Do note that this is large post and that i have to redo my font and everything since it doesn't like being taken from word.
I need to fix a lot of formatting errors now but it's like 1 AM and i just wanted to post this; i was already planning on fixing this some time later.Smackman Wrote:i shouldnt have to cite sources. with "logic" you should be able to just look at the argument and go "okay that doesnt seem right". I did say what I thought it was in the right terminology, so go check your textbook or something.
Someone once tried to tell me “An external hard drive is inside a computer and since I’m right, you need to prove me wrong.”, this I’m sure is a fallacy; if you can’t back up your claim then what is it worth? If you believe something, then you should be able to prove it or at least say you don’t have enough information.
I want the cite because, I think your wrong about what was said; so give me the god damn cite. Also you used the information from some place as proof for your argument and you stated clearly you got this from someplace recently; it shouldn’t be too hard for you to back up your claim. I believe my request is reasonable(I went to a instructor and talked to him and he supported my side, I could be wrong but I still have a person of higher standing backing me up. Didn’t I have a good enough reason before to ask for a cite with out the instructor?)
I’m feeling your argument is likely weak since you didn’t provide a link to your knowledge. You are using it as proof against me; in fact you are saying that you have proof of my misdeeds and because I have said misdeeds, I don’t deserve examine your proof of my misdeeds.
Smackman Wrote:It's a fallacy because you're using one item unrelated to the first item to falsify the first item.
You're saying a=b, b is bad, therefore a is bad. But you're stating that when in reality a=/=b, so basically you're "lying"
so now im not sure if you just explained it to your teacher differently or if you're trusting him way too much.
It’s directly related to a comment you made, it had nothing to do with soap and I never planned on it to tie in to soap. If you have a problem with it, then you need to stop going off, on to tangents
First thing to remember, in logic is given a value of true or false, but not both or neither.
You said "people were scare to stop giving up soap"(not word for word but its close).Translation is "People & Scared, then not not using Soap" (that is not, not.)
Which would translated to "(P&S), then ~~O" or "P&S, then O" (note that S is already taken by scared so we’re using ‘O’ for soap; we could use ‘Z’ if we wanted to.)
But by the way you worded this, you also gave the impression that people were acting dumb by using soap (Let me make this clear. I one of the people you presented argument to got the impression that you thought people were acting dumb for using soap. )
The new translation is "(P&S), then (~~O & D)”
The “(P&S) then (~~O &D)” is a if-then statement.
For a "if-then" statement to false, the first part has to be true and the last part has to be false.
"if it is raining, then the ground is wet"
- Code: Select All Code
0 R > G
1 T T T
2 T F F
3 F T T
4 F T F
If there is a 'T' under the '>', then the statement is true. Basically this statement is only false if R is true and G is false which can bee seen on line 2." it's raining but the ground isn't wet."
False means it's impossible unless it’s a variable. This allows us to do 2 things; we can find G based on R, if R is true, then G must be true (check line 1, and line 2); we can figure out what R is based on G (check line 2 and 4), if G is false, then R must be false.
Okay great, lets move on to my argument.
If-then sentences, which are also called conditionals, often occur in arguments, but they do not present arguments by themselves. To see this, consider the following conditional:
If the Dodgers improve their hitting, then they will win the Western Division.
The sentence between the “if” and the “then” is called the antecedent of the conditional. The sentence after the “then” is called the consequent. In uttering such a conditional, we are not asserting the truth of its antecedent and we are not asserting the truth of its consequent either. Thus the person who makes the above remark is not claiming that the dodgers will win the Western Division. All she is saying is that if they improve their hitting, then they will win. Furthermore, she is not saying that they will improving their hitting. Because the speaker is not committing herself to either of these claims, she is not presenting an argument. This becomes clear when we contrast this conditional with a statement that dos formulate an argument:
Conditional: if the Dodgers improve their hitting, then they will win the Western Division.
Argument: Since the Dodgers will improve their hitting, they will win the Western Division.
The sentence that follows the word “since” is asserted. That is why “since” is an argument maker, whereas the connective “if… then…” is not an argument marker.
Works cited
Walter, Sinnott-armStrong and Robert Fogelin. Understanding Arguments:”An introduction to informal logic. Belmont:Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2010. Page 53. Print.
I basically said "if you were on a cliff that had a 1000ft drop, then by being scared and not jumping, you would be smart."
Not lying since this gives room for possibility. now in a real world would you believe this above statement to be true if you were on a cliff? I mean really, if you were on a cliff wouldn’t you be smart not to jump and at the same time be scared? Also I am considering that if you are smart then you are not dumb. But I haven’t given you any facts of the matter, if you want to challenge the fact of the matter then I would have to do more work and the fact is I could also disprove that statement. by definition I claim for this that
smart is the opposite of
dumb, this is the spirit of what i was saying. If you have a problem with this then read chapter 2 of, Walter, Sinnott-armStrong, and Robert Fogelin, book.
Moving on, here is a And statement’s truth table.
- Code: Select All Code
(we don't care what P and Q mean since I don't have a example and this is more widely known.)
0 P & Q
1 T T T
2 T F F
3 F F T
4 F F F
As you can see, the only way this statement would be true is if both P and Q are true. This should be easy to understand by instinct if nothing else.
So going back to the cliff example; the translation would be something like “If P then (S and ~D)” I really don’t want to go though the long process of translating that step by step since you’ve already seen it.) Now we’re going to take “S & ~D” as a possible truth (this does not mean it’s true, just that it’s possible.)
We’re going to simplify it
Now S&~D are both true. Look at a truth table above. We know form the and statement to be true, then S is true and ~D is true (it’s a fact). We are talking about in the world of what could be possible. Since we know both must be true, we can take apart the and statement, and get S, ~D or both by themselves.
Okay great, so here’s what my long and pointless post has proven,
Here what we got:
1. “(P&S), then (~~O & D)”
2. “S & ~D” (remember, this is possible as proven by me.)
3. “P & S” (because this is the point you were making; wasn’t it?) //D & ~D (this is saying I believe I can get to this. In logic, any A, & not A is not possible. “Colorless color” how can a color be colorless! This doesn’t mean I can’t reach it if the right conditions are met.)
(Now I start using logic)
4. “~~O & D” 3,1 MP (This is saying, we get “~~O & D” by using line 3 and 1 and MP is the move we used, check the section above with my first truth table.)
5 ‘D’ 4 Simp (we get D by taking it from line 4 and the move is called a Simp. Read the truth table on and statements.)
6 ‘~D’ 2 simple (if you hadn’t noticed, ‘~’ means not.)
7 “D&~D” 5, 6 conj (conj is a way of making and statements. if two things are true, then both of them can make and statement. We have proven that D is true and ~D is true. The logic is correct but this doesn’t make sense logically.
Okay now that I’ve proven what Smack said doesn’t make sense logically; I would like to state that it doesn’t mean it can’t happen. In fact, proving anything in deductive logic is hard because nearly anything you can thinking can’t work. “Is there coffee in the cup?” how can you prove that’s true, any second an alien could beam aboard the coffee, onto his space ship.
End notes
Smack made a statement that A) made it sound like everyone should stop using soap just because he was having great results and B) gave the impression that if you didn’t stop using it, you are scared and lack intelligence. I was able to prove that it is possible to be scared and smart about something. Now it didn’t prove much by it self since deductive logic but equal true or false which is a hard standard and smack wasn’t likely intending what he said to be taken at that level. I find it very believable that if you were standing on a cliff , likely to die (in fact I made sure of it in my example) if you jumped, then being scared meant you were smart. The fact of it being an extreme doesn’t make it a fallacy. Now quite frankly I might be wrong in assume you’d all be scared if you were standing on a cliff looking at impending doom; but, I know I would be. Another fact is smack claimed I was lying because my statement had nothing to do with soap, I believe I proved it did have some relation but it was a by product of it being related to a different argument.
