POLL on the logical validity of an argument on Joe being a squid

[fast]

A valid premise is a truthful premise just like a valid excuse is a truthful excuse.

Would you call something that was a clear lie a valid excuse?

Would you call a legally sanctioned yet vile, unconscionable act criminal?

The word “bank” (as in I was standing at the bank of the river) has four letters and is in the same order as the word “bank” (as in I used the ATM outside the bank).

There is a use of “valid” that makes it a category error to regard an excuse as valid. That’s not to say there aren’t other valid (pun intended) reasons to use other usages of “valid.”

Remember how you spoke of (or at least eluded to) physical impossibilities not being logical possibilities? It’s why I went to great lengths and carried on about green peanuts.

We’re in a sea of ambiguity.

 

[untermensche]

A bunch of hand waving.

A valid excuse must be true.

A valid premise also must be true.

 

[fast]

A bunch of hand waving.

A valid excuse must be true.

A valid premise also must be true.

There’s a time and place for different usages of terminology.

Words can denote meaning through stipulation. What our intuitive senses may yield in one venue is not necessarily applicative in another. This is almost comical. I can imagine the armored car driver sitting on the bank of the river with a beer and fishing pole now, talking on the telephone, saying, I’m at the bank, yes sir, yes I am, no, no troubles, made it just fine.

If you were to speak of a sentence and call it a valid premise, that wouldn’t even be a denial to what I’m saying if I looked at the same sentence and said it’s not a valid premise.

 

[untermensche]

A bunch of hand waving.

A valid excuse must be true.

A valid premise also must be true.

There’s a time and place for different usages of terminology.

Sure.

And the time to decide if a premise is valid is before it is used.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You don't even know what we're talking about.

I do, but to a considerable extent, you do not even know what I'm talking about and make no effort to be a little bit less irrational and try to understand. You just keep attacking.

How would you even know that?!

Among other reasons, modern logic provides easily applicable procedures, in particular truth tables.

You've as good as admitted you don't know that mathematical logic is correct!

That is not even remotely connected with anything I've said. You are just making a false charge that you should know is false.

You're just being terminally incoherent.

If you were being rational, you would realize at once that your accusation is false.

Still, it's fun, you clearly don't understand much on this issue. You're the typical dogmatic senselessly regurgitating the dogma. You're your typical ignoramus believing he has some expertise.

It is epistemically irrational on your part to believe that those accusations are true. On the basis of the evidence available to you (given by my posts), you should not reach that conclusion. It is discouraging that it is fun for you, because that suggests you will not desist for a while. But I can keep debunking.

You're just wasting my time.

You just said it was fun! Is having fun a waste of your time? If not, how is your time being wasted? Maybe you consider this particular instance of fun is a waste of time? In any case, no, I'm not wasting your time. If you are in fact wasting your time, you are doing that on your own. As for me, I'm trying to undo some of the damage you do. It's not as if I'm actually attempting to persuade you at this point.

 

[ruby sparks]

A valid premise is a truthful premise just like a valid excuse is a truthful excuse.

We're doing logic. You're mixing up logical truth and logical validity. We're also doing premises in logical arguments, not excuses in everyday life or premises in colloquial language.

- - - Updated - - -

A valid premise also must be true.

Nope.

 

[Speakpigeon]

In any case, no, I'm not wasting your time. If you are in fact wasting your time, you are doing that on your own.

You're absolutely correct, Angra, and, you're right, I'm wasting my time all be myself. So, I'll let you wrap up this thread and repair the damage you think I've done. I won't post anything else in this thread at least.
EB

 

[untermensche]

A valid premise is a truthful premise just like a valid excuse is a truthful excuse.

We're doing logic. You're mixing up logical truth and logical validity. We're also doing premises in logical arguments, not excuses in everyday life or premises in colloquial language.

I'm not mixing anything up. I'm saying that logic is not masturbation. It is a tool to find truth.

But you cannot find any truth from lies.

A valid premise is a premise that is true. And valid premises are necessary for a valid argument. Even if the word valid means something a little different in each case since validity in logic also has something to do with form.

But a valid argument is not the conclusion derived from a bunch of lies.

That is merely some fetish. A worship of form over function.

A valid premise also must be true.

Nope.

OK. You are late for work. Give me a valid excuse to explain your lateness that is not true.

If you give me a lie I will just say you have an idiosyncratic understanding of the word "valid".

 

[Angra Mainyu]

In any case, no, I'm not wasting your time. If you are in fact wasting your time, you are doing that on your own.

You're absolutely correct, Angra, and, you're right, I'm wasting my time all be myself. So, I'll let you wrap up this thread and repair the damage you think I've done. I won't post anything else in this thread at least.
EB

I think I've replied sufficiently to your previous posts (I was just posting in reply to new things you were saying), so at the moment I'm not planning to post new things with regard to them, though I might do so later, depending on where the thread goes from here.