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

[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 (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.

But it is not possible that you have the same argument and the conclusion fails to follow from the premises; for that reason, it follows necessarily (how could it not follow necessarily? )

 

[fast]

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.

But it is not possible that you have the same argument and the conclusion fails to follow from the premises; for that reason, it follows necessarily (how could it not follow necessarily? )

But you can have the same premises and arrive at a different conclusion, so that conclusion doesn’t necessarily have to follow when any other conclusion could just as well have followed.

Consider an argument that’s sound. What other conclusion can follow except for the very one that does? With an unsound yet valid argument, the conclusion follows, but so can a number of others.

An event that must occur can occur, but the inverse is not true. It’s not the case that if an event occurred that it had to.

When you tell me that the conclusion necessarily follows, there’s this ring about it that that’s the conclusion that must follow, but like I said, any number of conclusions could have followed.

If what you say is true (and I suppose it is), that relegates the wow factor downward to the level of valid arguments. Nice to have but potentially disappointing. People not in the know might mistake the claim of an argument being valid as also being sound—only to later be disappointed when the argument turns out to be unsound—whereas a sound argument is superior to one merely valid.

I figured it could be trusted that a necessary event would occur—after all, it’s necessary, not contingent. You’re ruining my admiration for the claim of an event to be necessary.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

But you can have the same premises and arrive at a different conclusion, so that conclusion doesn’t necessarily have to follow when any other conclusion could just as well have followed.

But the fact that other conclusions also follow from the premises does not change the fact that this one does.

Consider an argument that’s sound. What other conclusion can follow except for the very one that does? With an unsound yet valid argument, the conclusion follows, but so can a number of others.

What other conclusion can follow from the premises?
Many, actually, do follow from the premises - necessarily.

When you tell me that the conclusion necessarily follows, there’s this ring about it that that’s the conclusion that must follow, but like I said, any number of conclusions could have followed.

I would say that infinitely many conclusions follow necessarily from the premises (and in the case of the OP arguments, anything does).

If what you say is true (and I suppose it is), that relegates the wow factor downward to the level of valid arguments. Nice to have but potentially disappointing. People not in the know might mistake the claim of an argument being valid as also being sound—only to later be disappointed when the argument turns out to be unsound—whereas a sound argument is superior to one merely valid.

I figured it could be trusted that a necessary event would occur—after all, it’s necessary, not contingent. You’re ruining my admiration for the claim of an event to be necessary.

It's not a necessary event. Whether a person will draw one conclusion or another from the premises is a contingent event. What is necessary is that the conclusion follows from the premises, I'd say. But if you think about it, when you have a sound argument, the premises also imply other things, apart from the conclusion that a person contingently draws.

So, the event that is always contigent is what conclusion(s) a person draws (correctly or not) from some premises, whereas what is necessary is that a conclusion (if the argument is valid) follows from the premises (and that, in the case of this argument, all conclusions follow).

 

[lpetrich]

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.

Invalid. The five premises cannot all be true at the same time.

 

[DBT]

Invalid. The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises.

 

[Learner]

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

Not a logician but Its valid (I think) if we are to take the consideration that P5 - Jerry Corbyn becomes Prime Minster after C - Boris Johnson is Prime Minister first, (by vote of no confidence. and re-election). Both Johnson and Corbyn do become Prime Minister as the OP lays out.

Edt: (hmm getting to the conclusion, I dunno, forget the above)

 

[fast]

Invalid. The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises.

Argument recap: (with some highlights)

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.

I’m gonna make a little change and you tell me if it’s valid. I’m removing the “or Jeremy Hunt” from P4 above

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

What would you say now about it’s validity?

 

[fast]

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.

Invalid. The five premises cannot all be true at the same time.

That’s a good reason to think the argument is unsound. Once you consider the difference between an arguments soundness and it’s validity, do you still want to use the reason given?

 

[DBT]

Invalid. The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises.

Argument recap: (with some highlights)

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.

I’m gonna make a little change and you tell me if it’s valid. I’m removing the “or Jeremy Hunt” from P4 above

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

What would you say now about it’s validity?

Still can't see how the conclusion follows from the premises. Perhaps it's a case of brain freeze.

 

[fast]

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

Not a logician but Its valid (I think) if we are to take the consideration that P5 - Jerry Corbyn becomes Prime Minster after C - Boris Johnson is Prime Minister first, (by vote of no confidence. and re-election). Both Johnson and Corbyn do become Prime Minister as the OP lays out.

Edt: (hmm getting to the conclusion, I dunno, forget the above)

If P5 is true, what does that tell us about Jeremy Hunt in P3?

 

[fast]

Invalid. The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises.

Argument recap: (with some highlights)

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.

I’m gonna make a little change and you tell me if it’s valid. I’m removing the “or Jeremy Hunt” from P4 above

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

What would you say now about it’s validity?

Still can't see how the conclusion follows from the premises. Perhaps it's a case of brain freeze.

Just look at P4 (modified) and C:

P4 (modified) - The next U.K. Prime Minister will be Boris Johnson;
C - Therefore, the next U.K. Prime Minister will be Boris Johnson.

Does that appear valid?

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Believe me, you haven't learnt anything about logic.

You have learnt something about mathematical logic, and I know you of all people understands that we have no good reason to assume that mathematical logic is logic or even part of logic.

And me, I have good reasons to think it isn't.

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.

LOL. That's much better.

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?

Definitely.

Just remember, mathematical logic isn't logic so the notion of validity current in mathematical logic isn't validity.

But I guess your piece here says it all.

Validity means something very simple and intuitive, and very unlike the mathematical logic's notion,of validity.
EB

 

[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

Not a logician but Its valid (I think) if we are to take the consideration that P5 - Jerry Corbyn becomes Prime Minster after C - Boris Johnson is Prime Minister first, (by vote of no confidence. and re-election). Both Johnson and Corbyn do become Prime Minister as the OP lays out.

Edt: (hmm getting to the conclusion, I dunno, forget the above)

Are you sure you understand English well enough, Sir? Do you even live in our dimension? You think two different people could both be the next U.K. Prime Minister?!

Whoa.

For your information, if Corbyn came after Boris then Boris would be next and Corbyn wouldn't be.

Anyway, thanks for explaining your vote but you would need to go back to school!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Still can't see how the conclusion follows from the premises. Perhaps it's a case of brain freeze.

Just look at P4 (modified) and C:

P4 (modified) - The next U.K. Prime Minister will be Boris Johnson;
C - Therefore, the next U.K. Prime Minister will be Boris Johnson.

Does that appear valid?

Again, you can't ignore premises.

Your redacting here is just A implies A.

If we could do that then all arguments could become valid.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I see a lot more people reading this thread than actual votes.

Please vote before reading!

Thanks.
EB

 

[fast]

Still can't see how the conclusion follows from the premises. Perhaps it's a case of brain freeze.

Just look at P4 (modified) and C:

P4 (modified) - The next U.K. Prime Minister will be Boris Johnson;
C - Therefore, the next U.K. Prime Minister will be Boris Johnson.

Does that appear valid?

Again, you can't ignore premises.

Your redacting here is just A implies A.

If we could do that then all arguments could become valid.
EB

I’m in a zoo.

If I don’t ignore them, they don’t feed me my treats!

 

[DBT]

Still can't see how the conclusion follows from the premises. Perhaps it's a case of brain freeze.

Just look at P4 (modified) and C:

P4 (modified) - The next U.K. Prime Minister will be Boris Johnson;
C - Therefore, the next U.K. Prime Minister will be Boris Johnson.

Does that appear valid?

To me the whole thing just appears to be a list of statements where no conclusion can be drawn. Maybe I'm just not seeing it properly.

 

[fast]

Still can't see how the conclusion follows from the premises. Perhaps it's a case of brain freeze.

Just look at P4 (modified) and C:

P4 (modified) - The next U.K. Prime Minister will be Boris Johnson;
C - Therefore, the next U.K. Prime Minister will be Boris Johnson.

Does that appear valid?

To me the whole thing just appears to be a list of statements where no conclusion can be drawn. Maybe I'm just not seeing it properly.

When you consider the truth (or falsity) of the premises, and it’s instinctual to do that, we find it difficult to compartmentalize, but in order gauge validity in its own right, we need to disallow the complication that considering the truth brings.

Also, for a conclusion to follow, not every premise must be factored in. This is what we do; in analogy, we look at the conclusion on the one hand and consider that our destination or final product. It’s our goal so to speak. Is there enough in the premises to make it happen? Never mind the conflicts, the inconsistencies, the falsehoods, and the irrelevancies. We want to look at form and form alone. If it’s such that we can treck our way to the conclusion, it’s valid. It might be unsound as hell, but the question is about validity. Which validity, that’s contentious, but still, here is the path:

P4 gets us to the conclusion once Jeremy hunt is taken out the equation. After all,

If the next prime minister is either Boris or Jermemy Hunt and
If the next prime minister is not Jeremy Hunt
Then, it stands to reason that Boris is the next prime minister.

That’s valid

But, how do we weed out Jeremy Hunt? We look to P5 and P3 for that.
We Learn from P5 (actually, we don’t technically learn that, but given P5) the next prime minister is Jeremy Corbyn
But, given P3 which says Jeremy Hunt is not Jeremy Corbyn
From that, we conclude Jeremy Hunt is not the next U.K prime minister.

That’s just we needed to come to terms with because with information and given P4, we make our way to the conclusion.

 

[Learner]

Not a logician but Its valid (I think) if we are to take the consideration that P5 - Jerry Corbyn becomes Prime Minster after C - Boris Johnson is Prime Minister first, (by vote of no confidence. and re-election). Both Johnson and Corbyn do become Prime Minister as the OP lays out.

Edt: (hmm getting to the conclusion, I dunno, forget the above)

Are you sure you understand English well enough, Sir? Do you even live in our dimension? You think two different people could both be the next U.K. Prime Minister?!

For your information, if Corbyn came after Boris then Boris would be next and Corbyn wouldn't be.

Ah sorry about that, not UK Prime Ministers at the same time.

I was thrown off with " therefore" C- Boris was next iand not P-5 Corbyn. How you got C- Boris, I see doesn't matter here, if I'm getingt it right, perhaps not, your advice below is noted.

Whoa.



Anyway, thanks for explaining your vote but you would need to go back to school!
EB

Won't argue witth that, I tried.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A bigger douche than Corbyn will become the PM, therefore, it must be Boris Johnson. England may have won the Cricket World Cup, but their government has fallen into disrepair.