And the next U.K. Prime Minister will be?

[Speakpigeon]

Here is a "U.K. current affairs" argument.

P1 - Jeremy Corbyn is not Boris Johnson;
P2 - Boris Johnson is not Jeremy Hunt;
P3 - Jeremy Hunt is not Jeremy Corbyn;
P4 - The next U.K. Prime Minister will be either Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt;
P5 - The next U.K. Prime Minister will be Jeremy Corbyn;
C - Therefore, the next U.K. Prime Minister will be Boris Johnson.

Thank you to say whether you consider this argument valid or not.

Thank you to abstain from commenting before you voted.
EB

 

[fast]

Tricky tricky but it’s valid. Unsound as all get-out, but it’s technically valid in accordance to how logicians are taught deductive logic. That it’s unsound is what’s more important, but as far as validity goes (which ignores truth) and focuses only on logical form, it is valid.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Tricky tricky but it’s valid. Unsound as all get-out, but it’s technically valid in accordance to how logicians are taught deductive logic. That it’s unsound is what’s more important, but as far as validity goes (which ignores truth) and focuses only on logical form, it is valid.

The question isn't whether the argument is "technically valid in accordance to how logicians are taught deductive logic" but whether YOU consider it valid or not.

Still, you do as you please.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Tammuz, thank you to try and explain how exactly the argument doesn't make sense. The English is straightforward and I'm sure you understand what it says. So, what exactly doesn't make sense here?
EB

 

[fast]

Tricky tricky but it’s valid. Unsound as all get-out, but it’s technically valid in accordance to how logicians are taught deductive logic. That it’s unsound is what’s more important, but as far as validity goes (which ignores truth) and focuses only on logical form, it is valid.

The question isn't whether the argument is "technically valid in accordance to how logicians are taught deductive logic" but whether YOU consider it valid or not.

Still, you do as you please.
EB

Well, just to be clear, it’s an objective matter, so it’s either valid or not independent of what I consider it to be, as either my consideration will accord with its validity or not.

As to your displeasure with my specificity (as used in higher education), that was so I left room to talk past the leaned (trained ones) when I later agreed with you who does not use “valid” as ordinarily used in deductive logic.

Mrs Jones gives her hubby a check to deposit at the bank. He grabs his fishing pole.

Where he is not ... is at the bank (financial institution) B1
Where he is at ... is at the bank (side of river) B2

She calls him up and asks “are you at the bank?” (B1)
If he says yes, he’s uttered a falsehood (because that’s equivalent to asserting he’s at the bank she is talking about.
If he says that he’s at the bank (B2), that is just deceptive (because now he’s intentionally using the word in a different way.)

When you ask about whether we consider the argument is valid, it’s like you are leaving it up to the reader to decide which usage they prefer. I picked one and answered. If you’d prefer I use “valid” as you’ve been using it in recent threads, then like the person who says an act is not criminal (in the legal sense despite it being legal in the moral sense), then of course it’s not valid.

 

[laughing dog]

I choose that the argument does not make sense. The Tories will choose the next PM and they will not choose Corbyn. And I believe there is yet someone else in the running for PM as a Tory. So the argument reduces to BJ or JH or ____will be the next prime minister. There is no logical reason that any of the 3 outcomes will necessarily occur. From I read, the odds are that BJ will be chosen, even though by most standards Mr. Johnson is likely to be a complete and utter disaster compared to the other choices.

 

[EvoUK]

It's Johnson or Hunt who are up for next Tory leader, thus PM. Both are awful choices, but Johnson is worse by a country mile.

However, they're being chosen by the grossly unrepresentative* Tory Membership, about 150,000 people and they love Johnson.

*by unrepresentative, this is a recent poll:

Sixty-three per cent of members said they would be prepared to accept Scottish independence to get Brexit, while 59 per cent said the same about a united Ireland. Just 29 and 28 per cent were opposed, respectively.


“Significant damage” to the UK economy was also no deterrent, with 61 per cent in favour and 29 per cent opposed. Some 54 per cent said the Tory party’s complete destruction would still be a price worth paying for Brexit.

source

 

[Speakpigeon]

I choose that the argument does not make sense. The Tories will choose the next PM and they will not choose Corbyn. And I believe there is yet someone else in the running for PM as a Tory. So the argument reduces to BJ or JH or ____will be the next prime minister. There is no logical reason that any of the 3 outcomes will necessarily occur. From I read, the odds are that BJ will be chosen, even though by most standards Mr. Johnson is likely to be a complete and utter disaster compared to the other choices.

Yeah, i know all this and all too well, I listen to BBC Radio Four every day! They've been talking about the Brexit and only the Brexit for the last two years at least.

Why did you vote the argument doesn't make sense? You seem to understand the English of it well enough. What is the problem exactly?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

It's Johnson or Hunt who are up for next Tory leader, thus PM. Both are awful choices, but Johnson is worse by a country mile.

However, they're being chosen by the grossly unrepresentative* Tory Membership, about 150,000 people and they love Johnson.

*by unrepresentative, this is a recent poll:

Sixty-three per cent of members said they would be prepared to accept Scottish independence to get Brexit, while 59 per cent said the same about a united Ireland. Just 29 and 28 per cent were opposed, respectively.


“Significant damage” to the UK economy was also no deterrent, with 61 per cent in favour and 29 per cent opposed. Some 54 per cent said the Tory party’s complete destruction would still be a price worth paying for Brexit.

source

Please vote first, comment afterwards.
EB

 

[laughing dog]

I choose that the argument does not make sense. The Tories will choose the next PM and they will not choose Corbyn. And I believe there is yet someone else in the running for PM as a Tory. So the argument reduces to BJ or JH or ____will be the next prime minister. There is no logical reason that any of the 3 outcomes will necessarily occur. From I read, the odds are that BJ will be chosen, even though by most standards Mr. Johnson is likely to be a complete and utter disaster compared to the other choices.

Yeah, i know all this and all too well, I listen to BBC Radio Four every day! They've been talking about the Brexit and only the Brexit for the last two years at least.

Why did you vote the argument doesn't make sense? You seem to understand the English of it well enough. What is the problem exactly?
EB

I find
1) the premises do not encompass all of the alternatives, and
2) the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.

Now, from what I have read, I think Mr. Johnson is the expected selection because the Tories appear dead set on destroying their party and England.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Well, just to be clear, it’s an objective matter, so it’s either valid or not independent of what I consider it to be, as either my consideration will accord with its validity or not.

As to your displeasure with my specificity (as used in higher education), that was so I left room to talk past the leaned (trained ones) when I later agreed with you who does not use “valid” as ordinarily used in deductive logic.

When you ask about whether we consider the argument is valid, it’s like you are leaving it up to the reader to decide which usage they prefer. I picked one and answered. If you’d prefer I use “valid” as you’ve been using it in recent threads, then like the person who says an act is not criminal (in the legal sense despite it being legal in the moral sense), then of course it’s not valid.

The question isn't whether the argument is "technically valid in accordance to how logicians are taught deductive logic" but whether YOU consider it valid or not.

You answer the question or you do not, at your pleasure. However, it's apparent you did not given your initial comment as well as what you say here.

Also, I use "valid" as ordinarily used today in deductive logic and for the last 2,500 years. And indeed, given that mathematical logic doesn't use "valid" as ordinarily used in deductive logic for the mast 2,500 years, then, obviously, mathematical logic doesn't use "valid" as I do. There's nothing I can do about that except repeat myself.

Mrs Jones gives her hubby a check to deposit at the bank. He grabs his fishing pole.
Where he is not ... is at the bank (financial institution) B1
Where he is at ... is at the bank (side of river) B2
She calls him up and asks “are you at the bank?” (B1)
If he says yes, he’s uttered a falsehood (because that’s equivalent to asserting he’s at the bank she is talking about.
If he says that he’s at the bank (B2), that is just deceptive (because now he’s intentionally using the word in a different way.)

No, here, that's a very different issue, specifically that of equivocation. Nothing to do with the issue at hand.
EB

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I choose that the argument does not make sense. The Tories will choose the next PM and they will not choose Corbyn. And I believe there is yet someone else in the running for PM as a Tory. So the argument reduces to BJ or JH or ____will be the next prime minister. There is no logical reason that any of the 3 outcomes will necessarily occur. From I read, the odds are that BJ will be chosen, even though by most standards Mr. Johnson is likely to be a complete and utter disaster compared to the other choices.

Yeah, i know all this and all too well, I listen to BBC Radio Four every day! They've been talking about the Brexit and only the Brexit for the last two years at least.

Why did you vote the argument doesn't make sense? You seem to understand the English of it well enough. What is the problem exactly?
EB

I find
1) the premises do not encompass all of the alternatives, and
2) the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.

Now, from what I have read, I think Mr. Johnson is the expected selection because the Tories appear dead set on destroying their party and England.

The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises (maybe you misread?): From P3 and P5, it follows that the next U.K. Prime Minister will not be Jeremy Hunt. From this and P4, it follows that the next UK Prime Minister will be Boris Johnson.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I choose that the argument does not make sense. The Tories will choose the next PM and they will not choose Corbyn. And I believe there is yet someone else in the running for PM as a Tory. So the argument reduces to BJ or JH or ____will be the next prime minister. There is no logical reason that any of the 3 outcomes will necessarily occur. From I read, the odds are that BJ will be chosen, even though by most standards Mr. Johnson is likely to be a complete and utter disaster compared to the other choices.

Yeah, i know all this and all too well, I listen to BBC Radio Four every day! They've been talking about the Brexit and only the Brexit for the last two years at least.

Why did you vote the argument doesn't make sense? You seem to understand the English of it well enough. What is the problem exactly?
EB

I find
1) the premises do not encompass all of the alternatives, and

It does.

Conservative MPs have the power to bring down the new PM once he is in charge. And I guess they will but the next U.K. prime minister is definitely mentioned in the argument (although, of course, other , rather unrealistic, possibilities exist, like, I don't know, the end of the world or something).

2) the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.

Yeah, too bad, that, but that's just called "not valid".

Still, thank you, because in fact you've just made my point in a silly argument I have with a self-declared expert in mathematical logic..

Now, from what I have read, I think Mr. Johnson is the expected selection because the Tories appear dead set on destroying their party and England.

Indeed and the world watch in horror... Although the same was said of Trump, if you remember. Well, so far so good. Touch wood and cross fingers. Maybe a little prayer too before going to bed early.
EB

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Still, thank you, because in fact you've just made my point in a silly argument I have with a self-declared expert in mathematical logic..

Who declared himself an expert in mathematical logic?

 

[Speakpigeon]

I find
1) the premises do not encompass all of the alternatives, and
2) the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.

Now, from what I have read, I think Mr. Johnson is the expected selection because the Tories appear dead set on destroying their party and England.

The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises: From P3 and P5, it follows that the next U.K. Prime Minister will not be Jeremy Hunt. From this and P4, it follows that the next UK Prime Minister will be Boris Johnson.

Sir, why can't you let passers-by give their unbiased opinions for a change?

He voted "Doesn't make sense", for various and perfectly legitimate reasons, and he also thinks "the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises".

QED.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Still, thank you, because in fact you've just made my point in a silly argument I have with a self-declared expert in mathematical logic..

Who declared himself an expert in mathematical logic?

You, but if you're not, then stop acting as if you were.
EB

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I find
1) the premises do not encompass all of the alternatives, and
2) the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.

Now, from what I have read, I think Mr. Johnson is the expected selection because the Tories appear dead set on destroying their party and England.

The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises: From P3 and P5, it follows that the next U.K. Prime Minister will not be Jeremy Hunt. From this and P4, it follows that the next UK Prime Minister will be Boris Johnson.

Sir, why can't you let passers-by give their unbiased opinions for a change?

He voted "Doesn't make sense", for various and perfectly legitimate reasons, and he also thinks "the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises".

QED.
EB

Lady, or sir, this is a discussion board.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Still, thank you, because in fact you've just made my point in a silly argument I have with a self-declared expert in mathematical logic..

Who declared himself an expert in mathematical logic?

You, but if you're not, then stop acting as if you were.
EB

First, that is a false claim about me, uttered with reckless disregard for the truth.
Second, I challenge you to quote me. You cannot, because I never said I was.
Third, stop beating your wife already (yes, I know, I have no good reason to even think you have a wife. But you have no good reason for your "if you're not, then stop acting as if you were." accusation, either. In fact, you have good reasons not to make it).

 

[fast]

I find
1) the premises do not encompass all of the alternatives, and
2) the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.

Now, from what I have read, I think Mr. Johnson is the expected selection because the Tories appear dead set on destroying their party and England.

The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises (maybe you misread?): From P3 and P5, it follows that the next U.K. Prime Minister will not be Jeremy Hunt. From this and P4, it follows that the next UK Prime Minister will be Boris Johnson.

I would have thought that had the argument been sound, then what follows from the premises necessarily did so.

Since the conclusion is valid but unsound, what remains true is that the conclusion follows from the premises (which you and I agree on), but any number of conclusions also follow, so the conclusion wasn’t of necessity but of contingency.

It’s the presence of a false premise, contradiction, or anything that results in an argument not being sound is what diminishes any sense of necessity. Ducklings will follow momma duck time and time again, but the event remains a contingent event. The path you took to arrive at the conclusion you can do time and time again, but other paths were available.

At any rate, I’m not denying that the conclusion follows from the premise; just the necessity that it does.

 

[fast]

P1 - Jeremy Corbyn is not Boris Johnson;
P2 - Boris Johnson is not Jeremy Hunt;
P3 - Jeremy Hunt is not Jeremy Corbyn;
P4 - The next U.K. Prime Minister will be either Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt;
P5 - The next U.K. Prime Minister will be Jeremy Corbyn;
C - Therefore, the next U.K. Prime Minister will be Boris Johnson.

Fair enough. I can refrain from incorporating what I’ve learned about logic and give an answer that doesn’t reflect the teachings of logic and their rendition of what valid means.

Any redneck who can crush a beer can over his head (and believe me, I’ve met a few) could tell you right away that the argument is a product of argumentum ad crack-smoke-em. Well, they could if were in their vocabulary. They’d likely call it invalid or bogus or something that indicates how idiotic it is.

Premise 5 alone, man, come on!

P5: The next U.K. Prime Minister will be Jeremy Corbyn

No maybe’s. No might’s. No talk of probabilities or possibilities. Just a flat out claim. From this seemingly drunken stoop of a claim alone, I can tell you straight up that the conclusion cannot possibly follow, not and still mean a hill of beans. To get from that to the conclusion, you’d need either a miracle or the learnings of logic and add something like “the next U.K. Prime Minister will not be Jeremy Corbyn.”

P5: The next U.K. Prime Minister will be Jeremy Corbyn
P6: The next U.K. Prime Minister will not be Jeremy Corbyn
From there, we can easily conclude:
C2: either you like pepperoni on your pizza OR the next U.K. Prime Minister will be Boris Johnson.

There’s not a bar for three towns over that wouldn’t think we were drunk. Oh, it’s valid alright, but nair a patron would say it was valid, unless they said it as a joke.

But enough of that, back to your argument

If P5 wasn’t bad enough, look at P4:

P4: The next U.K. Prime Minister will be either Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt
Let’s remind the listening audience of the conclusion again:
C: Therefore, the next U.K. Prime Minister will be Boris Johnson.

If I pretend that P5 was just an accidental slip of the tongue, I could use this. All I have to do is weed out Jeremy hunt and it’ll all come together. But holy damn look what you gave me to work with:

P1 - Jeremy Corbyn is not Boris Johnson;
P2 - Boris Johnson is not Jeremy Hunt;
P3 - Jeremy Hunt is not Jeremy Corbyn;

Holy head-spinner Batman! Want to see a head spin, drunk or sober, show ‘em that! People don’t even have to try and figure it out because any sense of charity about P5 just went out the window. For our viewers pleasure, a recap:

P4 - The next U.K. Prime Minister will be either Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt;
P5 - The next U.K. Prime Minister will be Jeremy Corbyn;
C - Therefore, the next U.K. Prime Minister will be Boris Johnson.

If anyone thinks a normal person (uneducated normal person) is going to incorporate P5 with anything above P3 to arrive at C and (and, I say) call it valid, I got news for you; your ass ain’t leavin’ the bar unless you got a cab—and we don’t give a shit you haven’t drank anything. Don’t get me wrong; I’m from the South. Drinking and driving is like a birth right around these parts, but everybody’s gonna think you are on drugs if you try to convince someone outside of an academic setting that your argument is valid— not that you would—because you think it’s not.

You couldn’t make that argument valid (your idea of valid) with all the beer, wine, and liquor in the world. You need either psychosis or an education with a different sense of validity for that.

Better?