[Pattern-chaser]

Let’s look at the argument as a syllogism.

Premise 1. God’s existence is a maybe - because His existence cannot be proved or disproved.

Premise 2. There is no objective evidence for God’s existence - The evidence purporting His existence is anecdotal.

Conclusion. Since there is no objective evidence for God’s existence. And I do not believe the anecdotal evidence is strong enough. I reject the claim that God exists.

On the face of it, this syllogism doesn’t strike me as not logically valid. What are your thoughts?

Hmmm. I'm not sure how to address this; (a) I'm not an expert in logic or reason, nor do I claim to be; (b) I don't want to turn this into a debate about semantics and pedantry. So please bear that in mind. Thanks.

A syllogism, in logic, is a valid deductive argument having two premises and a conclusion. The traditional type is the categorical syllogism in which both premises and the conclusion are simple declarative statements that are constructed using only three simple terms between them, each term appearing twice (as a subject and as a predicate): “All men are mortal; no gods are mortal; therefore no men are gods.” The argument in such syllogisms is valid by virtue of the fact that it would not be possible to assert the premises and to deny the conclusion without contradicting oneself.

It appears to me that your presented argument is not a "categorical syllogism" (there are other sorts), and possibly not a syllogism at all, but only two statements and a "conclusion". I'm not sure of either of these two things but, as I say, that's how it appears to me. So let's expand what we have and look more closely.

My first thought is that your two 'premises' follow from one another, as though they comprise one declaration separated into two parts, perhaps artificially. It seems to me that "God's existence is a maybe" because "There is no objective evidence for God’s existence". If this is the case, then your argument offers only one premise, and I don't think (?) a conclusion can be correctly and logically deduced from a single premise.

I accept that your conclusion does have some association with your proposed premises, but the association doesn't seem to stretch to a syllogism, or even a logically-valid argument.

As I see it, your 'conclusion' is a proposed justification — N.B. not a logical justification — for the rejection of God's existence. Your premises seem to offer some background to your thinking, but I cannot see how the conclusion can be deduced from them. Also, your conclusion does not seem to be the "simple declarative statement" that Brittanica describes. Finally, it does seem, when considering your offered 'syllogism', that it is entirely possible "to assert the premises and to deny the conclusion without contradicting oneself".

In fact, your conclusion, alone, more resembles a syllogism than does the 'syllogism' you present. I don't think your conclusion is a syllogism, only that it is closer to one than what you offer above.

A syllogism is more than three sentences, labelled "premises" and "conclusion". Their logical relationship must have certain characteristics, as Brittanica describes. [All the references I looked at say much the same thing as Brittanica does.]

[Pattern-chaser]

A perfectly reasonable conclusion concerning an unprovable situation.

That it is reasonable has never been in doubt. It is the result of Fanman's reasoning. But it isn't in accord with the rules of logic. It is that which is in discussion.

[Fanman]

Pattern-chaser,

I take on board what you have stated. I presented my argument in the form of a logical syllogism. The premises and conclusion related to our discussion - Could not be reduced any further (so as to create one as you have referenced), and still make the argument that I wanted to. You don't have to treat it as a syllogism, but as an argument, you don't seem to have dealt with it. You have critiqued the form of what I've stated extensively (which is not a problem) and stated,

As I see it, your 'conclusion' is a proposed justification — N.B. not a logical justification — for the rejection of God's existence. Your premises seem to offer some background to your thinking, but I cannot see how the conclusion can be deduced from them.[my emphasis]

But (ironically) I don't see how you have reached these conclusions. You haven't provided your own reasoning behind saying that. There is an expectation that you explain why you believe what you say to be the case and provide counter-arguments or discussion. Otherwise, I have no valid reason to agree that what you've stated in relation to the content of my argument (or whatever you want to call it) is correct, just because you claim it is. Fundamentally, the question I am asking, is why do you think that?

[Fanman]

To Pattern-chaser,

Merriam-Webster

Reasonable

1
as in logical according to the rules of logic

his answer is perfectly reasonable

The Free Dictionary

Reasonable

1. agreeable to or in accord with reason; logical.

2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.

Pattern-chaser said:

That it is reasonable has never been in doubt. It is the result of Fanman's reasoning.[my emphasis] But it isn't in accord with the rules of logic. It is that which is in discussion.

And also said:

As I see it, your 'conclusion' is a proposed justification — N.B. not a logical justification — for the rejection of God's existence. Your premises seem to offer some background to your thinking, but I cannot see how the conclusion can be deduced from them.[my emphasis]

Your statements appear to be in contrast to each other. Can you define what you mean by "reasonable"?

[Fanman]

To Pattern-chaser,

I can’t edit my posts, but I made what I think is an error. The Merriam-Webster quotation I used describes a synonym of “reasonable”. It is not the stated definition. I’m not sure if that changes anything, but I felt it was right to change that. In place of the Merriam-Webster synonym, I’ll use the Dictionarycom definition for reasonable regarding my last post.

Reasonable

agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical:

a reasonable choice for chairman.

[Pattern-chaser]

Can you define what you mean by "reasonable"?

In accord with reason. This exchange is made difficult because of the way we do not usually differentiate logic and reason. Even dictionaries do not.

This is why, time and again in this topic, I have carefully described how "logic" (as I use the word) concerns the validation of logical arguments, while "reason" covers the rest. Logic confirms the correctness of an argument-form (such as a syllogism), but reason considers the particular use it is being put to, and confirms the correctness of the reasoning.

So we can take a logically-valid argument, and insert factually-incorrect premises. The argument remains logically valid and correct, but if the premises are not correct and correctly-formed, the specific instance of the argument is not correct or 'valid', and does not deliver a correct conclusion (except by accident or coincidence).

[Pattern-chaser]

I presented my argument in the form of a logical syllogism.

Ah, but you didn't. You presented your argument in 3 lines, and you labelled those lines as the components of a syllogism. But labels do not a syllogism make.

The syllogism is fully described and defined in many places on the 'net. Here is text from one of them, but most of them are very similar.

Syllogisms A syllogism is a logical argument where a quantified statement of a specific
form (the conclusion) is inferred from two other quantified statements (the premises).

The quantified statements are all of the form “Some/all A are B,” or “Some/all A are not
B,” and each syllogism combines three predicates or properties. Notice that “All A are not
B” can be expressed equivalently in natural language as “No A are B,” and “Some A are
not B” as “Not all A are B.” We can see these quantified statements as describing relations
between predicates, which is well-suited to describing hierarchies of properties. Indeed,
Aristotle was also an early biologist, and his classifications of predicates apply very well
to reasoning about species of animals or plants.

You already know the following notion. A syllogism is called valid if the conclusion
follows logically from the premises in the sense of Chapter 2: whatever we take the real
predicates and objects to be: if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. The
syllogism is invalid otherwise.

Here is an example of a valid syllogism:

All Greeks are humans
All humans are mortal
[Therefore,] All Greeks are mortal.

Note that I do not offer this quote as an appeal to authority, but only to illustrate what is usually said or thought about syllogisms. But I do note here that your argument, as you presented it, is not a syllogism, as it is defined/described here.

The premises and conclusion related to our discussion - Could not be reduced any further (so as to create one as you have referenced), and still make the argument that I wanted to. You don't have to treat it as a syllogism, but as an argument, you don't seem to have dealt with it.

As presented, your "argument" it is not an argument at all, but an illustration and a statement of one way in which people think. I do not criticise it, nor do I know of a way to refute it, in the context of what it is.

But if we subject your argument to logic and reason — the same logic and reason that is used in the above quote about syllogisms, for example — it fails. Your argument chooses to set aside logic (but not reason) in the way that humans often do; in the way that we all do, all the time. I do not argue against this, I accept it because it just is.

However, the one thing it is not is "logical", and this is the one and only point I offer here.


**************************



P.S. If you search Wikipedia for "List of valid argument forms", you might find the resulting page useful and enlightening; I certainly did. I even saved a copy of the page so that I could refer to it as necessary.

[Fanman]

Can you define what you mean by "reasonable"?

In accord with reason. This exchange is made difficult because of the way we do not usually differentiate logic and reason. Even dictionaries do not.

This is why, time and again in this topic, I have carefully described how "logic" (as I use the word) concerns the validation of logical arguments, while "reason" covers the rest. Logic confirms the correctness of an argument-form (such as a syllogism), but reason considers the particular use it is being put to, and confirms the correctness of the reasoning.

So we can take a logically-valid argument, and insert factually-incorrect premises. The argument remains logically valid and correct, but if the premises are not correct and correctly-formed, the specific instance of the argument is not correct or 'valid', and does not deliver a correct conclusion (except by accident or coincidence).

The foundation of a valid argument is sound reasoning. That is why a reasonable argument is logical. If you are thinking differently than that, we might as well be speaking to each other in different languages.

[Fanman]

I presented my argument in the form of a logical syllogism.

Ah, but you didn't. You presented your argument in 3 lines, and you labelled those lines as the components of a syllogism. But labels do not a syllogism make.

The syllogism is fully described and defined in many places on the 'net. Here is text from one of them, but most of them are very similar.

Syllogisms A syllogism is a logical argument where a quantified statement of a specific
form (the conclusion) is inferred from two other quantified statements (the premises).

The quantified statements are all of the form “Some/all A are B,” or “Some/all A are not
B,” and each syllogism combines three predicates or properties. Notice that “All A are not
B” can be expressed equivalently in natural language as “No A are B,” and “Some A are
not B” as “Not all A are B.” We can see these quantified statements as describing relations
between predicates, which is well-suited to describing hierarchies of properties. Indeed,
Aristotle was also an early biologist, and his classifications of predicates apply very well
to reasoning about species of animals or plants.

You already know the following notion. A syllogism is called valid if the conclusion
follows logically from the premises in the sense of Chapter 2: whatever we take the real
predicates and objects to be: if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. The
syllogism is invalid otherwise.

Here is an example of a valid syllogism:

All Greeks are humans
All humans are mortal
[Therefore,] All Greeks are mortal.

Note that I do not offer this quote as an appeal to authority, but only to illustrate what is usually said or thought about syllogisms. But I do note here that your argument, as you presented it, is not a syllogism, as it is defined/described here.

The premises and conclusion related to our discussion - Could not be reduced any further (so as to create one as you have referenced), and still make the argument that I wanted to. You don't have to treat it as a syllogism, but as an argument, you don't seem to have dealt with it.

As presented, your "argument" it is not an argument at all, but an illustration and a statement of one way in which people think. I do not criticise it, nor do I know of a way to refute it, in the context of what it is.

But if we subject your argument to logic and reason — the same logic and reason that is used in the above quote about syllogisms, for example — it fails. Your argument chooses to set aside logic (but not reason) in the way that humans often do; in the way that we all do, all the time. I do not argue against this, I accept it because it just is.

However, the one thing it is not is "logical", and this is the one and only point I offer here.


**************************



P.S. If you search Wikipedia for "List of valid argument forms", you might find the resulting page useful and enlightening; I certainly did. I even saved a copy of the page so that I could refer to it as necessary.

I did the best I could with the premises that came from our discussion. And the conclusion that I believe follows logically in the case of rejecting an idea without evidence. We've both said what we think, and I have a good idea of your thinking now. From my perspective - Rejecting an idea having no evidence to support it is not illogical. However, it seems we are not using the word "logical" in the same way and therefore talking in different directions.

Thank you for the list.

[Pattern-chaser]

Fanman,

I have answered your many questions as best I can, but we are not progressing. So let me put a question to you:

You have described certain chains of reasoning as "logical", so I ask you what is the 'logic' that you refer to? What is your understanding of "logic", that allows you to use the words "logic" and "logically" as you have done?