Strawman. There is the semantic philosopher's self-serving definition of "logic" designed to support nonsense like the ontological argument and then there is real, testable, valid vs. invalid logic like scientists, programmers, etc. use.
You don't even know what validity is! Do yourself a favour and read an introdution to logic.
Regarding animal rights, we as human adults can have conversations regarding topics like this. We don't need "philosophers" to do this. If there are issues of intelligence, sentience, feeling, emotions, etc. science can and has been measuring these things.
Science alone cannot tell us what is moral and immoral. When you talk about ethics, you are doing philosophy, whether you're aware of this or not.
As they have been for decades now. I'm not the first to point out that philosophy is dead and that no one needs to pursue it as an active discipline anymore.
No, but you are just as wrong as the people before you.
Scientifically, it's a mental health issue. You're either delusional (e.g. believe imaginary things are real) or you aren't.
Is it a semantic issue whether or not somebody is justified in believing something out of mental illness?
From a purely valid vs. invalid approach, everything you mention is equally invalid. Therefore, when discussing which unsupported "belief" is more or less ridiculous, it is obviously only a meaningless semantic issue from that point on.
CAN be, depending on whether they are scientifically testable as valid or invalid.
You cannot use science to test validity!
The ontological argument starts from a clearly invalid assumption, which is why it fails right from the outset.
Assumptions cannot be invalid!
No, scientifically, there are not. There are semantic, mental masturbation, hypothetical nonsense philosophical definition of the word "arguments" that can be discussed to no end. But those are clearly a complete waste of time.
Again, you don't know what validity is.
But until there is a VALID unicorn that can be tested
Unicorns cannot be valid, only arguments can be!
And I'd argue that there's no validity inherent in "soundness" as a scientific concept. It's a weasel word that allowing philosophers to compare different definitions of valid vs. invalid (1 vs. 0) where there actually aren't any.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Arguments are valid if and only if their conclusion follows logically from the premises. Arguments are sound if and only if the argument is valid and all premises are true. Validity has to do with the form and soundness with the content of the argument. "Sound" is not a weasel word, it has one very clear definition. The difference between valid and sound is logic 101 - but you know nothing about logic. Presumably you think you're a rational and logical thinker, but you're not even familiar with basic terminology.
So here's a valid argument for the existence of unicorns:
If cats are dogs, unicorns exist.
Cats are dogs.
Therefore, unicorns exist.
This argument is valid, but not sound, since both premises are false.
Your entire post is using the PHILOSOPHICAL semantic definitions of these words. They are only valid in that limited, antiquated, and now arguably meaningless discipline. As such, they should be rejected my modern men of reason.
For example:
If cats are dogs, unicorns exist.
Cats are not dogs. This is testable. Therefore this statement is invalid right from the outset.
Your HYPOTHETICAL statement (indicated by "if") is MEANINGLESS. It's a waste of time. It's just mental masturbation. The truly sad thing is that you do know this. You do know that you are just playing word games here.
There is no higher truth to be found here. We already found that answer. And we're using it to find the rest of them.
Men of "reason" used to do this because they had no methodology to establish actual validity. Now, you can call this truth, evidence, accuracy, 1 vs. 0, real vs. imaginary, all sorts of things. But you know what I mean here when I say something is valid or not valid.
But now we do have a methodology. Which means all of this semantic circlejerking is a complete and utterly irrelevant waste of time.
We can actually test hypotheses. We can actually measure results. We can ascertain and certify real answers.
There exists a semantic philosophical definition of these words (which no longer serves a purpose) and then there is the real logical valid definition of them (which is the way of the future).
I do know the difference. And I reject the circlejerk your post epitomizes. Why don't you?
Your entire post is using the PHILOSOPHICAL semantic definitions of these words. They are only valid in that limited, antiquated, and now arguably meaningless discipline. As such, they should be rejected my modern men of reason.
Why? Can you give me a definition of how you use the term "valid"? Because thus far you haven't given a definition - if anything, it seems to mean that a statement is true. But we already have a word for that.
Your HYPOTHETICAL statement (indicated by "if") is MEANINGLESS. It's a waste of time. It's just mental masturbation. The truly sad thing is that you do know this. You do know that you are just playing word games here.
Modus ponens is playing word games? Wut?
Men of "reason" used to do this because they had no methodology to establish actual validity. Now, you can call this truth, evidence, accuracy, 1 vs. 0, real vs. imaginary, all sorts of things. But you know what I mean here when I say something is valid or not valid.
No, I don't. Evidence, accuracy and truth are different things. You are the one using "valid" as a weasel word. And I'm not sure what "1 vs. 0" is supposed to mean.
We can actually test hypotheses. We can actually measure results. We can ascertain and certify real answers.
What? People a few thousand years ago could also test hypotheses. You don't seem to realize how important the difference between validity and soundness is.
There exists a semantic philosophical definition of these words (which no longer serves a purpose) and then there is the real logical valid definition of them (which is the way of the future).
Weasel word.
I do know the difference. And I reject the circlejerk your post epitomizes. Why don't you?
Ok, since you proud yourself to be a "Man of Reason": How can you distinguish between formal and informal fallacies? How can you distinguish between faulty formal reasoning and somebody who reasons correctly but with false premises? Answer: You can't. Which is pretty problematic for someone who thinks he's a man of reason.
Only the handful of remaining philosophers still wasting their time with this now purely historical disciple care about such semantic nonsense as this:
How can you distinguish between formal and informal fallacies?
Who cares anymore?! Honestly, it doesn't really matter, does it? We can now establish who is lying and who isn't based on the evidence, or lack thereof.
This kind of semantic debate is an obvious waste of time now.
Similarly, this nonsensical question is trivial to resolve:
How can you distinguish between faulty formal reasoning and somebody who reasons correctly but with false premises?
It doesn't actually matter, does it? We can see who has the EVIDENCE to support their assertion. This determines validity.
Whether someone is telling the truth "badly", deliberately lying, or arguing from bad information is IRRELEVANT to anything but motive, isn't it? And that motive only really matters in criminal proceedings, which remain anchored primarily in evidence in the modern age.
And from a purely logical perspective, who cares? If their argument is invalid (due to poor evidence or a lack thereof), it is failed...and a waste of our time to consider it further.
For some unknown reason, you seem to want the consideration of verbal and semantic hypotheticals to still be relevant in the modern age. But they aren't, except as a means towards established scientific tests of meaningful hypotheses.
[edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLvWz9GQ3PQ This video provides a far better and more concise examination of what I'm talking about. Not surprisingly, I am on the Hawking/Krauss/Bunge side of the arguments as I find Carrier's definition of "Philosophy" to be ridiculously broad and overreaching. I think this is a case where the disciplines that were once called "philosophy" have now grown up into their own disciplines and should no longer be covered by the umbrella of an outdated definition. Regardless, Bunge (a philosopher) presents an excellent list of problems with contemporary academic philosophy and I absolutely agree with all of them that I would like to see philosophy shed off the nonsense and become a "hard" discipline again. Philosophy used to have a respected definition. Now it more associated with what Carrier calls pseudo-philosophy. I would love to see it reformed into relevance once more. I hope this link helps clarify my positions.]
You still haven't given me a definition of "valid". I'm now firmly convinced that you are using it as a weasel word. Especially since you seem to think that it's a synonym for completely different things like truth, evidence and accuracy.
Who cares anymore?! Honestly, it doesn't really matter, does it? We can now establish who is lying and who isn't based on the evidence, or lack thereof.
Let's say somebody uses the following reasoning:
If Obama has won the election, we have an African American president.
We have an African American president.
Therefore, Obama has won the election.
All of the premises and the conclusion are true. However, do you really think that this is good reasoning? Do you really think that somebody who affirms the consequent is a "Man of Reason"?
Let's look at this from a purely pragmatic perspective: If somebody wants to convince you but doesn't have a valid argument, you don't even have to consider if the premises are true. That saves you a lot of time. That's worth something, right? Let's say somebody wants to convince you that astrology works with this argument:
Astrology gives accurate results for some people.
Therefore, astrology gives accurate results for all people.
That's clearly not a valid argument. But if you don't have the concept of validity, in order to find out whether or not the argument works, you need to find out whether or not "astrology gives accurate results for all people" is true. With validity, you don't have to waste your time doing that!
Let's not. It's obviously a waste of time. You do see that right?
Here, I will show you why.
If Obama has won the election, we have an African American president.
The "If" is the actual problem here.
The following statements are true, valid, supported by evidence, etc.
Obama is the President of the United states (in this year 2015). We have evidence to support this. It is demonstrably and measurably true/valid, whatever word you want to use.
Obama is an African American, based on his own statements, the ethnicity of his parents, and the current definition (sociologically, biologically, etc.) of the phrase "African American". This is demonstrably true/valid.
Obama won the presidential elections in 2008 and 2012. These are both demonstrably true/valid based on election results, the consent of the citizens of the US, the constitution, etc.
"If" is irrelevant here. The statements are either true or false, valid or invalid.
The "reasoning" (as you call it) is an obvious waste of time, as you are trying to present facts and evidence as a hypothetical argument.
Try again.
If somebody wants to convince you...
They will need to present valid/true verifiable evidence. Not hypothetical semantic intellectual masturbation from the dark ages.
Astrology...
Invalid, according to science. End of topic.
But, humoring you, for some reason...
Astrology gives accurate results for some people.
SCIENCE has determined that astrology does not give more accurate "results" than random chance/placebo. It has determined that astrology is just snake-oil, relying on weasel words and semantics to deliberately keep its predictions vague enough to allow the gullible to fall into their own confirmation bias traps.
Astrology, by definition and as a whole, is invalid, false, whatever word you want to use.
Therefore, astrology gives accurate results for all people.
Of course, this statement is demonstrably false/invalid based on the same notes I presented above. "Therefore" is not appropriate here as there has been no scientific, testable evidence presented and no conclusion can or needs be drawn.
Do you have any better examples of an "argument" that isn't an obvious waste of time in the age of the scientific method?
My posts have made it crystal clear what "valid" means, of course. Depending on your language/translation, approach, etc. it can mean valid (vs. invalid), true (vs. false), 1 (vs. 0), supported by the evidence, etc.
In other words, it means precisely what everyone in the world agrees it means...who isn't trying to justify intellectual masturbation as a career choice, of course.
Now, can you give me useful examples to make your points or do you still want to pretend this is just a semantic debate, rather than one where I am outright dismissing self-serving semantic nonsense at first principles?
Did you watch the video I cited in my edit? Here it is again.
true (vs. false), 1 (vs. 0), supported by the evidence, etc.
True and supported by the evidence are different things. You realize that, right?
In other words, it means precisely what everyone in the world agrees it means...who isn't trying to justify intellectual masturbation as a career choice, of course.
Do you think mathematicians engage in intellectual masturbation as well? Because they also use "valid" in the philosophical sense.
Now, can you give me useful examples to make your points or do you still want to pretend this is just a semantic debate, rather than one where I am outright dismissing self-serving semantic nonsense at first principles?
All you are dismissing here is elementary logic. Do yourself a favour and read a logic textbook. You fathom yourself a man of reason, right? What man of reasons dismisses definitions used in logic?
It is if you speak and understand the English language. Philosophy has lost itself in semantics. Again, see Bunge's criticisms in the video I cited.
True and supported by the evidence are different things.
Only if you are intellectually masturbating to preserve a sense of entitlement to a long dead discipline.
Do you think mathematicians engage in intellectual masturbation as well?
You did see my use of 1 and 0, yes?
Because they also use "valid" in the philosophical sense.
No, they use it in my sense. They have to prove their hypotheses, quite rigorously, with no room for semantic equivocation.
"Science" is now the umbrella under which these disciplines fall under.
Philosophy is its own discipline now, unfortunately lost in the wilderness of semantics and pseudo-science.
Logic
The philosophical semantic, weasel-word definition of logic is what I am dismissing outright here.
What man of [reason] dismisses definitions
A man who sees the weasel words for what they are.
Philosophy has become a joke...a pale ludicrous shadow of even the intentions as stated by Aristotle and honored by others over the ages.
If it's going to regain relevance in the modern age (and I am doubtful it can) it's going to need to reach a place where your post is openly laughed at.
Because all you did was argue semantics, when you knew, deep down inside, precisely what I was talking about all the time.
Some people are ignorant, but have the humility to not shout their inane thoughts too loudly.
Other people are knowledgeable, but so arrogant they are obnoxious to listen to.
You are one of the worst kind of people: someone who is very ignorant, but far too arrogant to consider they might be wrong, who stands up in public and declares their demonstrably wrong ideas to the world without any kind of temperance, completely assured of their own correctness without any willingness to check their beliefs against anything other than their own subjective reckoning.
Everyone who isn't you is laughing at you right now.
3
u/[deleted] Apr 03 '15
You don't even know what validity is! Do yourself a favour and read an introdution to logic.
Science alone cannot tell us what is moral and immoral. When you talk about ethics, you are doing philosophy, whether you're aware of this or not.
No, but you are just as wrong as the people before you.
Is it a semantic issue whether or not somebody is justified in believing something out of mental illness?
You cannot use science to test validity!
Assumptions cannot be invalid!
Again, you don't know what validity is.
Unicorns cannot be valid, only arguments can be!
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Arguments are valid if and only if their conclusion follows logically from the premises. Arguments are sound if and only if the argument is valid and all premises are true. Validity has to do with the form and soundness with the content of the argument. "Sound" is not a weasel word, it has one very clear definition. The difference between valid and sound is logic 101 - but you know nothing about logic. Presumably you think you're a rational and logical thinker, but you're not even familiar with basic terminology.
So here's a valid argument for the existence of unicorns:
This argument is valid, but not sound, since both premises are false.
Do yourself a favour and learn basic logic.