Re: CFTF = Bizarro World!
(9/4/2007)
________________________

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Rick Hartzog wrote (post #12215):
> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote:
>> In a Bizarro World, all genuine hypothetical statements
>> are true and all formally valid arguments are sound.
>>
>> In the real world, genuine hypothetical statements, which,
>> by definition, take the "if p, then q" form, just may be
>> false.
>>
>> In the real world, formally valid arguments, such as
>> those in modus ponens form, just may not be sound.
>>
>> CFTF, with its cowardly, ever increasingly irrelevant,
>> excluded middle, nutty one, DD, as king, is a Bizarro World.
>>
>> There is a great gulf fixed between the CFTF Bizarro World
>> and the real world.
>
> Robert,
>
> Bizarre is right! I find this incredible! Do these
> people really not understand this, or are they just
> deliberately lying?
|[snip]

Both!

1. They have a comprehension failure.

2. When it is pointed out, and explained, to them that they have made
an error on this, and this is even done at least a dozen times, they
deliberately ignore the fact that this process (having their
attention drawn to the error and having why it is an error explained
to them) has taken place, and then pretend the process never
happened, and that is how they're deliberately lying.

So it's both.

Yes, this is The Young Earth Creationist Way all over again.
(Actually, we know that this is a more general attitude problem that
not just young earth creationists have, but it is so endemic to young
earth creationist rhetoric which is why I call it The Young Earth
Creationist Way.)

- Todd Greene

Re: Is Don DeLong starting to wise up?
(9/5/2007)
________________________

Daniel Denham, please see if you can get your head straight on this.
Of course, I'm telling you this, even while at the same time I know
that you will not even try. It is your practice to bury yourself six
feet under with your own errors. We know that with you, and other
people like you, once you've committed yourself to an error, that's
the death of your rationality on that score. Young earth creationism
is merely a symptom of this more fundamental syndrome.

Inference
(Wikipedia entry, 9/5/2007)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference

| All fat people are musicians
| John Lennon was fat
| -------------------
| Therefore John Lennon was a musician
|
| In this case we have two false premises that imply a true
| conclusion. The inference is valid because it follows the
| form of a correct inference.

Every single logic textbook tells you exactly this same thing. You
are demonstrating for everyone, not only your ignorance of elementary
logic concepts, but ALSO your obtuse determination to remain very
obstinately in error.

Based on experience with your behavior, Daniel, I have a high degree
of certainty that you are incapable of acknowledging your error on
this, and correcting your error. Because you've thoroughly
embarrassed yourself with your display not only of your ignorance
about this matter, but also of how you seem to have a love affair
with obtuseness.

Obtuse
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/obtuse

| 3. obtuse - lacking in insight or discernment; "too
| obtuse to grasp the implications of his behavior"; "a
| purblind oligarchy that flatly refused to see that
| history was condemning it to the dustbin"- Jasper Griffin
|
| 4. obtuse - slow to learn or understand; lacking
| intellectual acuity; "so dense he never understands
| anything I say to him"; "never met anyone quite so dim";
| "although dull at classical learning, at mathematics he
| was uncommonly quick"- Thackeray; "dumb officials make
| some really dumb decisions"; "he was either normally
| stupid or being deliberately obtuse"; "worked with the
| slow students"

What's even more amusing about this, Daniel, is that even some of
those in your buddyhood are recognizing your error on this (even
while they may engage in cover-up tactics for the very purpose of
pretending that your critics don't already have the goods on you).
It's the fact that you are so completely wrong on such a basic point
as this AND REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE ERROR EVEN AFTER IT HAS BEEN
POINTED OUT AN EXPLAINED TO YOU MORE THAN A DOZEN TIMES demonstrates
just how irrational and silly your rhetoric is.

Deja vu!

Chuckling,
Todd Greene

Re: Is Don DeLong starting to wise up?
(9/5/2007)
________________________

From:
http://www.jps.at/philosophy/validity.html

----------------------------------------------------------------

Philosophy - Characteristics of a valid argument
by Johannes Plachy

Characteristics of a valid argument

 * It cannot have true premises and a false conclusion

 * If its premises are true, its conclusion must be true

 * If its conclusion is false, it must have at least one
   false premise

 * All of the information in the conclusion is also in the
   premises

 * The probability of its conclusion, given its premises,
   is 1

Characteristics of an invalid argument

 * It can have true premises and a false conclusion.

 * Even if its premises are true, it may have a false
   conclusion.

 * Even if its conclusion is false, it may have true premises.

 * There is information in the conclusion that is not in the
   premises.

 * Probability of its conclusion, given its premises, is less
   than 1.

Deductive Validity and Truth (1)

  A deductively valid argument can go from...

    ...true premises to a true conclusion

    ...false premises to a true conclusion

    ...false premises to a false conclusion

  A deductively valid argument cannot go from...

    ...true premises to a false conclusion

Deductive Validity and Truth (2)

  An argument consisting of true statements can be invalid.

  An argument consisting of false statements can be valid.

  In a valid argument...

    ...true premises guarantee a true conclusion

    ...a false conclusion guarantees at least one false premise

    ...a false premise does not guarantee a false conclusion

    ...a true conclusion does not guarantee true premises

Re: Is Don DeLong starting to wise up?
(9/5/2007)
________________________

Excerpt from:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Modus_ponens_and_Modus_tollens

----------------------------------------------------------------

Modus ponens and Modus tollens
(New World Encyclopedia entry, 9/5/2007)

[...]

Here is an example of an [Modus ponens] inference:

| If Jack is innocent, he has an alibi.
|
| Jack is innocent.
|
| Therefore, Jack has an alibi.

The first two statements are the premises and the third statement is
the conclusion. If the first and second are true, we are forced to
accept the third.

One thing that may be mentioned here is that, in general, the validity
of an inference does not guarantee the truth of the statements in the
inference. The validity only assures us the truth of the conclusion
assuming that the premises are true.

Denham's Disaster on Basic Logic
(9/5/2007)
________________________

--- In CFTF, Daniel Denham wrote (post #26959):
> Don, Jerry, Daniel, & List,
>
> Baty's blunder is in assuming that every hypothetical
> ("if, then") statement that one may concoct necessarily
> forms an acceptable, logical major premise for any valid
> hypothetical argument in the form Modus Ponens.

Of course, the only blunder here is Daniel's blunder of describing
this DEFINITIONAL FACT of logic as a blunder.

> It simply is
> not the case.

It simply IS the case.

> That is the
> force of the Copi quotation I posted earlier.

No, it isn't. Here is the quote:

| A hypothetical statement ASSERTS that its antecedent
| implies its consequent. It does not assert that its
| antecedent is true, but only if its antecedent is
| true then its consequent is true also. It does not
| assert that its consequent is true, but only that
| its consequent is true if its antecedent is true.
| The essential meaning of a hypothetical statement is
| the relation of implication ASSERTED to hold between
| its antecedent and consequent, in that order."
| (Irving Copi, *Introduction To Logic*, p.246)
[emphasis added]

Poor Daniel doesn't know what the word "assert" means.

> There must be
> an essential relation between the two terms.

What does this mean, "essential"? Daniel is simply confused again.
What is "essential" is that IN THE ARGUMENT the implicative
relationship between P and Q is what is asserted (assumed) IN THE
FORM OF THE ARGUMENT, WHICH BEARS ON ANALYZING ITS LOGICAL VALIDITY.
But then in the process of investigating the "soundness" of the
argument, it may be found that the "If P, then Q" statement IS
COMPLETELY WRONG - BUT THIS WILL NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE
ARGUMENT REMAINS LOGICALLY "VALID." Poor David is having such extreme
difficulties with this because he keeps confusing "validity"
with "soundness." They are not the same thing.

> That is what
> Jerry MacDonald demonstrated in his illustrations
> that Baty just sucked up like a mudfish.

Just more silly remarks by the confused Daniel.

> Unless there is
> an essential relation (e.g. causal) between the two
> terms, all you have is a meanigless piece of gibberish
> and wind up affirming that Dobbin is a cow simply
> because he's an animal. No, folks, he may just be a
> horse! And the horse-laugh is on Baty and Hartzog, who
> endorsed his blunder!

Daniel is simply confusing "validity" with "soundness." In the sense
of technical logical, an argument - including a modus ponens
argument - can be logically valid yet be an unsound argument
argument, precisely because the "If P, then Q" is false.

In the context of discussing Robert Baty's GRAS argument, the issue
is that some have disputed that the argument is a logically valid
argument (i.e., they have claimed that it is not valid logic, without
attempting to deal with the soundness of the argument). It is that
aspect of the discussion that Robert is addressing, where as poor
confused Daniel keeps mixing up "validity" with "soundness." He needs
to make up his mind which one he wishes to discusses, and stop
confusing the two aspects with each other.

> As noted, in
> a previous post, the definition of "antecedent" and
> "consequent" imply an essential relationship.

The words imply the relationship that is being asserted between P and
Q in the conditional statement of the argument ("If P, then Q," which
is different from "If Q, then P"). But even if the statement "If P,
then Q" is false, the (modus ponens) argument is still logically
valid, and the "antecedent"/"consequent" relationship of the
components doesn't change in the slightest.

> That is why,
> folks, the little horseshoe symbol is used in symbolic
> logic in expressing the form more fully -- to show that
> p IMPLIES q and that the terms therefore are essentially
> related!

In an argument it is ASSERTED that P implies Q.

A. P => Q.
B. P.
C. Therefore, Q.

That is a logically valid argument, and in the context of the
argument, the symbol "=>" for "implies" is indeed a reference to P
implying Q. However, if statement A ("P implies Q") is a false
statement, the argument is still a logically valid argument in the
technical sense of the word "valid" as used in logic, but, of course,
since P does not actually imply Q then the argument is "unsound."

Again, Daniel is confusing "valid" and "sound" as being the same
thing, when they are referring to different conceptual aspects of an
argument.

> That is why
> I kept asking Baty: WHAT DOES "IMPLIES" MEAN? He doesn't
> get it, and neither does Hartzog. Both of them are as
> clueless as can be! Daniel Denham

It's poor Daniel Daniel who can't seem to comprehend the distinction
that is being discussed between "validity" and "soundness," or why it
was even brought up in the first place (it was brought up by those
who have claimed that the GRAS argument is not a valid logical
argument, without regard to dealing with its soundness at all).

The fact that Daniel is so obviously wrong about this is why we're
laughing about his silly and ridiculous remarks attacking us FOR
POINTING OUT THE TRUTH. (It's also why we joke about him being on our
payroll, as one of our undercover agents out to make fundamentalists
look so very silly. He's doing a great job, huh?)

We're so darned unGODly for daring to criticize these men for
promoting error and FOR OBSTINATELY promoting error in a DECEITFUL
manner.

Chuckling,
Todd Greene

P.S.: I suspect the Contentious For The Faith buddyhood is even now
writing to Daniel behind the scenes - trying to not let on publicly
so much that they realize his rhetoric isn't even good enough to wash
hogs with, it's too much of an embarrassment for them. Of course,
there will be no open acknowledgement of any error, they'll sweep it
under the rug, and ALL of them will continue to use the same old
poorer-than-hogwash rhetoric, because they hate the truth and love
error so much.

================================================================

[Excerpt; original emphasis]

Modus ponens and Modus tollens
(New World Encyclopedia entry, 9/5/2007)
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Modus_ponens_and_Modus_tollens

Here is an example of an [Modus ponens] inference:

| If Jack is innocent, he has an alibi.
|
| Jack is innocent.
|
| Therefore, Jack has an alibi.

The first two statements are the premises and the third statement is
the conclusion. If the first and second are true, we are forced to
accept the third.

One thing that may be mentioned here is that, in general, the
validity of an inference does not guarantee the truth of the
statements in the inference. The validity only assures us the truth
of the conclusion ASSUMING that the premises are true. Thus, for
instance, it may be the case that not every innocent suspect has an
alibi and that the first statement of the above example of [Modus
ponens] inferences is in fact false. However, this does not affect
the validity of the inference, since the conclusion must be true when
we assume the two premises are true regardless of whether the two
premises are in fact true.

The concept that involves the truth of the premises of inferences is
SOUNDNESS. An inference is sound if it is valid and all the premises
are true; otherwise, the inference is unsound. Thus, an argument can
be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false
premises.

Re: Denham's Disaster on Basic Logic
(9/5/2007)
________________________

By the way, this discussion on basic logic is BBBOOORRRIIINNNNGGGGG.

Off on another silly, stupid tangent, precisely because these guys FEAR
getting into discussing the relevant scientific details because they
themselves are well aware of THEIR INABILITY TO DEAL WITH THE SUBSTANCE
OF THE ARGUMENTS. They know that when it comes to science they're
forced to go way out on limbs with pseudoscience rhetoric generated by
YEC crackpots - or else abandon science and epistemology altogether and
run off to the apparent age argument (thus AGREEING with their critics
that young earth creationism is not scientific, which is the point).

- Todd Greene

Re: Denham's Disaster on Basic Logic
(9/6/2007)
________________________

--- In CFTF, Daniel Denham wrote (post #26969):
> King,
>
> This is just more of the same ole grabage from Todd. He
> still keeps missing the point.

Of course, the facts of the matter show that it is Daniel Denham who
has been missing the point, just as he always misses the point.

> Until he begins
> to deal honestly with what I said as opposed to what he
> wishes I had said, he is not worth spit to even bother
> to acknowledge any longer.

This is Daniel dishonestly running away from his own quote of Copi,
because he now wants to ignore what Copi wrote.

> He is a liar
> and willfully dishonest one.

Of course, it's Daniel who is now lying about what Copi said.

> It is no
> wonder he is now an atheist -- it suits his obvious,
> current belief system in ethics.

When deliberate liars allege the superiority of their ethics - even in
the act of lying - I just laugh and laugh and laugh.

> He cannot answer
> what is actually said in situ,

Of course, my posts are part of public record, and everyone can see
for themselves that I do in fact answer what is actually said "in situ."

> so he just
> snips things the way he wants and makes up the rest.

Just more of Daniel Denham blatantly lying to everyone.

> Notice how he
> highlights the word "asserts" as opposed to the word
> "implication."

Notice how Daniel Denham ignored the word "assert" in Copi's quote
when he quoted it. Notice how Daniel Denham STILL (i.e., deliberately)
ignores the word "assert" in Copi's quote even after I emphasized it
for him to bring it to his attention because he had ignored it the
first time.

Daniel is doing this because he wants to pretend Copi did not use the
word "assert," Daniel wants to pretend the word "assert" is not used
in by Copi where he used it, and Daniel wants everyone else to think
Copi did not use the word "assert" in what Daniel quoted.

> For the form
> to be valid there must be an implication.

False. For the form to be "valid," an implication must be ASSERTED.
That's what Copi said, and now Daniel wants everyone to ignore his own
quote of Copi. This is how deceitful Daniel Denham is.

> A hypothetical statement
> makes an assertion, but an argument produces a necessary
> conclusion demanded by the antecedent to such a
> statement.

Nope. Only if the elements are true. Again, Daniel keeps mixing up
logical "validity" and "soundness" and pretending they're the same
thing. They are not the same thing. Poor Daniel can't seem to
comprehend this basic aspect of logic, even after it has been
explained to him over a dozen times, by different logic authorities.

> It is fascinating
> that Todd did not see fit to give all that Copi had to
> say about this matter.

That's funny, what I gave is EXACTLY WHAT DANIEL GAVE, so notice that
here Daniel is unwittingly criticizing HIMSELF.

Of course, we all know he's merely engaging in his typical red herring
rhetoric. Daniel's specific error here that I'm pointing out is that
he has ignored what Copi wrote in the very quote that Daniel gave.

> I suspect I
> am going to find a similar use of Waller's work by Baty.

This is Daniel making up stuff, as usual.

> These "gentlemen" are
> disingenious in their very method of argumentation.

The facts of the public record demonstrate that the disingenuous
argumentation is flowing from Daniel Denham's keyboard.

> Copi points out
> that the symbolic logic form of the argument involves
> the use of the "horseshoe symbol" which expresses
> "material IMPLICATION" (p.258). A hypothetical statement,
> which is what Copi is dealing with on page 246, does not
> necessarily constitute a hypothetical argument or
> syllogism, which is what Todd has wrongly assumed.

The only thing I have assumed...

Well, actually, it's not an assumption, it is a factual observation...

...is that when Daniel takes a mistaken position, it doesn't matter
what the facts are, he will make a complete and utter fool of himself
and use every rhetoric fallacy and trick in the book to try to cover
up his mistakes and promote his errors.

> Copi clearly shows
> this in his discussion.

How does this change anything about what Copi wrote? Of course, it
doesn't change it at all. Yes, that's right, more red herring from Daniel.

A hypothetical statement ASSERTS that its antecedent implies its
consequent. The essential meaning of a hypothetical statement is the
relation of implication that is ASSERTED to hold between its
antecedent and consequent. We know that this fact about the logical
validity of an argument

> Lionel Ruby points it out explicitly in his logic text THE ART OF
> MAKING SENSE (pp. 131ff.). Hurley notes the same thing expressly (A
> CONCISE INTRO. TO LOGIC, p.18). A conditional sentence may be the
> basis of a syllogism. It may even by the use of an unstated but
> implied premise or conclusion be enthymemic, something Baty errantly
> denied completely earlier, when he denied such a structure as an
> enthymeme in argumentation. [It's fascinating that now Todd and he
> are now implicitly contending that every case of a conditional or
> hypothetical sentence is an enthymeme!]

What does any of this have to do with changing what Copi wrote?
Nothing at all. Here is what Copi quote:

| A hypothetical statement ASSERTS that its antecedent
| implies its consequent. It does not assert that its
| antecedent is true, but only if its antecedent is
| true then its consequent is true also. It does not
| assert that its consequent is true, but only that
| its consequent is true if its antecedent is true.
| The essential meaning of a hypothetical statement is
| the relation of implication ASSERTED to hold between
| its antecedent and consequent, in that order."
| (Irving Copi, *Introduction To Logic*, p.246)
[emphasis added]

Poor Daniel still doesn't know what the word "assert" means. Or
rather, he does know what it means, but now he's working in overdrive
to deceitfully obfuscate the fact that Copi used the word "assert." "A
hypothetical statement asserts that its antecedent implies its
consequent." "The essential meaning of a hypothetical statement is the
relation of implication asserted to hold between its antecedent and
consequent."

Daniel is telling everyone that Copi (and all other logic experts) are
wrong about this. Copi says, "A hypothetical statement asserts that
its antecedent implies its consequent." Daniel denies this, because
he's arguing that a logical argument cannot be "valid" (in the
technical sense of logical validity) unless the antecedent implying
the consequent ("If P, then Q") is correct. Daniel is telling us that
Copi should NOT have used the word "asserts" in his statement. But
Copi DID use the word "asserts," because Copi actually knows what he's
talking about, whereas Daniel is merely demontrating how foolish he is
when it comes to his obtuseness in advocating an erroneous position.

> Remember that a
> valid argument by definition is one in which the
> conclusion follows from its premises (Ruby, p. 109).

That's right. That's the definition of "valid." However, that does NOT
make the argument "sound." An argument can be "valid" yet be
"unsound." Daniel cannot handle this fact, because it's too
embarrassing to him, which is why he's now working so diligently and
antagonistically to cover up his foolish mistake.

> In a valid
> hypothetical argument, that means that if the antecedent
> is true, then the conclusion must be true.

This is wrong, because it is incomplete. In a valid hypothetical
argument, the conclusion (the consequent) must be true, IF the
implication is true (i.e., IF the "If P, then Q" is correct) AND IF
the antecedent is true.

> Todd still has not addressed the Ken Chumbley argument,

Rabbit after rabbit after rabbit...

Indeed, Robert, or Rick, or both, have already addressed this, but,
hey, since I'm wasting my time on this boring and stupid obtuseness
from Daniel Denham (which is, I will admit, generating another good
example for the public record of the sheer incompetence of the
Contentious For Tendentious Fallacies buddyhood in regard to rational
thinking and rational discussion), why not waste a little more chasing
yet another one of Denham's rabbits...

================================================================

**** SIDE TRACK ON DENHAM'S "Ken Chumbley argument" ****
[From CFTF, post #26949:]

| Baty, Hartzog, and Greene have each taken the position
| that an hypothetical syllogism is formally valid without
| there having to be an essential relationship between the
| antecedent and the consequent.

That's right, an argument can be "valid" EVEN IF THE "If P, then Q" IS
WRONG. The "validity" of an inference does not guarantee the truth of
the statements in the inference. The "validity" only assures us the
truth of the conclusion ASSUMING that the premises are true.

Poor Daniel Denham has so utterly confused himself, due to his
obstinacy-in-error attitude, that he keeps confusing "validity" with
"soundness," despite the fact that they are not the same thing.

| They have also
| admitted that if the antecedent to such an argument is
| true, then the conclusion cannot help but be true.

Again, this is wrong, because it is incomplete. In a valid
hypothetical argument, the conclusion (the consequent) must be true,
IF the implication is true (i.e., IF the "If P, then Q" is correct)
AND IF the antecedent is true.

| Now, watch the
| next argument carefully, folks, and then watch Baty have
| a cow and try to find all sorts of reasons why it just
| doesn't follow despite the stupid position that he has
| taken on essential relationships and hypothetical
| syllogisms.

In fact, Robert has been quoting the logic experts and agreeing with
them. Daniel has not only been disputing the logic experts, but has
even been disputing the quotes that he himself has given, such as the
Copi quote, regarding which Daniel is now trying to pretend that Copi
did not use the word "assert." We've been observing Daniel obtusely
maintaining his stupid position against all the logic experts.

| Major Premise:
| If it is the case that Ken Chumley likes fish
| and chips, then it is the case that the earth
| is only a few thousand years old and was
| created in six literal 24-hour days.
|
| Minor Premise:
| It is the case that Ken Chumley likes fish
| and chips.
|
| Conclusion:
| Therefore, it is the case that the earth is
| only a few thousand years old and was created
| in six literal 24-hour days.

That's a little wordy (we could remove "it is the case" from all
elements of the argument), but that's fine as it is.

| Folks, Baty has
| just granted BY IMPLICATION that his hobby of an ancient
| earth is false and that his Goliath quibble is also
| false.

Really? And how is it the case that that is what he has done?

| He has just
| implictly given up his entire dogma and does not have a
| leg to stand on in trying to defend it.

Really? And how is it the case that that is what he has done?

| Baty, thank you
| for your implicit, irrevocable admission!

WHAT "implicit, irrevocable admission"? Why doesn't Daniel tell us???

| Folks, I gave him
| more than ample opportunity to back up and correct his
| blunders in logic.

It is Daniel whom we've been observing making all the blunders in
elementary logic.

| He and his
| cohorts refused.

It is true that we have refused to follow Daniel in his blunders,
because we put more credence in logic experts than we do in the
incompetence and deceit of Daniel Denham.

| Brother Jerry MacDonald,
| here is an implicit admission by Baty and company that
| would be devastating for Todd Greene to have to confront
| at Belle.

WHAT "implicit admission"? Why doesn't Daniel tell us???

| It will be
| very entertaining for the good folks there to watch Todd
| try to explain how he can try to have everything and yet
| give it all up by implication at the same time!

By WHAT "implication"? Why doesn't Daniel tell us???

Indeed, we have ALREADY been greatly entertained watching Daniel bury
himself over six feet deep with his blunders and silly rhetoric based
on his blunders.

| He will bluster;
| he will scoff; he will call you a liar, and ridicule you,
| while everyone busts a gut laughing

In fact, we've been working hard to PREVENT ourselves from busting a
gut, we've been laughing so much over Daniel's antics.

| at the obvious
| inane, absurd, and asinine dilemma in which Todd and his
| buddies have placed THEMSELVES,

WHAT "dilemma"? Why doesn't Daniel tell us???

| just because they
| could not and would not admit that they were wrong on the
| nature of validity!

Logical validity does not guarantee the truth of the statements in the
argument. Validity only assures us that the conclusion is true IF the
premises are true.

Poor, poor, Daniel, he keeps right on showing everyone that he is
incapable of comprehending the distinction between "validity" and
"soundness" - even after this distinction has been pointed out to him
and explained to him dozens of times.

| So, Baty and
| company have now fully and completely, by their own
| fault, smelled de-feet!

Of course, as we have seen right here, Daniel has never even stated
what it is that he alleges has defeated us. This is the emptiness and
silliness of Daniel's rhetoric.

As usual.

**** END OF SIDE TRACK ****

================================================================

> and the implications
> it holds for his hobby horse dogma of an ancient earth,
> given what he (Todd) continues to assert relative to
> hypothetical arguments.

WHAT "implications"? Why doesn't Daniel tell us???

> It is also
> interesting that Todd did not give the examples that Copi
> gave in which he dealt with essential relationships (or
> essential relations) right after the paragraph he cropped
> out for his own purposes,

This is Daniel lying, as usual. I didn't "crop out" anything "for my
own purposes. DANIEL IS THE ONE WHO "CROPPED OUT" the quote of Copi.
So notice how Daniel is now attacking me for looking Daniel's own
quote!!! Daniel is such a maroon.

> while pretending he
> (Todd) has no idea to what I am referring when I speak of
> essential relationships.

What does this have to do with anything? Copi wrote, "A hypothetical
statement asserts that its antecedent implies its consequent." Copi
wrote, "The essential meaning of a hypothetical statement is the
relation of implication asserted to hold between its antecedent and
consequent." Daniel wants you to ignore what Copi wrote, even though
it is Daniel himself who produced this quote of Copi.

> He ignored Copi's
> references to the antecedent being connected to the
> consequent by LOGICAL IMPLICATION, or by DEFINITIONAL
> IMPLICATION, or by CAUSAL LAWS (or arrangement), or
> DECISIONAL implication. He also deals with MATERIAL
> IMPLICATION. The first four involve "real connections,"
> while the last one does not. While the four examples of
> "reeal connections" he gives are different, Copi states
> that they "all assert types of IMPLICATION." Some
> connection, whether real or simply material must exist
> to formulate a valid argument.

Notice that Daniel is not quoting Copi any more, but just making up
stuff. In fact, we already know what Copi wrote about LOGICAL
VALIDITY. "A hypothetical statement asserts that its antecedent
implies its consequent." "The essential meaning of a hypothetical
statement is the relation of implication asserted to hold between its
antecedent and consequent."

> Todd is simply
> being patently dishonest.
>
> Daniel Denham

We know who is being patently dishonest, because he is always patently
dishonest, as part of his standard procedure. This is all part of the
public record. And that man is Daniel Denham, a preacher, a man whose
"morality" tells him to lie at will about everything and everyone he
disagrees with.

- Todd Greene

================================================================

[Excerpt; original emphasis]

Modus ponens and Modus tollens
(New World Encyclopedia entry, 9/5/2007)
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Modus_ponens_and_Modus_tollens

Here is an example of an [Modus ponens] inference:

| If Jack is innocent, he has an alibi.
|
| Jack is innocent.
|
| Therefore, Jack has an alibi.

The first two statements are the premises and the third statement is
the conclusion. If the first and second are true, we are forced to
accept the third.

One thing that may be mentioned here is that, in general, the validity
of an inference does not guarantee the truth of the statements in the
inference. The validity only assures us the truth of the conclusion
ASSUMING that the premises are true. Thus, for instance, it may be the
case that not every innocent suspect has an alibi and that the first
statement of the above example of [Modus ponens] inferences is in fact
false. However, this does not affect the validity of the inference,
since the conclusion must be true when we assume the two premises are
true regardless of whether the two premises are in fact true.

The concept that involves the truth of the premises of inferences is
SOUNDNESS. An inference is sound if it is valid and all the premises
are true; otherwise, the inference is unsound. Thus, an argument can
be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false
premises.

The CFTF buddyhood apparently doesn't have a clue...
(9/6/2007)
________________________

...about what we're even talking about. It's so simple.

"Validity" and "soundness" are not the same thing.

That's it.

That's how stupid, and how boring, their silliness really is.

They just don't get it.

There's no more time to waste on this silliness. Young earth
creationists are just as incapable of teaching anyone about logic, as
they are incapable of teaching anyone about science, or about morality
for that matter. It's like someone telling you they've been abducted
by aliens, and you just automatically know that your dealing with a
mind that's not running on all cylinders.

These men have demonstrated their horrible lack of comprehension on
this subject.

As for me, I certainly will not be spending any more time on their
utterly boring stupidity on this matter, chasing rabbit 17, rabbit 18,
rabbit 19, and so on, down even more rabbit holes than we've already
been down on this subject. These men have demonstrated obviously and
ad nauseum that they are simply not capable of understanding the facts
on this. Par for the course.

You specifically address 16 of their errors, right down the line,
spending all kinds of time on detail after detail, and fact after
fact, showing exactly why what they state is wrong - and they just
deceitfully ignore all of that and proceed to red herring game #17.

Enough is enough. We know not only why they are wrong, and thus
conclusively and unequivocally that they're wrong, and that their
comprehension level is apparently quite horrible, but also that they
will lie blatantly that no one ever showed them anything at all even
indicating that there might be a problem. Cluelessness. Deceitfulness.
They'll deceitfully pretend that they were never presented with any
information at all showing them that "validity" and "soundness" are
not the same thing. They've proved that they'll not only deliberately
ignore anything and everything that you explicitly quote for them
regarding what logic experts have specifically stated about this,
they've even ignore what they themselves have quoted when you draw
attention to the words that are used in the quote that they ignored
when they quoted it. Thus do they prove their own cognitive and
deliberative failures.

They will NEVER find a logician state that a logically valid argument
must be sound, because "validity" and "soundness" are not the same
thing. That's it. That's the beginning and the end of the utter
stupidity of their rhetoric on this subject.

- Todd Greene

================================================================

[Excerpt; original emphasis]

Modus ponens and Modus tollens
(New World Encyclopedia entry, 9/5/2007)
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Modus_ponens_and_Modus_tollens

Here is an example of an [Modus ponens] inference:

| If Jack is innocent, he has an alibi.
|
| Jack is innocent.
|
| Therefore, Jack has an alibi.

The first two statements are the premises and the third statement is
the conclusion. If the first and second are true, we are forced to
accept the third.

One thing that may be mentioned here is that, in general, the validity
of an inference does not guarantee the truth of the statements in the
inference. The validity only assures us the truth of the conclusion
ASSUMING that the premises are true. Thus, for instance, it may be the
case that not every innocent suspect has an alibi and that the first
statement of the above example of [Modus ponens] inferences is in fact
false. However, this does not affect the validity of the inference,
since the conclusion must be true when we assume the two premises are
true regardless of whether the two premises are in fact true.

The concept that involves the truth of the premises of inferences is
SOUNDNESS. An inference is sound if it is valid and all the premises
are true; otherwise, the inference is unsound. Thus, an argument can
be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false
premises.

Re: Denham's Disaster on Basic Logic
(9/7/2007)
________________________

--- In CFTF, Daniel Denham wrote (post #26987):
> BTW, King,
>
> It's interesting that Todd did not stop by long enough
> to tell us if he now accepts the argument that Baty is
> a liar and the one that shows the earth is only a few
> thousand years old and was created in 6 literal
> 24-hour days or was going to admit that he is wrong on
> the nature of hypothetical syllogisms! Lockjaw has
> indeed set in, folks.

Is Daniel Denham capable of engaging in *rational* discussion?

No, of course not! What a stupid question that is.

Standard operating procedure for Daniel Denham:

1. Lie about everything in sight.

2. When someone responds to him, he ignores what that person wrote,
refuses to address any problems pointed out, and refuses to address
any questions asked. (Because he's incapable of rational discussion.)

3. Then lies some more, deceitfully pretending that the person never
even responded to him.

That's exactly what the Deceitful Denham has done here. Here is the
post that Daniel is now deceitfully pretending doesn't exist:

Re: Denham's Disaster on Basic Logic
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/12299

- Todd Greene

What ContendingFTF Does Not Want You To Know
http://creationism.outersystem.us/cftffear.html

================================================================

[Excerpt; original emphasis]

Modus ponens and Modus tollens
(New World Encyclopedia entry, 9/5/2007)
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Modus_ponens_and_Modus_tollens

Here is an example of an [Modus ponens] inference:

| If Jack is innocent, he has an alibi.
|
| Jack is innocent.
|
| Therefore, Jack has an alibi.

The first two statements are the premises and the third statement is
the conclusion. If the first and second are true, we are forced to
accept the third.

One thing that may be mentioned here is that, in general, the validity
of an inference does not guarantee the truth of the statements in the
inference. The validity only assures us the truth of the conclusion
ASSUMING that the premises are true. Thus, for instance, it may be the
case that not every innocent suspect has an alibi and that the first
statement of the above example of [Modus ponens] inferences is in fact
false. However, this does not affect the validity of the inference,
since the conclusion must be true when we assume the two premises are
true regardless of whether the two premises are in fact true.

The concept that involves the truth of the premises of inferences is
SOUNDNESS. An inference is sound if it is valid and all the premises
are true; otherwise, the inference is unsound. Thus, an argument can
be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false
premises.

Jerry McDonald, Gil Yoder & "Goliath of GRAS"!
(9/7/2007)
________________________

Re: Jerry McDonald, Gil Yoder & "Goliath of GRAS"!


--- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote (post #12350):
> Jerry,
>
> Now we are making progress in understanding your problem.
> You have been most explicit in your latest admissions
> wherein you state, in relevant part:
>
>> Robert, in order to have
>> a valid argument the major
>> premise MUST be true,
>> otherwise it isn't valid.
>>
>> Ok?
>
> Jerry, that is definitely NOT OK!
|[snip]

Jerry, I know I'm merely reiterating what's already been pointed out
to you, but here it is again...

In the technical sense of logical "validity," the major premise can
indeed be false even while the argument is logically valid. (However,
if the major premise is false, then the argument would be "unsound.")

I suspect you're using "valid" and "not valid" in the
less-than-technical of the argument simply being a good or bad
argument, in which case you're correct: "In order to have a good
argument, the major premise must be true, otherwise it isn't a good
argument."

But the whole context of this particular discussion - which has long
since been lost by the CFTF buddyhood - is the GRAS argument, and GRAS
happens to be valid (in the technical sense; i.e., it's a logically
valid argument), AND it is also a sound argument. Unfortunately, you
young earth creationists are so afraid of even dealing with the
soundness of the argument, that you jump immediately into interminable
word games of obfuscation about technical aspect of logic - concerning
which you even make a number of additional errors that just bog the
whole discussion down with red herring irrelevancies - and the primary
point is completely lost, having been buried in obfuscation.

In other words, young earth creationists achieve their goal of
distracting everyone away from the true point, by burying it in these
layers of obfuscation.

Jerry, here's a question for you:

| IF it really is the case that the Universe and the
| Earth have been in existence for millions of years,
| then would you say that the Bible is wrong, or would
| you instead say that your young earth creationist
| interpretation of the Bible is wrong?

- Todd Greene

What ContendingFTF Does Not Want You To Know
http://creationism.outersystem.us/cftffear.html

================================================================

[Excerpt; original emphasis]

Modus ponens and Modus tollens
(New World Encyclopedia entry, 9/5/2007)
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Modus_ponens_and_Modus_tollens

Here is an example of an [Modus ponens] inference:

| If Jack is innocent, he has an alibi.
|
| Jack is innocent.
|
| Therefore, Jack has an alibi.

The first two statements are the premises and the third statement is
the conclusion. If the first and second are true, we are forced to
accept the third.

One thing that may be mentioned here is that, in general, the validity
of an inference does not guarantee the truth of the statements in the
inference. The validity only assures us the truth of the conclusion
ASSUMING that the premises are true. Thus, for instance, it may be the
case that not every innocent suspect has an alibi and that the first
statement of the above example of [Modus ponens] inferences is in fact
false. However, this does not affect the validity of the inference,
since the conclusion must be true when we assume the two premises are
true regardless of whether the two premises are in fact true.

The concept that involves the truth of the premises of inferences is
SOUNDNESS. An inference is sound if it is valid and all the premises
are true; otherwise, the inference is unsound. Thus, an argument can
be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false
premises.

Re: Jerry McDonald, Gil Yoder & "Goliath of GRAS"!
(9/8/2007)
________________________

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #12363):
> If it is indeed an undeniable fact that the universe is
> billions of years old, then the Bible is wrong.

Hi Jerry,

Thank you for responding to the question.

As a matter of public record, I note here the fact that EVERY SINGLE
ONE of the Contentious For Tendentious Fallacies buddyhood
deliberately refused to answer this question.

> Now please explain
> to me Copi's statement, the whole statement, if the
> conclusion does not have to logically and necessarily
> follow from the premise.
>
> jdm

Jerry, we've all BEEN explaining this to you (well, to everyone the
technical sense of logical "validity," and its distinction from
"soundness"). How many more times is going to be necessary???

We have NEVER stated that the conclusion does not have to logically
and necessarily follow from the premise for a logically valid argument.

The distinction we've been pointing out, numerous times, is that an
argument can be logically valid, yet still not be sound. This would be
because something about the premises is wrong.

| If P is the case, then Q is the case.
|
| P is the case.
|
| Therefore, Q is the case.

That is the form of a logically valid argument (this particular form
is called "modus ponens"). There are other logically valid forms. (And
there are logically invalid forms.)

For an argument to be sound, it must be valid.

However, just because an argument is logically valid, that does not
guarantee that it is sound. Indeed, here is an (ironic,
self-referencing) example of an argument that is a logically valid,
unsound argument:

| If this argument is valid logically, then it is a sound argument.
|
| This argument is a logically valid argument.
|
| Therefore, this argument is also a sound argument.

That argument is a logically valid argument (modus ponens form).
However, it is NOT a sound argument. The reason it is not a sound
argument is because the first premise is false.

Here is the quote I think you're referring to:

From:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/12351

| ...here is what Copi said on the matter:
|
| "When an argument makes the claim that its premisses
| (if true) provide irrefutable grounds for the truth
| of its conclusion, that claim will be either correct
| or not correct. If it is correct, then the argument
| is VALID (all caps for emphasis jdm). It is not
| correct (that is if the premissses when true fail to
| establish the conclusion IRREFUTABLY all caps for
| emphasis jdm), that argument is invalid.
|
| For logicians, therefore, the term validity is
| applicable only to deduct arguments. To say that a
| deductive argument is valid is to say that it not
| possible for its conclusion to be false if its
| premisses are true. Thus we define 'validity' as
| follows: A DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT IS VALID WHEN, IF ITS
| PREMISSES ARE TRUE, ITS CONCLUSION MUST BE TRUE" (all
| caps for emphasis jdm) (Introduction to Logic, p.
| 43).

Note that there is something wrong with the first paragraph
(misspelled words, and at least one missing word, and the way your
note is inserted in the quote in the first paragraph it is not clear
which words are Copi's and which words are yours). But I think there's
enough clarity to address what's there. Copi is clearly addressing the
"therefore" of the conclusion of an argument. In other words, if the
conclusion is NOT established by the premises, then the argument is
not logically valid. If the conclusion can be false (i.e., not
established by the premises) even if all the premises are true, then
the argument is not a logically valid argument. If the conclusion MUST
be true if the premises are true, then the argument is a logically
valid argument (even if any or all of the premises are false).

Example:

| All organisms with certain common characters are "animals."
|
| Dogs are animals.
|
| Dogs have fur.
|
| Cats are animals.
|
| Cats have fur.
|
| Frogs are animals.
|
| Therefore, frogs have fur.

Note, by the way, that in this example all of the premises ARE TRUE,
but they having nothing to with establishing the conclusion, so this
is not a logically valid argument. That the premises do NOT establish
the conclusion (even if they are all true), is what determines that
the argument has not met the "threshold of validity."

If an argument has met the threshold of validity, this does NOT mean
that the premises are true, it only means that IF the premises are
true, then the conclusion MUST FOLLOW. But, again, don't be confused:
Any or all of the premises could be false, but IF the conclusion HAD
TO FOLLOW if they had been true, then the argument is a "logically
valid" argument. Of course, if any or all of the premises ARE false,
then the argument is "unsound." In other words, after meeting the
threshold of validity there is an additional threshold that must be
met for the argument to be correct, and that is that the argument must
be "sound." The premises must actually be true. So even if an argument
has met the first threshold (it is logically valid), it must still
meet the threshold of soundness to be a good argument.

The statement in the second paragraph ("To say that a deductive
argument is valid is to say that it not possible for its conclusion to
be false if its premises are true. Thus we define 'validity' as
follows: A deductive argument is valid when, if its premises are true,
its conclusion must be true.") is exactly the same as what we've been
telling you. If an argument is logically valid, then IF the premises
are true, the conclusion must be true. THIS IS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER
OR NOT THE PREMISES ARE TRUE. Either or both premises could be wrong,
but if it is the case that "if the premises are true, the conclusion
must be true," then the argument is "logically valid." Of course, if
either of the premises is wrong, then the argument is "unsound."

(Note that I'm writing this without having yet read any post following
post #12363 - except, of course, this one I'm writing - since I'm
reading them in order.)

- Todd Greene

What ContendingFTF Does Not Want You To Know
http://creationism.outersystem.us/cftffear.html

================================================================

[Excerpt; original emphasis]

Modus ponens and Modus tollens
(New World Encyclopedia entry, 9/5/2007)
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Modus_ponens_and_Modus_tollens

Here is an example of an [Modus ponens] inference:

| If Jack is innocent, he has an alibi.
|
| Jack is innocent.
|
| Therefore, Jack has an alibi.

The first two statements are the premises and the third statement is
the conclusion. If the first and second are true, we are forced to
accept the third.

One thing that may be mentioned here is that, in general, the validity
of an inference does not guarantee the truth of the statements in the
inference. The validity only assures us the truth of the conclusion
ASSUMING that the premises are true. Thus, for instance, it may be the
case that not every innocent suspect has an alibi and that the first
statement of the above example of [Modus ponens] inferences is in fact
false. However, this does not affect the validity of the inference,
since the conclusion must be true when we assume the two premises are
true regardless of whether the two premises are in fact true.

The concept that involves the truth of the premises of inferences is
SOUNDNESS. An inference is sound if it is valid and all the premises
are true; otherwise, the inference is unsound. Thus, an argument can
be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false
premises.

Honorable mention to Andy Boshers...
(9/8/2007)
________________________

...not just for stating the facts, but for daring to dispute the silly
irrationality of the Contentious For Tendentious Fallacies buddyhood
in their own discussion group.

Note to Skip Francis: Yes, that's right, and all the textbooks and
other sources that have been quoted about validity and soundness
pointed out the same thing that Andy Boshers pointed out, so your
remarks just continue to demonstrate the irrational silliness of the
rhetoric flowing from the keyboards of the Contentious For Tendentious
Fallacies buddyhood. Thank you again!

Enjoying the show,
Todd Greene


--- In CFTF, Andy Boshers wrote (post #26995):
> A former instructor in logic wrote:
>>> It will be observed that the argument below
>>> is in the form "p > q; p; q." Baty, Hartzog,
>>> and Greene have all maintained that all such
>>> arguments are necessarily valid.
>
> It is a standard rule that an argument in this form is valid.
> (Modus Ponens)
>
> The symbols 'p' and 'q' can be used in illustrations of
> argument validity for the very reason that validity is a
> function of argument form. There is NO NECESSARY IMPLICATION
> between literal 'p' and literal 'q' outside of what is
> asserted in the argument. In the Modus Ponens argument
> stated above, 'p implies q' is asserted. Whether the
> statement 'p implies q' is judged true or false by outside
> evidence is immaterial in determining whether the argument is
> valid. The truth status of the Major Premise does not affect
> argument validity. A perfectly valid argument may have
> false premises and a false conclusion.
>
> It is not in the realm of logic to judge whether the
> premises of an argument are true or false. Logic is the
> study of the strength of the link between the premises and
> the conclusion of arguments.
>
> There may continue to be ten posts each day on this list
> about logic. At least one of them today will be accurate.
>
> I suggest those who are interested in logic find a teacher
> who knows what he is talking about. Or receive instruction
> from a good logic textbook. Or read at the many excellent
> sources on the web. Argument validity is addressed very
> early in most logic studies.

--- In CFTF, Skip Francis wrote (post #26996):
> And ANDY BOSHERS weighs in AGAIN with an attitude! Of
> course, Andy is ALWAYS right and everyone else is WRONG.
>
> Andy, textbook after textbook has been cited on this
> list, so your statement just shows your attitude, once
> again. Statements like the following will not endear you
> to ANYONE on this list or any other: "There may continue
> to be ten posts each day on this list about logic. At
> least one of them today will be accurate."
>
> Skip here: Andy, how do you KNOW your statement will
> be "accurate"? Are YOU a student of logic? Many on this
> list ARE, and Bro. Denham I would put up against your
> own meager abilities any day of the week.
>
> Andy writes: "I suggest those who are interested in logic
> find a teacher who knows what he is talking about. Or
> receive instruction from a good logic textbook. Or read
> at the many excellent sources on the web."
>
> Skip here: Bro. Denham has cited many such "text books"
> and he HAS received instruction from a teacher "who know
> what he is talking about". Andy, LOSE THE ATTITUDE and
> stop putting in your "two cents" worth on subject you
> know nothing about save some internet site.
>
> Dennis (Skip) Francis
> Suffolk church of Christ

Re: Denham's Disaster on Basic Logic
(9/8/2007)
________________________

I have to admit about Daniel Denham's last few posts about me (and others)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/26989
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/26990
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/26991
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/26992
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/26993

that his rambling has become so disjointed and irrational and
disconnected from reality, that I find it impossible to even determine
the meaning of most of what he has written. He keeps saying that I
(and others) have said such and such, but he never quotes us, and with
much of what he claims you can't even determine what it is he is
saying we are supposed to have said. Indeed, with much of his rambling
in these posts, it's impossible to determine what Daniel is saying
about himself.

Rambling confusion proceeding from a very confused mind.

As I wrote in post #12331:

| Is Daniel Denham capable of engaging in *rational* discussion?
|
| No, of course not! What a stupid question that is.
|
| Standard operating procedure for Daniel Denham:
|
| 1. Lie about everything in sight.
|
| 2. When someone responds to him, he ignores what that
| person wrote, refuses to address any problems pointed
| out, and refuses to address any questions asked. (Because
| he's incapable of rational discussion.)
|
| 3. Then lies some more, deceitfully pretending that the
| person never even responded to him.
|
| That's exactly what the Deceitful Denham has done here.
| Here is the post that Daniel is now deceitfully pretending
| doesn't exist:
|
| Re: Denham's Disaster on Basic Logic
| http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/12299

Recall that it is Daniel Denham who falsely accused me of not
responding to his comments "in situ," even though the fact of the
matter is that I purposely/deliberately respond to people's comments
in situ, in a point/counterpoint pattern in a carefully done
quote/response format. Yet here we observe that it is Daniel himself
who - hypocrite, as usual - alleges that I've said such and such YET
NEVER EVEN PROVIDES ANY QUOTE OF ME AT ALL in reference to what he
alleges (let alone explaining how I've said what he alleges either
explicitly or implicitly).

Poor, poor Daniel, for whom even TRYING to grab a clue is apparently
beyond his capabilities.

Note to Daniel: Why don't you quote me, showing exactly what it is
I've written that you think you are responding to?

(Answer: Of course, it is not Daniel's intention to actually respond
to anything I've actually written, but only to lie about me and
misrepresent my position, and to confuse and obfuscate everything in
sight.)

Did Daniel address anything I wrote in this post?

Re: Denham's Disaster on Basic Logic
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/12299

No, of course not! What a stupid question that is.

Poor Daniel is locked into his cyclic pattern of deceit and
irrationality, and it's apparently impossible for him to break out of it.

Here's the post Daniel:

Re: Denham's Disaster on Basic Logic
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/12299

Quote me, then respond. Point, counterpoint. Slow down. Try to think.
See if you can possibly deal with what I've actually written. See if
you can actually answer in a rational manner the questions I've asked you.

464 quatloos says this is not going to happen.

- Todd Greene

What ContendingFTF Does Not Want You To Know
http://creationism.outersystem.us/cftffear.html

================================================================

[Excerpt; original emphasis]

Modus ponens and Modus tollens
(New World Encyclopedia entry, 9/5/2007)
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Modus_ponens_and_Modus_tollens

Here is an example of an [Modus ponens] inference:

| If Jack is innocent, he has an alibi.
|
| Jack is innocent.
|
| Therefore, Jack has an alibi.

The first two statements are the premises and the third statement is
the conclusion. If the first and second are true, we are forced to
accept the third.

One thing that may be mentioned here is that, in general, the validity
of an inference does not guarantee the truth of the statements in the
inference. The validity only assures us the truth of the conclusion
ASSUMING that the premises are true. Thus, for instance, it may be the
case that not every innocent suspect has an alibi and that the first
statement of the above example of [Modus ponens] inferences is in fact
false. However, this does not affect the validity of the inference,
since the conclusion must be true when we assume the two premises are
true regardless of whether the two premises are in fact true.

The concept that involves the truth of the premises of inferences is
SOUNDNESS. An inference is sound if it is valid and all the premises
are true; otherwise, the inference is unsound. Thus, an argument can
be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false
premises.

Jerry flunks his basic logic homework again
(9/8/2007)
________________________

--- In CFTF, Jerry Mcdonald wrote (post #26997):
> An argument may be valid in form if it fits the format.
> The following argument is valid in form, but it is not a
> valid argument.
>
> Major Premise: If the cow jumped over the moon, then the
> moon is made of cream cheese.
>
> Minor Premise: The cow did jump over the moon.
>
> Conclusion: The moon is made of cream cheese.
>
> It is in the valid "if p, then q" format, but the
> argument is not a valid argument because the conclusion
> does not logically and necessarily follow from the
> premises.
|[snip]

WRONG!

The conclusion DOES logically and necessarily follow from the premises.

IF IT IS THE CASE that "the cow jumped over the moon" implies that
"the moon is made of cream cheese,"

AND IF IT IS THE CASE that "the cow jumped over the moon,"

THEN IT WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE THE CASE that "the moon is made of cream
cheese."

So the cow-moon-cheese argument example that Jerry has presented is
indeed a "logically valid" argument.

| If P, then Q.
|
| P.
|
| Therefore Q.

However, the argument is also an "unsound" argument, because at least
one of the premises is wrong. In this particular argument BOTH
premises are wrong. First, the major premise is wrong because "the cow
jumped over the moon" does NOT imply that "the moon is made of cream
cheese." Second, it is NOT the case that "the cow has jumped over the
moon." So even while the argument is logically valid ("logical
validity"), it is a bad argument because it is not a sound argument.

Here is another argument in modus ponens form that I offer for
consideration. This particular argument happens to be both valid and
sound:

Major Premise: If certain people are incapable of comprehending and
correcting their erroneous claims about basic logic, then Todd Greene
will become extremely bored with wasting time on people who are
incapable of correctly understanding the relevant concepts.

Minor Premise: Certain people are incapable of comprehending and
correcting their erroneous claims about basic logic.

Conclusion: Todd Greene has become extremely bored wasting time on
people who show they are incapable of correctly understanding the
relevant concepts.

Additional conclusion: Yes, sometimes Todd whines a little too much.

Too much? Did I say that?

Chuckling,
Todd Greene

P.S.: Notice how the young earth creationists seem to be utterly blind
to the quote given below the double line, which I've been adding to
the end of almost every post I've made since I first brought quoted it
in discussion. Right, just as they have ignored the discussion about
this same point made by every other logic expert that has been quoted,
including the logic experts quoted by the young earth creationists.
We're dealing with comprehension failure here, and what I'm observing
is that these men are simply not capable of fixing their failure.

================================================================

[Excerpt; original emphasis]

Modus ponens and Modus tollens
(New World Encyclopedia entry, 9/5/2007)
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Modus_ponens_and_Modus_tollens

Here is an example of an [Modus ponens] inference:

| If Jack is innocent, he has an alibi.
|
| Jack is innocent.
|
| Therefore, Jack has an alibi.

The first two statements are the premises and the third statement is
the conclusion. If the first and second are true, we are forced to
accept the third.

One thing that may be mentioned here is that, in general, the validity
of an inference does not guarantee the truth of the statements in the
inference. The validity only assures us the truth of the conclusion
ASSUMING that the premises are true. Thus, for instance, it may be the
case that not every innocent suspect has an alibi and that the first
statement of the above example of [Modus ponens] inferences is in fact
false. However, this does not affect the validity of the inference,
since the conclusion must be true when we assume the two premises are
true regardless of whether the two premises are in fact true.

The concept that involves the truth of the premises of inferences is
SOUNDNESS. An inference is sound if it is valid and all the premises
are true; otherwise, the inference is unsound. Thus, an argument can
be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false
premises.

Jerry still gets it wrong
(9/8/2007)
________________________

--- In CFTF, Jerry Mcdonald wrote (post #27002):
> [...]the format (while it is essential to proving
> an argument of this type as valid) alone will not
> guarantee the validity of the argument. The
> conclusion MUST logically and necessarily follow from
> the premise before the argument is valid. This is
> somthing that is beyond Baty, Hertzog and it seems
> from Green and Bosher's as well.

No, Jerry, you are wrong and confused.

Still.

The form alone does indeed guarantee the logical validity of the argument.

ALSO, that the conclusion MUST logically and necessarily follow from
the premise is exactly what that means (the form guarantee the logical
validity of the argument).

Thus, your statement that "This is something that is beyond Baty,
Hertzog and it seems from Greene and Bosher's as well" is wrong,
because we have been telling you this.

What we have stated is a matter of public record. What the logic
experts say about this point, as they have been quoted, is also part
of this public record, and we have observed that we are saying the
same thing that they have written.

The only people confused on the point being discussed here is you guys
who cannot wrap your minds around the fact that "validity" and
"soundness" are not the same thing.

If the conclusion must logically and necessarily follow from the
premises, then the argument is a logically valid argument. We have
only stated this to you and everyone else a zillion times now. It
would be nice if you'd get things straight and not misrepresent us. In
fact, since you are obviously incapable of understand what we have in
fact stated, THEN STOP PRETENDING TO REPRESENT WITH ANY MANNER OF
"PARAPHRASING" BECAUSE WE KNOW YOU ARE GOING TO GET IT WRONG. DO NOT
ATTEMPT TO REPRESENT WHAT WE "SAY" WITHOUT QUOTING US. You guys have
demonstrated that you are simply unable to represent us accurately,
because you do not comprehend what we have stated.

To everyone else I tell you: If these men are not quoting us
specifically and explicitly on some point they are claiming us to be
advocating, then you can bet that they've probably got it wrong and
are misrepresenting us.

- Todd Greene

================================================================

[Excerpt; original emphasis]

Modus ponens and Modus tollens
(New World Encyclopedia entry, 9/5/2007)
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Modus_ponens_and_Modus_tollens

Here is an example of an [Modus ponens] inference:

| If Jack is innocent, he has an alibi.
|
| Jack is innocent.
|
| Therefore, Jack has an alibi.

The first two statements are the premises and the third statement is
the conclusion. If the first and second are true, we are forced to
accept the third.

One thing that may be mentioned here is that, in general, the validity
of an inference does not guarantee the truth of the statements in the
inference. The validity only assures us the truth of the conclusion
ASSUMING that the premises are true. Thus, for instance, it may be the
case that not every innocent suspect has an alibi and that the first
statement of the above example of [Modus ponens] inferences is in fact
false. However, this does not affect the validity of the inference,
since the conclusion must be true when we assume the two premises are
true regardless of whether the two premises are in fact true.

The concept that involves the truth of the premises of inferences is
SOUNDNESS. An inference is sound if it is valid and all the premises
are true; otherwise, the inference is unsound. Thus, an argument can
be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false
premises.

Re: Denham's Disaster on Basic Logic
(9/9/2007)
________________________

Here - again - we see that poor Daniel Denham quotes a source
purporting it to back up his claim, but when you READ THE QUOTE you
see that the quote does NOT say what Daniel purports it to say. We
have only seen this same pattern over and over and over and over and
over and...

--- In CFTF, Andy Boshers wrote (post #27013):
> --- Daniel Denham wrote:
>> BY DEFINITION, Andy, a valid argument in a hypothetical
>> syllogism is one in which the conclusion MUST BE TRUE IF
>> THE ANTECEDENT IS TRUE. You can't get around that.
>
> Daniel is at liberty to make up whatever definition he
> wants. I believe this definition can NOT be found in any
> standard logic reference. I believe Daniel's definition is
> false.
>
>> If there is no essential relevance between the proposed
>> antecedent and the proposed consequent, it is impossible for
>> it to meet that requirement for validity. Yes, the premises
>> may very well be gfalse, but in such a case the conclusion
>> would then be false. It would be impossible then to have a
>> true conclusion with false premises in a genuinely valid
>> argument,
>
> There is no rule of logic that demands a false conclusion if
> the premises are false. It is quite possible to have a true
> conclusion with false premises in a genuinely valid argument.

Poor Daniel, taking issue with Andy's statement that "It is quite
possible to have a true conclusion with false premises in a genuinely
valid argument," posts the following:

--- In CFTF, Daniel Denham wrote (post #27017):
> Andy and List,
>
> Wikipedia -- "Since a valid argument is one such that if
> the premises are true then the conclusion must be true it
> follows that a valid argument cannot have true premises
> and a false conclusion. Since the validity of an argument
> depends on its form, an argument can be shown to be
> invalid by showing that its form is invalid because other
> arguments of the same form have true premises and false
> conclusions."
>
> Folks, case proved and case closed.

Yes, case proved and case closed that poor Daniel not only doesn't
have a clue what he's talking about, but he apparently can't read
plain English and understand it either.

The Wikipedia entry states, "an argument can be shown to be invalid
by showing that its form is invalid because other arguments of the
same form have true premises and false conclusions."

What was that again? It is invalid if what?

If it has TRUE PREMISES and a FALSE CONCLUSION.

Poor Daniel thinks that this contradicts what Andy pointed out. But
what did Andy state?

"It is quite possible to have a true conclusion with false premises
in a genuinely valid argument."

What was that again? It's possible to have a genuinely valid argument
even if what?

If it has FALSE PREMISES and a TRUE CONCLUSION.

So notice that Daniel Denham's comprehension capabilities are so
dismal that he cannot that these two statements do not contradict
each other:

An argument with FALSE PREMISES and a TRUE CONCLUSION can be a valid
argument.

An argument with TRUE PREMISES and a FALSE CONCLUSION cannot be a
valid argument.

Notice that in the quote I've been giving in almost every single post
I've made on this particular topic since I initially quoted it, it
has been telling Daniel all along: "the validity of an inference does
not guarantee the truth of the statements in the inference" and "an
argument can be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments
can have false premises."

So Poor Daniel is not only blind to what the logic experts are
telling him - even the logic experts that he himself is quoting -
he's also compensating for his blindness by seeing things that just
aren't there!

The point that some of these men are utterly failing to comprehend is
that logical validity has to do with whether or not the truth of the
premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion (or, as Stephen Law
was quoted to say ("the premises logically entail the conclusion";
note - again - carefully - this quote does NOT state that the
premises must be true; it only states that the conclusion must follow
from the premises), yet in fact it has nothing to do with whether or
not the premises are true.

Ho hum, so bored over here, it's so very high time to move on from
this instransigent comprehension failure of poor Daniel Denham.

Yawning,
Todd Greene

================================================================

[Excerpt; original emphasis]

Modus ponens and Modus tollens
(New World Encyclopedia entry, 9/5/2007)
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Modus_ponens_and_Modus_tollens

Here is an example of an [Modus ponens] inference:

| If Jack is innocent, he has an alibi.
|
| Jack is innocent.
|
| Therefore, Jack has an alibi.

The first two statements are the premises and the third statement is
the conclusion. If the first and second are true, we are forced to
accept the third.

One thing that may be mentioned here is that, in general, the
validity of an inference does not guarantee the truth of the
statements in the inference. The validity only assures us the truth
of the conclusion ASSUMING that the premises are true. Thus, for
instance, it may be the case that not every innocent suspect has an
alibi and that the first statement of the above example of [Modus
ponens] inferences is in fact false. However, this does not affect
the validity of the inference, since the conclusion must be true when
we assume the two premises are true regardless of whether the two
premises are in fact true.

The concept that involves the truth of the premises of inferences is
SOUNDNESS. An inference is sound if it is valid and all the premises
are true; otherwise, the inference is unsound. Thus, an argument can
be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false
premises.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Logic - Basic Concepts
by P. J. Hurley
[A concise introduction to logic (2000)]
http://www.stenmorten.com/English/logic/logic.htm

3.1.6.1.2 Validity

A valid deductive argument is an argument of a form in which it is
actually impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to
be false. If an argument has the form of a deductive argument, but it
is still possible to have false premises and a true conclusion, the
argument is invalid. Hence, the argument

P1. All trees are blue.
P2. The plant outside my window is a tree.
C. The plant outside my window is blue.

is a valid argument, even though the premises are not true. This is
because; if the premises had been true, it would force the conclusion
to be true. If all trees are blue, then the tree outside my window
would be blue also.

On the other hand, the argument

P1. My mother can swim.
P2. Swans can swim.
C. My mother is a swan

is invalid, because it is possible for the premises to be true, and
the conclusion to be false.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Symbolic Logic, 4th Ed.
by Irving M. Copi
(page 4)

All trout are mammals.
All mammals have wings.
Therefore, all trout have wings.

This argument is valid because if its premises were true its
conclusion would have to be true, even though, in fact, they are all
false... The validity of an argument does not guarantee the truth of
its conclusion.

Re: Denham's Disaster on Basic Logic
(9/10/2007)
________________________

The CFTF buddyhood apparently doesn't have a clue about what we're
even talking about. It's so simple.

"Validity" and "soundness" are not the same thing.

That's it.

That's how stupid, and how boring, their silliness really is.

They just don't get it.

The premises of an argument do not have to be true for the argument
to be valid. An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are
related to each other in the right way so that IF the premises were
true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well. Even if one
(or both) of the premises are false, the conclusion would have to be
true IF the premises were true.

There's no more time to waste on this silliness. Young earth
creationists are just as incapable of teaching anyone about logic, as
they are incapable of teaching anyone about science, or about
morality for that matter. It's like someone telling you they've been
abducted by aliens, and you just automatically know that your dealing
with a mind that's not running on all cylinders.

These men have demonstrated their horrible comprehension failure on
this subject.

- Todd Greene

----------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpt from:
Validity and Soundness
(The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
http://www.iep.utm.edu/v/val-snd.htm
[all emphases in the original]

A deductive argument is said to be *valid* if and only if it takes a
form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the
conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument
is said to be *invalid*.

A deductive argument is *sound* if and only if it is both valid, and
all of its premises are *actually true*. Otherwise, a deductive
argument is *unsound*.

According to the definition of a deductive argument..., the author of
a deductive argument always *intends* that the premises provide the
sort of justification for the conclusion whereby if the premises are
true, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true as well. Loosely
speaking, if the author's process of reasoning is a good one, if the
premises actually do provide this sort of justification for the
conclusion, then the argument is *valid*.

In effect, an argument is *valid* if the truth of the premises
logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. The following
argument is valid, because it is impossible for the premises to be
true and the conclusion to nevertheless be false:

Either Elizabeth owns a Honda or she owns a Saturn.
Elizabeth does not own a Honda.
Therefore, Elizabeth owns a Saturn.

It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not
have *actually to be true* in order for the argument to be valid. An
argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to each
other in the right way so that if the premises *were* true, then the
conclusion would have to be true as well. We can recognize in the
above case that even if one of the premises is actually *false*, that
if they *had been* true the conclusion *would have been* true as
well. Consider, then an argument such as the following:

All toasters are items made of gold.
All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.

Obviously, the premises in this argument are not true. It may be hard
to imagine these premises being true, but it is not hard to see that
if they were true, their truth would logically guarantee the
conclusion's truth.

It is easy to see that the previous example is not an example of a
completely good argument. A valid argument may still have a false
conclusion. When we construct our arguments, we must aim to construct
one that is not only valid, but *sound*. A sound argument is one that
is not only valid, but begins with premises that are *actually true*.
The example given about toasters is valid, but not sound. However,
the following argument is both valid and sound:

No felons are eligible voters.
Some professional athletes are felons.
Therefore, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

Here, not only do the premises provide the right sort of support for
the conclusion, but the premises are actually true. Therefore, so is
the conclusion. Although it is not part of the *definition* of a
sound argument, because sound arguments both start out with true
premises and have a form that guarantees that the conclusion must be
true if the premises are, sound arguments always end with true
conclusions.

It should be noted that both invalid, as well as valid but unsound,
arguments can nevertheless have true conclusions. One cannot reject
the conclusion of an argument simply by discovering a given argument
for that conclusion to be flawed.

Whether or not the premises of an argument are true depends on their
specific *content*. However, according to the dominant understanding
among logicians, the validity or invalidity of an argument is
determined entirely by its *logical form*. The logical form of an
argument is that which remains of it when one abstracts away from the
specific content of the premises and the conclusion, i.e., words
naming things, their properties and relations, leaving only those
elements that are common to discourse and reasoning about any subject
matter, i.e., words such as "all", "and", "not", "some", etc. One can
represent the logical form of an argument by replacing the specific
content words with letters used as place-holders or variables.

For example, consider these two arguments:

All tigers are mammals.
No mammals are creatures with scales.
Therefore, no tigers are creatures with scales.

All spider monkeys are elephants.
No elephants are animals.
Therefore, no spider monkeys are animals.

These arguments share the same form:

All A are B;
No B are C;
Therefore, No A are C.

All arguments with this form are valid. Because they have this form,
the examples above are valid. However, the first example is sound
while the second is unsound, because its premises are false.

Daniel Denham is now lying about Andy Boshers
(9/10/2007)
________________________

In post #12422 you'll see where I immediately
pointed out to Daniel Denham his erroneous accusation of Andy Boshers
stating something that Andy did NOT state. Andy himself subsequently
pointed out the same error to Daniel, and has since then pointed out
the error to Daniel a number of times.

DANIEL HAS DELIBERATELY IGNORED HIS ERROR, and has instead chosen to -
yes, as usual - LIE ABOUT WHAT ANDY SAID.

This is the deceitful attitude of the man we're dealing with. This
is, of course, only one most recent example. Our experiences with
Daniel Denham over the last several months have shown us what a
deceitful man he really is.

And not only that, but our experience has ALSO shown us how the
Contentious For Tendentious Fallacies buddyhood are really an
organization known as the Defenders of Deceit. One of them starts
lying, and the other guys jump right in to defend the lie AND to
defend the deceitful attitude that produced the lie. We have observed
this same pattern over and over again.

So here we have Andy asking Daniel again and again and again, "Quote
me where I said what you accuse me of. Quote me, Daniel. Quote me."

The Deceitful Mr. Denham just deliberately ignores Andy, and NEVER
EVEN TRIES to quote him, but just continue to lie that Andy wrote
something that he never wrote. Daniel has done EXACTLY this same
thing to Robert Baty, Rick Hartzog, and myself. And not only that,
the Defenders of Deceit buddyhood are defending Daniel for LYING
about Andy.

Andy wrote, ""It is quite possible to have a true conclusion with
false premises in a genuinely valid argument."

Daniel screwed up and said that Andy instead said that it is possible
to have a false conclusion with true premises in a valid argument.

All of us - including the Defenders of Deceit buddyhood - can see
that what Andy wrote, and what Daniel falsely claimed he wrote, are
two different things. Yet the CFTF Defenders of Deceit encourage the
lying of Daniel (and throw in a few more lies) and NEVER TELL DANIEL
TO STOP LYING ABOUT ANDY.

This is how we know we're dealing with men who are dedicated to
deceit.

- Todd Greene

Re: Denham's Disaster on Basic Logic
(9/11/2007)
________________________

Ho hum.

The silly guy in the other room keeps droning on quoting logicians
saying exactly what we've been telling everyone.

We drone on quoting logicians saying exactly what we've been telling
everyone.

But the mind of the poor guy in the other room is so clouded and
confused that in his utter disorientation in these matters that are
obviously above his comprehension he keeps thinking they support him
even while every single one that is relevant to the matter is
contradicting his nonsense. (Some of them aren't even relevant, and
him presenting those quotes just demonstrates his confusion even
more, because he thinks they're relevant.) He just can't figure this
out. Cognitive blindness. What a sad spectacle. Religious hubris
based on ignorance and comprehension failure.

This is so simple, so trivial, the silly guy made a simple, trivial
mistake - but his attitude of defiance-in-error is so bad that he
cannot bring himself to figure out why he's wrong and fix it because
he cannot bring himself to even consider the idea that he might have
screwed up.

WE have pointed out that a logically valid argument can have false
premises.

Daniel Denham has denied it. (He keep repeating his error that if the
argument is valid then it must be true. We keep pointing out that
it's only true if the premises are true, and whether or not the
premises are true, the argument is valid if the conclusion is
required by the premises, even if the premises are wrong.)

WE have pointed out that an argument can be valid but also unsound.

Daniel has denied it.

WE have pointed out that in the particular case of a modus ponens
argument, an argument can be valid even if the first premise is false
(the "If P, then Q" premise). Note that this is just another case of
the general fact that a logically valid argument can have false
premises.

Daniel has denied it.

We have quoted examples of logically valid arguments with false
premises from logic experts (including from logic experts named by
Daniel).

Daniel has ignored these examples.

We have quoted logic experts (including from logic experts named by
Daniel) saying that the validity of arguments is determined
regardless of whether or not the premises are true.

Daniel has ignored these quotes.

"Validity" and "soundness" are not the same thing. It's just that
simple.

Yet Daniel denies the facts of the matter.

http://creationism.outersystem.us/img/monkeys.jpg
http://creationism.outersystem.us/img/3monkeys.jpg

Additionally, here's a summary List of Shame of those who
have stated explicit support of Daniel Denham in his disastrous
idiocy on basic logic, three of the Contentious For Tendentious
Fallacies buddyhood and two others:

Daniel Coe
King Davis
Don DeLong
Skip Francis
Jerry McDonald

Ambiguous support:

Gene Hill
Doug Post

Now think about this - and here's the real lesson: If these men are
so utterly obtuse that either they cannot comprehend, or cannot
admit, and correct an error on a relatively simple matter on a
completely noncontroversial topic, how can they possibly correct
their errors on matters of any complexity and concerning which they
are HEAVILY biased to promote nonsense?

Answer: ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE.

Yep, that's young earth creationists for you.

We'd laugh about it, and we might be enjoying the show more, and
appreciating the real lesson more, if we weren't so darned bored by
now.

Yawning,
Todd Greene

================================================================

Evidence For The Existence Of God
by Shandon L. Guthrie
http://sguthrie.net/kalamcosmo.htm

| Our final consideration of general deductive arguments is
| the question of soundness. An argument is said to be
| sound if the premises are genuinely connected to the
| conclusion. This is the most difficult part of
| determining if the argument is ultimately a good one or
| not. For example:
|
| p1: If I eat breakfast this morning then the Dodgers will
| win the next World Series.
|
| p2: I ate breakfast this morning.
|
| C: Therefore, the Dodgers will win the next World Series.
|
| There is no doubt that the argument is deductive. It also
| happens to be valid. But there is something peculiar
| about my eating breakfast this morning causing a Dodger
| victory in the next World Series. As much as I would like
| it to be true, the argument is doomed to be unsound.

================================================================

Notice the examples given in the Appendix of this article:

Understanding of Logical Necessity: Developmental Antecedents and
Cognitive Consequences
by Anne K. Morris and Vladimir M. Sloutsky
(Child Development, June 1998, Vol. 69, No. 3, pp. 721-741)
http://cogdev.cog.ohio-state.edu/DD11.pdf
[emphasis in the original]
[note: this is a PDF file]

| ...in deductive inference, the reasoner can, based solely
| on information given in the premises, reach a conclusion
| that is certain. Those conclusions that are derived in
| accordance with the rules of deductive inference are said
| to be necessitated by the premises. These necessitated
| conclusions are defined as logically necessary, and
| arguments whose conclusions are necessitated by the
| premises are defined as valid deductive arguments.
| Deductive arguments warrant the transition from true
| premises to true conclusions; therefore, the logically
| necessary conclusion derived from true premises is true
| by necessity and a priori. That is, such a conclusion is
| certain to be true as long as the premises are true and
| its truth status DOES NOT REQUIRE empirical examinations.

In this article ALL of the following are given as examples of
conclusions that logically follow from the premises. The instructions
to the examples state, "Some of them assert absurd things, so,
please, pay attention only to their logical form. Assume the first
two sentences are true."

All fahmooth numbers can be divided evenly by 8.
26 is a fahmooth number.
Therefore: 26 can be divided evenly by 8.

All felismo animals are not predators.
The lion is a felismo animal.
Therefore: The lion is not a predator.

All demutted cities are not in England.
London is a demutted city.
Therefore: London is not in England.

All prosorial chemical elements are gases.
Gold is a prosorial chemical element.
Therefore: Gold is a gas.

All expositional expressions are always equal to zero.
x + 1 is an expositional expression.
Therefore x + 1 is always equal to zero.

All plants that have boolked skins are cucumbers.
A strawberry has a boolked skin.
Therefore, a strawberry is a cucumber.

All compounds that have gnoceological elements are flammable.
Water has a gnoceological elements.
Therefore water is flammable.

The arguments are LOGICALLY VALID because the conclusions
are "necessitated" by the premises. However, as we can see OBVIOUSLY
from the examples given, a LOGICALLY VALID argument is an unsound, or
false, argument, if any of the premises are not true.

================================================================

Logical Reasoning as a Curriculum Area in Schools
by E. P. Brandon and Norma Sirbratthie
(published 1996)
http://www.cavehill.uwi.edu/bnccde/epb/Logresc.html

| With such patterns of deductive argument, one has a
| guarantee that if the premises are true then the
| conclusion will also be true, though, of course, one has
| thereby no guarantee that the premises actually are true.
| To appreciate this relationship one must distinguish the
| question of the argument's formal structure from that of
| the truth or falsity of its constituent premises and
| conclusion. A common stipulation among philosophers is
| to reserve the terms valid, invalid for the structures
| and the terms true, false for the statements that compose
| the premises and conclusion of an argument. If one
| wishes, one can go on to stipulate that a valid deductive
| argument with true premises is sound (as is done in
| Copi's influential text, 1978: 43). The point then is
| that a bad or unsound deductive argument can go wrong in
| two crucially different ways: it may be an invalid
| argument or it may have at least one false statement
| somewhere among its premises.

================================================================

Practice With Validity
by Dr. Keith Korcz
(Philosophy professor at University of Louisiana-Lafayette)
http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~kak7409/210Validity.html

Korcz states that all of the following are TRUE:

| A valid deductive argument can have all false premises.
|
| An invalid deductive argument can have all false premises
| and a true conclusion.
|
| A valid deductive argument can have all false premises
| and a false conclusion.
|
| Whether an argument is valid has nothing to do with
| whether any of it's premises are actually true.

Korcz states that the following is FALSE:

| A valid deductive argument cannot have all false premises
| and a true conclusion.

Korcz gives this example argument

| P1: If people find something offensive, then it's immoral.
| P2: People find homosexuality offensive.
| C: Homosexuality is immoral.

and describes it as follows:

| P1 is false (e.g. scrubbing toilets may be offensive, but
| it's not immoral). P2 is true, C is false (though
| controversial). Valid (because IF the premises WERE true,
| the conclusion would have to be true - this is an example
| of the valid argument form affirming the antecedent).
| Unsound, because P1 is false.

Korcz gives this example argument

| P1: Either Descartes was French or Socrates was Greek.
| P2: Socrates was not Greek.
| C: Descartes was French.

and describes it as follows:

| P1 & C are true, P2 is false. Valid (because IF the
| premises WERE true, the conclusion would have to be
| true). Unsound (because P2 is false).

Re: Denham's Disaster on Basic Logic
(9/12/2007)
________________________

--- In CFTF, Daniel Denham wrote (post #27070):
> Folks,
>
> Skip Francis properly and correctly noted in an earlier
> post: "I have in front of me a logic textbook written by
> Kahane and Tidman. On the subject of "validity",
> concerning the Modus Ponens argument (one of the first
> covered in the book), they write: 'The question of
> validity is the question of whether the conclusion
> follows from the premises, that is, whether it is
> possible for the premises all to be true and the
> conclusion false'."

Yes, that's right. And we're saying that because that's exactly what
the logicians are telling us, and we have quoted them telling us so.

You will see examples of such quotes at the bottom of this post.

> Daniel Here: What Andy and the Batty Bunch have done is
> jumped into the middle of the discussions in certain
> logic texts specifically on the subject of Modus Ponens
> arguments. They have ignored virtually everything that is
> said relative to validity BEFORE that point.

Here we have lie #1 from the Deceitful Daniel Denham. We've been
QUOTING them, AT LENGTH, before and after the point, WITH EXAMPLES,
so this is Daniel Denham lying to people, as usual.

You will see examples of such quotes at the bottom of this post.

> Other aspects they
> have tried to twist or pervert.

That's lie #2. Notice that Daniel Denham states his lie WITHOUT EVEN
ATTEMPTING TO BACK IT UP. He does not show even one single example of
us twisting or perverting anything BECAUSE HE KNOWS HE CAN'T, BECAUSE
HE KNOWS HE IS LYING. Indeed, in some of my own posts I have
purposely USED STATEMENTS MADE BY THE LOGICIANS AS IF THEY WERE MY
OWN WORDS! So here we see Daniel telling people that the logicians
are twisting and perverting themselves.

> They have missed
> in actual application and practice, either deliberately
> or ineptly or even both, the fact that Modus Ponens is a
> deductive argument, wherein one is reasoning from one
> point that necessitates or entails another.

This is lie #3. We have QUOTED the logicians telling us that modus
ponens is one particular form of a valid deductive argument, and
they've already told us what a "valid deductive argument" is.
ADDITIONALLY, we have quoted SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of modus ponens
arguments GIVEN BY THE LOGICIANS THEMSELVES of valid deductive
arguments where the premises are FALSE. (And the reason they are
valid arguments is because the conclusion is required by the
premises.)

You will see examples of such quotes at the bottom of this post.

> They have thus
> conducted incomplete and improper induction on the matter
> of validity as it relates to deductive arguments in
> general and Modus Ponens in particular.

A false statement based on the previous lies.

> They have then
> drawn the false conclusion (hence made an improper
> deduction) that assigning p and q to whatever "If, Then"
> forms they wish to put together alone makes the
> "argument" valid, even if the antecedent has no real
> relationship or connection with the consequent as they
> have assumed.

This is lie #4. We have concluded this because this is exactly what
the logicians have told us, and we have quoted logicians telling us
this, and have quoted examples they have given showing us this very
fact.

You will see examples of such quotes at the bottom of this post.

> They are wrong,
> and as wrong as wrong can be!

We have been witnessing the fact that not only is Daniel Denham wrong
about a simple definition of a word that is used in elementary logic
("validity"), but no matter what the facts are, no matter even how
OBVIOUS the facts are, Daniel will continue to promote his error, and
also go in irrational tirades based on his obtuse adherence to his
error.

Of course, we already knew that Daniel was like this, because we've
only seen him doing this all the time over the last several months.

> My great-grandmother
> used to have a nice print of the famous painting
> "American Gothic," but it was still just a print. In
> outward form it looked like the painting in certain
> respects, but in the details and the substance that gave
> the outward appearance its true essence, it was still
> just a print. An "If, Then" statement drawn out into the
> form of an argument, where there is no entailment or
> connection between the antecedent and the consequent in
> such a way that the former necessitates the latter, is
> not a genuine Modus Ponens argument, even though one may
> be affirming the antecedent and have assigned the letters
> p and q to the repsective parts.

This statement is completely false.

Notice that word "entailment." In a modus ponens argument - indeed,
in any VALID deductive argument - the ONLY entailment is that IF the
premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. THIS HAS NOTHING
TO DO with whether or not the "If P" (antecedent) "then Q"
(consequent) of the first premise is true or false. An argument in
modus ponens form is always valid, even if the first premise is false
(i.e., even if the antecedent does NOT entail the consequent. The
validity of the modus ponens is NOT about the antecedent entailing
the consequent (in premise 1). It is about the fact that with a modus
ponens argument, by definition of the form of the argument, the
premises necessitates the conclusion.

You will see examples of logicians explaining this very point at the
bottom of this post.

Poor Daniel is very confused, and very wrong.

> The essence, the
> substance, and the necessary details that involve the consequent in
> the antecedent so that, or in such a way that, the conclusion of the
> argument thus derived necessarily and irrevocably follows from the
> premises are lacking.

This is just false. As Copi and numerous others have been QUOTED
telling everyone, the "If P, then Q" is ASSERTED. The conclusion of
the argument is logically necessitated by the premises, regardless of
whether or not the premises are true. This is what logical validity
means. It does NOT refer to whether or not the premises are true or
false. Validity simply means that IF the premises are true (i.e., if
the "If P, then Q" is true, AND if P is true), THEN the conclusion
MUST be true. VALIDITY does NOT mean that either of the premises are
true. It's not even referring to that. The truth of the premises is
what is referred to by the SOUNDNESS of the argument. If the argument
is SOUND.

Poor, poor, confused and obtuse Daniel Denham. No matter how many
time you point out to him that "validity" and "soundness" are NOT the
same thing, he just keeps right on pretending they're the same thing.
No matter how many times you quote logicians telling him this and
even giving him specific examples of this, the confused and obtuse
Daniel finds it impossible to comprehend such elementary logic. And
then Daniel lies about everyone on the basis of his confusion and
obtuseness.

> The conclusion must
> be entailed in the premises for the argument to be a
> genuine Modus Ponens form rather than a sham.

This statement is CORRECT. Where David is seriously confused is that
he mistakenly thinks that the "entailment" referred to in the first
premise of a modus ponens argument is the SAME THING as
the "entailment" referred to between the premises and the conclusion
of the argument. They are NOT the same thing. Here is an example to
make this clear:

If a person is Japanese, then he has a pet aardvark.
[If P, then Q.]

Tony Blair is Japanese.
[P.]

Therefore, Tony Blair has a pet aardvark.
[Therefore, Q.]

This is a VALID argument (it is a modus ponens argument). The reason
it is a valid argument is BECAUSE THE CONCLUSION IS "ENTAILED" by (or
required by) the premises.

Notice that there is ANOTHER entailment in the argument. This is in
the first premise. The first premise states that "If a person is
Japanese" (the antecendent) THEN "he has a pet aardvark" (the
consequent). The first premise states (asserts) that the antecedent
entails the consequent.

Poor David has confused the "entailment" asserted in the first
premise, with the "entailment" of the conclusion of the argument by
the premises of the argument.

Indeed, with this particular argument, the entailment asserted by the
first premise is FALSE (or simply, the first premise is false), EVEN
WHILE THE ENTAILMENT OF THE CONCLUSION BY THE PREMISES IS TRUE.

> When the logicians
> write about the form of the Modus Ponens argument, they
> assume that one has had the common sense to read the
> material leading up to that discussion rather than
> jumping in the middle and ignoring all the other salient
> points on the validity of all deductive arguments.

This is Daniel Denham condemning himself, because Daniel has been
deliberately ignoring all the salient points on the validity of
deductive argument that we have been quoting to him from various
logicians. This is not some controversial point. This is a point of
elementary logic, where all logicians say the same thing. Daniel has
been demonstrating for everyone just how far out of touch with
reality his mind is.

> Friends, the conclusion
> must then follow from the premises in such a fashion that
> it cannot be false while the premises are true and the
> argument itself valid.

This is NOT the point of disagreement. Andy Boshers has NEVER stated
anything different from this. Robert Baty has NEVER stated anything
different from this. Rick Hartzog has NEVER stated anything different
from this. I have NEVER stated anything different from this.

All of us have pointed out to Daniel NUMEROUS times now, so every
time he pretends to people that we have said anything different from
this HE IS LYING TO YOU.

> I did not
> make that rule up, despite Andy's babblings to the
> contrary.

Andy has NEVER said anything to the contrary of this. Andy has NEVER
said Daniel made this rule up. Daniel is lying about this. This rule
is NOT, and never has been, the point of disagreement with Daniel.

The point of disagreement is that Daniel has been seriously confused
about validity and soundness, and he has made numerous statements
based on assuming that validity and soundness are the same thing.

An argument that is logically valid can yet be an unsound argument.
The reason it can be unsound is if any of the premises are false. In
other words, a logical valid argument can have false premises. It is
a VALID argument BECAUSE THE CONCLUSION IS REQUIRED BY THE PREMISES,
and IF THE CONCLUSION IS REQUIRED BY THE PREMISES THEN IT IS A
LOGICALLY VALID ARGUMENT EVEN IF ANY OF THE PREMISES ARE FALSE. This
is a fact of elementary logic, yet poor, confused, obtuse Daniel
cannot comprehend this simple fact.

> Furthermore, AS IT
> IS THE CASE THAT the antecedent is the principal
> proposition in fashioning both the Major and Minor
> Premises in the form of an argument, it follows -- in
> fact it cannot help but be the case -- that in a
> genuinely valid syllogism where the premises are true and
> the conclusion therefore true that the antecedent is also
> true.

Yet again, NO ONE HAS EVER DISAGREED ON THIS POINT. THIS IS NOT, AND
NEVER HAS BEEN, THE POINT OF DISAGREEMENT. That Daniel is presenting
this as if it is just further proves how seriously confused - or
seriously deceitful - or both - this man is.

Daniel says, "where the premises are true." Well - duh! - the
antecedent is one of the premises (the second premise of a modus
ponens argument). IF the premises are true, and the argument is
logically valid, then the conclusion is true. ALL of us have said
exactly this!

The point that poor Daniel just cannot seem to comprehend is that the
VALIDITY of an argument is NOT what makes the premises true! The
VALIDITY of an argument is NOT what makes the antecedent true! A
logically valid argument can have false premises, false antecendents.
EVERY LOGICIAN TELLS YOU THIS. But poor Daniel just can't figure it
out.

> In fact, the
> antecedent is specifically restated in the Minor Premise!
> If it is not true, then the Minor Premise could not be
> true under such conditions as thus described, brethren.

That's RIGHT. But that does NOT necessarily mean that the argument is
an invalid argument, precisely because A LOGICALLY VALID ARGUMENT CAN
HAVE FALSE PREMISES.

> Andy, how in
> the world could the premises of a valid syllogism be true and the
> antecedent that constitutes them false? Daniel Denham

Poor, confused Daniel, confusing all the details, not getting
anything right. Andy never said this. Andy, Robert, Rick, and I have
NEVER stated or implied that the antecedent can be false even while
the PREMISES are true. WE HAVE NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING.

So why is Daniel here implying that we have?

Because his mind is sorely mangled by his comprehension failure.

What we have stated - what all logicians state - is that an argument
that is logically valid can have false premises. An argument that is
logically valid can have false antecedents. We have NEVER stated that
an argument where all the premises are true can have a false
antecedent.

Poor Daniel just cannot get his head straight on this matter.

Note that I'm in the process of making a new web page on my website
that is solely for this discussion of this particular matter. All it
has on it are quotes of various logicians stating, either by
explanation or by example, or both, what we've pointed out to Daniel
umpteen times now, about validity, about soundness, and about the
fact that validity and soundness are not the same thing.

Logical Validity Quotes
http://creationism.outersystem.us/logicalvalidity.html

It already has a number of quotes on it, but note that I'll be adding
more quotes to it over the next few days. (Also, they're not in any
particular order right now, so I may be changing the order of the
quotes as well.) A couple quotes are below.

Also, notice that David P. Brown is letting Daniel Denham flounder
around - no, no, WALLOW - in his confused and erroneous statements on
elementary logic!

Chuckling,
Todd Greene

================================================================

Philosophical Terms and Methods - Vocabulary Describing Arguments
by Jim Pryor
(New York University Dept. of Philosophy)
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html

Valid Arguments

We call an argument deductively valid (or, for short, just "valid")
when the conclusion is entailed by, or logically follows from, the
premises.

Validity is a property of the argument's form. It doesn't matter what
the premises and the conclusion actually say. It just matters whether
the argument has the right form. So, in particular, a valid argument
need not have true premises, nor need it have a true conclusion. The
following is a valid argument:

1. All cats are reptiles.
2. Bugs Bunny is a cat.
3. So Bugs Bunny is a reptile.

Neither of the premises of this argument is true. Nor is the
conclusion. But the premises are of such a form that if they were
both true, then the conclusion would also have to be true. Hence the
argument is valid.

[...]

Sound Arguments

An argument is sound just in case it's valid and all its premises are
true.

The argument:

1. If the moon is made of green cheese, then cows jump over it.
2. The moon is made of green cheese.
3. Therefore, cows jump over the moon.

is an example of a valid argument which is not sound.

================================================================

Introductory Material
by Scott Arnold
(University of Alabama Dept. of Philosophy)
http://www.uab.edu/philosophy/faculty/arnold/1-introduction.htm

An argument is valid if and only if (iff)

If all of the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

ALTERNATIVELY,

It is logically impossible for all of the premises to be true and the
conclusion false.

Note that the definition doesn't say that the premises are in fact
true. Only that if, or under the assumption that, the premises are
true, the conclusion could not be false. Example:

(1) If Alabama loses its first five games next year, then the coach
will be fired.

(2) Alabama will lose its first five games this year.

Therefore, (3) The coach of Alabama will be fired.

[...]

The validity of an argument does not depend on the premises being
true. A valid argument can have some false premises, some true
premises, all true premises, or all false premises. And, the
conclusion of a valid argument need not be true. THERE IS ONLY ONE
EXCEPTION: In an valid argument, one cannot have all true premises
and a false conclusion. Validity is also independent of whether or
not the premises are known to be true. Validity as a matter of
logical form. The main idea is that when we say that an argument is
valid, we are saying something about the connection between the
premises and the conclusion. You are not saying anything about the
truth or falsity of the premises.

Re: Denham's Disaster on Basic Logic
(9/12/2007)
________________________

--- In CFTF, John West wrote (post #27076):
> Andy,
>
> Instead of worrying about David Brown, why don't you just
> answer the questions DANIEL DENHAM asked you? Can you not
> answer them? Quit playing games by jumping around the
> issue and discussion. You claim to be a man of integrity,
> why not act like one and answer these questions?
>
> John West

Ahhhh, the hypocrite John West speaks.

Notice that Andy has not only already answered a number of questions,
but has ALSO asked NUMEROUS questions of Daniel Denham, that Daniel
has just completely ignored - as he always does. It is DANIEL who has
been ignoring the questions. It is DANIEL who has been playing games.
It is DANIEL who has been jumping around the issue and discussion. It
is DANIEL who has deliberately refused to act like a man of integrity.

Thus does John West demonstrate his hypocrisy, and also demonstrate
his intent to defend the errors of Daniel Denham, not to mention to
also defend the deceitful ways of Daniel Denham.

http://creationism.outersystem.us/img/monkeys.jpg
http://creationism.outersystem.us/img/3monkeys.jpg

Here's a summary List of Shame of those who have explicitly stated
support of Daniel Denham in his disastrous idiocies on basis logic,
four of the Contentious For Tendentious Fallacies buddyhood and two
others:

Daniel Coe
King Davis
Don DeLong
Skip Francis
Jerry McDonald
John West

Ambiguous support:

Gene Hill
Doug Post

Logical Validity Quotes
http://creationism.outersystem.us/logicalvalidity.html

Hey, John West, instead of interjecting yourself into a discussion
concerning which you are obviously ignorant of what's going, for the
very purpose of defending a man who is promoting error, why don't you
try to grab a clue? And try to be a man of integrity?

Oh, wait, that's right, you're one of those Contentious For
Tendentious Fallacies guys, for whom this is impossible.

- Todd Greene

================================================================

[Excerpt; original emphasis]

Modus ponens and Modus tollens
(New World Encyclopedia entry, 9/5/2007)
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Modus_ponens_and_Modus_tollens

Here is an example of an [Modus ponens] inference:

| If Jack is innocent, he has an alibi.
|
| Jack is innocent.
|
| Therefore, Jack has an alibi.

The first two statements are the premises and the third statement is
the conclusion. If the first and second are true, we are forced to
accept the third.

One thing that may be mentioned here is that, in general, the
validity of an inference does not guarantee the truth of the
statements in the inference. The validity only assures us the truth
of the conclusion ASSUMING that the premises are true. Thus, for
instance, it may be the case that not every innocent suspect has an
alibi and that the first statement of the above example of [Modus
ponens] inferences is in fact false. However, this does not affect
the validity of the inference, since the conclusion must be true when
we assume the two premises are true regardless of whether the two
premises are in fact true.

The concept that involves the truth of the premises of inferences is
SOUNDNESS. An inference is sound if it is valid and all the premises
are true; otherwise, the inference is unsound. Thus, an argument can
be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false
premises.

Re: Denham still flunking his homework!
(9/13/2007)
________________________

In Maury_and_Baty post #12498, Robert Baty wrote, "You would think
that someone with Daniel Denham's alleged expertise in logic that he
would realize by now that we are told to think of arguments, not
as "materially true", but as either sound or not sound. (One of the
weaknesses of some of Denham's authorities is that they fail to
consider this point that is, otherwise, generally accepted among all
noted logic authorities.)"

Just a minor point: The logicians quoted by Daniel Denham may or may
not consider the point that validity and soundness are not the same
thing. Where Daniel is quoting from whole books, I think it is highly
probable that they do in fact consider the point, but that Daniel has
simply not quoted them on the point. (As I intimated in a post today
or yesterday, a lot of what Daniel has quoted is simply irrelevant to
the point. We're not disagreeing with any logician he has quoted, he
has simply misunderstood the import of what he quoted, thinking that
it has somehow contradicted the point, even though it does not, and
then he also has obviously misrepresented the point we've been
making. We say validity and soundness are not the same thing, and
poor Daniel in his utter confusion says that we're saying that with a
valid argument true premises can have a false conclusion, despite the
fact that not a single one of us has ever stated any such thing.)
However, what we're already well aware of is that even while Daniel
is throwing in his misrepresentations and red herring, the actual
quotes of logicians that he has given are consistent with everything
we've been pointing out all along, even though some of what he has
quoted has simply been irrelevant to the point.

- Todd Greene

------------------------------------------------

Logical Validity Quotes
http://creationism.outersystem.us/logicalvalidity.html

http://creationism.outersystem.us/img/monkeys.jpg
http://creationism.outersystem.us/img/3monkeys.jpg

Here's a summary List of Shame of those who have explicitly stated
support of Daniel Denham in his disastrous idiocies on basis logic,
four of the Contentious For Tendentious Fallacies buddyhood and two
others:

Daniel Coe
King Davis
Don DeLong
Skip Francis
Jerry McDonald
John West

Ambiguous support:

Gene Hill
Doug Post

Re: Denham's Disaster on Basic Logic
(9/13/2007)
________________________

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Rick Hartzog wrote (post #12503):
> Tony Blair is an aardvark?

Well, here is a logically valid argument along this line:

If George Bush is a tortoise, then Tony Blair is an aardvark.

George is a tortoise.

Therefore, Tony is an aardvark.

Notice that I have said NOTHING in regard to the soundness of this
argument.

;-) ;-) ;-)

> I just wanted to clear up a minor point:
>
> Denham said:
>>> Andy, how in the world could the premises of a valid
>>> syllogism be true and the antecedent that constitutes
>>> them false? Daniel Denham
>
> Todd said:
>> Poor, confused Daniel, confusing all the details, not
>> getting anything right. Andy never said this. Andy, Robert,
>> Rick, and I have NEVER stated or implied that the
>> antecedent can be false even while the PREMISES are true.
>> WE HAVE NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING.
>
> I realize this is because we have been stuck on modus ponens
> for so long, but in the *always valid* modus tollens form
> the false antecedent is actually the correct conclusion.
>
> So, to make sure everyone understands, regarding modus ponens:
> Andy, Robert, Rick or Todd have never stated or implied that
> the antecedent can be false while the premises are true.
>
> That's premises (plural), BOTH of which must be found to be
> true if the valid argument is sound.

Hi Rick,

In the interest of accuracy, thank you for pointing out the specific
context of Daniel's false claim and my response, that in that case
we're referring to modus ponens arguments.

Clearly (though perhaps not so clear to some), if we have an argument
of the form

If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, Not P.

then in this case if the premises are true, then it is also true that
the antecedent must be false. (Note for the obtuse: This does NOT
mean that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is false.)

- Todd Greene

------------------------------------------------

Logical Validity Quotes
http://creationism.outersystem.us/logicalvalidity.html

http://creationism.outersystem.us/img/monkeys.jpg
http://creationism.outersystem.us/img/3monkeys.jpg

Here's a summary List of Shame of those who have explicitly stated
support of Daniel Denham in his disastrous idiocies on basis logic,
four of the Contentious For Tendentious Fallacies buddyhood and two
others:

Daniel Coe
King Davis
Don DeLong
Skip Francis
Jerry McDonald
John West

Ambiguous support:

Gene Hill
Doug Post

Terry Hightower agrees with Robert, Rick, Andy, and Todd!
(9/13/2007)
________________________

In CFTF post #27108, Daniel Denham tells us that (be aware that this
is a quote of Daniel's description of what he says Terry Hightower
said, not a quote of Terry): "The premises must demand the conclusion
for the argument -- any deductive argument -- to be valid. The
premises may be false, but they must entail the conclusion. If the
premises are true, then the conclusion cannot help but be true. This
is fundamental to all deductive arguments."

THE PREMISES MAY BE FALSE!

YES!

EXACTLY!

THIS IS CORRECT!

THIS IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN TELLING DANIEL DENHAM ALL ALONG!

AND ACCORDING TO THIS, TERRY HIGHTOWER AGREES WITH US!

The premises may be false!!!

THIS IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN TELLING DANIEL ALL ALONG.

The "If P, then Q" in a modus ponens argument (the first premise) MAY
BE FALSE!!!

THIS IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN TELLING DANIEL ALL ALONG.

The "P" in a modus ponens argument (the second premise; which also
happens to be the antecedent in the first premise) MAY BE FALSE!!!

THIS IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN TELLING DANIEL ALL ALONG.

The premises may be false, but they must entail the conclusion. If
the premises are true, then the conclusion cannot help but be true!!!

THIS IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN TELLING DANIEL ALL ALONG.

Validity and soundness are NOT the same thing!!!

THIS IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN TELLING DANIEL ALL ALONG.

Daniel ignored Robert Baty telling him this, and attacked him for
doing so.

Daniel ignored Rick Hartzog telling him this, and attacked him for
doing so.

Daniel ignored me telling him this, and attacked me for doing so.

Daniel ignored Andy Boshers for telling him this, and attacked him
for doing so.

Now, as related by Daniel, Terry Hightower is TELLING DANIEL THE SAME
THING WE'VE BEEN TELLING HIM ALL ALONG!

Curiouser and curiouser, the bizarre, twisted ways of Daniel Denham.

I have zero doubt that Terry Hightower doesn't have a clue what we
(the critics of Daniel's nonsense) were telling Daniel, because we
know that Daniel lies to people about his critics all the time about
everything in sight whenever he feels like it, because according to
his "superior moral standard" he thinks it's okay to lie whenever it
is in his interest to do so. Apparently someone will need to fix this
little communication problem of Daniel deliberately misrepresenting
matters to Terry.

Notice also how David P. Brown left Daniel flapping in the wind with
his disaster on basic logic.

Chuckling,
Todd Greene

------------------------------------------------

Logical Validity Quotes
http://creationism.outersystem.us/logicalvalidity.html

http://creationism.outersystem.us/img/monkeys.jpg
http://creationism.outersystem.us/img/3monkeys.jpg

Here's a summary List of Shame of those who have explicitly stated
support of Daniel Denham in his disastrous idiocies on basis logic,
four of the Contentious For Tendentious Fallacies buddyhood and two
others:

Daniel Coe
King Davis
Don DeLong
Skip Francis
Jerry McDonald
John West

Ambiguous support:

Gene Hill
Doug Post

Re: Jerry McDonald - still missing it!
(9/13/2007)
________________________

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #12523):
> Robert, I have already read, with understanding, your
> argument.
>
> It is not valid because the conclusion does not logically
> and necessarily follow the premise. You have used a
> correct kind of format, but it is not a true "if p, then
> q" argument because in the modus ponens the conclusion
> must logically and necessarily follow the premise.

Jerry, your statement here makes no sense. You say that Robert's
argument is "the correct kind of format," but then you turn right
around and contradict yourself and state that "in the modus ponens
the conclusion must logically and necessarily follow the premise."

So which is it?

I realize that there are other valid argument form besides modus
ponens, but if you concede that GRAS is an argument in modus ponens
form, then THAT FACT ALONE means that "the conclusion must logically
and necessarily follow the premise." It cannot be otherwise. If it IS
in modus ponens form, this is BECAUSE the conclusion must logically
and necessarily follow the premise AND BECAUSE of the species of
argument forms in which this is true (that the conclusion is
necessitated by the premises) it is in the particular form that has
the name "modus ponens" (i.e., the "If P, then Q. P. Therefore, Q."
form).

If the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises, THEN
IT CANNOT BE A MODUS PONENS ARGUMENT.

Either it is, or it isn't. It cannot be an argument in modus ponens
form and also be an argument in which the conclusion does not follow
from the premises.

Also, Jerry, PLEASE MAKE A NOTE OF THIS: "VALIDITY" AND "SOUNDNESS"
ARE NOT THE SAME THING. (So an argument can be unsound even if it is
valid, since valid arguments can have false premises.) Please make an
attempt to understand this point, and deal with it.

> Now you can put this on any list you please, but it won't
> change the fact.

The fact is that if anyone agrees, upon examination, that an argument
is in modus ponens form, yet he also claims that the conclusion does
not follow from the premises, then he is revealing a flaw in his
understanding.

> Again, let's look at an argument you claim is valid:
>
> Major Premise: If the cow jumped over the moon,
> then the moon is made of cream cheese.
>
> Minor Premise: The cow did jump over the moon.
>
> Conclusion: Therefore, the moon is made of cream cheese.
>
> It is not enough to be in a modus ponens kind of
> format, the argument is not valid unless the conclusion
> logically and necessarily follows from the premise.

Your statement that "the argument is not valid unless the conclusion
logically and necessarily follows from the premise" is correct.
However, your sentence, as you've written it, is wrong.

Your whole sentence, as you wrote it, is, "It is not enough to be in
a modus ponens kind of format, the argument is not valid unless the
conclusion logically and necessarily follows from the premise."

An argument in modus ponens form *IS* an argument in which the
conclusion logically and necessarily follows from the premise. This
is the point. So a modus ponens argument *IS* a logically valid
argument BECAUSE it's in modus ponens form.

Therefore, the example argument you state is indeed a VALID argument.
This does NOT necessarily mean that the argument is a SOUND argument.
(In fact, it fails to be a sound argument, because both premises are
false.)

Also, PLEASE MAKE A NOTE OF THIS: "VALIDITY" AND "SOUNDNESS" ARE NOT
THE SAME THING. (So an argument can be unsound even if it is valid,
since valid arguments can have false premises.) Please make an
attempt to understand this point, and deal with it.

> Question: If the premise: The cow jumped over the moon"
> is true, how would this necessitate the conclusion: "the
> moon is made of cream cheese"?

It would necessitate the conclusion because of the first premise.

The first premise ASSERTS (Copi's word) that "the cow jumped over the
moon" implies "the moon is made of cream cheese."

The second premise ASSERTS that "the cow jumped over the moon."

GIVEN the first premise and the second premise, then the conclusion
MUST, IN THAT CASE, also be the case.

This does NOT mean that the argument is a SOUND argument. It only
means that the argument is a logically VALID argument.

Also, PLEASE MAKE A NOTE OF THIS: "VALIDITY" AND "SOUNDNESS" ARE NOT
THE SAME THING. (So an argument can be unsound even if it is valid,
since valid arguments can have false premises.) Please make an
attempt to understand this point, and deal with it.

> Please answer this for me and do it in such a way that
> people can understand it.
>
> The last time you tried to answer a question on this you
> were so confusing that no one could understand you. You
> have the ability to write clearly, I know you do because
> I have read your writings.

Sometimes people cannot understand something, even though it is
stated PLAINLY, and explained CLEARLY, NUMEROUS times, and in MANY
DIFFERENT WAYS, because they themselves are, for whatever reason,
refusing to actually sit down and READ IT, and THINK about what they
are reading. ESPECIALLY when they have been made aware of the fact
that there may be a substative flaw in their understanding. They
don't have to accept the idea that they are mistaken to do this, but
at least CONSIDER the thought that there's the possibility of a flaw
that needs to be corrected and then THINK about what is being
explained to them about this potential flaw. After doing so, they may
decide that it is the criticism that is flawed, but if you ignore
what is being stated to you in the critical explanation, then you'll
have no basis for understanding why the critic thinks there's a flaw
in the first place.

Here a flaw that I keep seeing in your statements: You keep not
recognizing, and thus not dealing with, the fact that "VALIDITY"
AND "SOUNDNESS" ARE NOT THE SAME THING. (So an argument can be
unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false
premises.) Please make an attempt to understand this point, and deal
with it. This point has been explained to you and others at least
TWENTY TIMES already (and, far from being an exaggeration, that's an
understatement).

> So please clearly
> answer this question. If the premise "the cow jumped over
> the moon" is true, then how would this necessitate the
> conclusion: "the moon is made of cream cheese"? What
> relation is there between the cow jumping over the moon
> and the moon being made of cream cheese that would
> necessicate the argument being valid?
>
> In Christ Jesus,
> Jerry McDonald

You are forgetting the form of the argument.

Premise 1.
Premise 2.
Conclusion.

The conclusion is necessitated DEPENDING ON the nature of the
premises. An argument in modus ponens form has TWO premises that
TAKEN TOGETHER necessitate the conclusion.

IF P implies Q, AND IF P is true, then Q is true.

It may be false that "P implies Q."

It may be false that "P is true" (i.e., P may be false).

BUT THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE ARGUMENT, that IF P
implies Q, AND IF P is true, then Q is true.

Thus, filling in the blanks, IF "the cow jumped over the moon"
implies that "the moon is made of cream cheese," AND IF "the cow
jumped over the moon," THEN the moon would have to made of cream
cheese. LOGICAL VALIDITY ONLY STATES THE NATURE OF THE LOGICAL
RELATIONSHIP. It does NOT say that the argument is true (sound). It
does not say that any of the premises are true. It only says that IF
the premises are true THEN the conclusion must also be true.

Jerry, here's the point: "VALIDITY" AND "SOUNDNESS" ARE NOT THE SAME
THING. (So an argument can be unsound even if it is valid, since
valid arguments can have false premises.) Please make an attempt to
understand this point, and deal with this fact in your discussion.

Logical Validity Quotes
http://creationism.outersystem.us/logicalvalidity.html

- Todd Greene

(As always, this post may be copied by anyone, to anywhere, at any
time, with proper authorship attribution.)

================================================================

[Excerpt; original emphasis]

Modus ponens and Modus tollens
(New World Encyclopedia entry, 9/5/2007)
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Modus_ponens_and_Modus_tollens

Here is an example of an [Modus ponens] inference:

| If Jack is innocent, he has an alibi.
|
| Jack is innocent.
|
| Therefore, Jack has an alibi.

The first two statements are the premises and the third statement is
the conclusion. If the first and second are true, we are forced to
accept the third.

One thing that may be mentioned here is that, in general, the
validity of an inference does not guarantee the truth of the
statements in the inference. The validity only assures us the truth
of the conclusion ASSUMING that the premises are true. Thus, for
instance, it may be the case that not every innocent suspect has an
alibi and that the first statement of the above example of [Modus
ponens] inferences is in fact false. However, this does not affect
the validity of the inference, since the conclusion must be true when
we assume the two premises are true regardless of whether the two
premises are in fact true.

The concept that involves the truth of the premises of inferences is
SOUNDNESS. An inference is sound if it is valid and all the premises
are true; otherwise, the inference is unsound. Thus, an argument can
be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false
premises.

Re: Terry Hightower; on the run from my "Goliath of GRAS"!
(9/16/2007)
________________________

Jerry, "VALIDITY" AND "SOUNDNESS" ARE NOT THE SAME THING. An argument
can be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have
false premises. I made this point to you FIVE TIMES, even emphasized
it to you ALL FIVE TIMES by using ALL CAPS, and yet you still ignored
it. You completely failed to address this point in your response. Did
you just up and decide to ignore this point deliberately?

--- In ChallengeII, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #145):
> Hi Todd, good to have you on the list.
>
> As far as your statement that I am contradicting myself
> you are wrong.

In fact, my statement was and is completely accurate. Indeed, you're
still contradicting yourself. An argument in the correct modus ponens
form is a "logically valid," according to the DEFINITION of validity.
The reason you are stating a contradiction is because you do not
understand the meaning of logical validity, and you do not understand
that "VALIDITY" AND "SOUNDNESS" ARE NOT THE SAME THING. An argument
can be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have
false premises.

Logical Validity Quotes
http://creationism.outersystem.us/logicalvalidity.html

Jerry, how many times does this FACT about logic have to be pointed
out to you before you're going to even see that the fact has been
stated to you?

Remember what you wrote previously?

>>> Please answer this for me and do it in such a way that
>>> people can understand it.
>>>
>>> The last time you tried to answer a question on this you
>>> were so confusing that no one could understand you. You
>>> have the ability to write clearly, I know you do because
>>> I have read your writings.

Remember my reply?

>> Sometimes people cannot understand something, even though
>> it is stated PLAINLY, and explained CLEARLY, NUMEROUS
>> times, and in MANY DIFFERENT WAYS, because they
>> themselves are, for whatever reason, refusing to actually
>> sit down and READ IT, and THINK about what they are
>> reading.

Jerry, you apparently are not even SEEING what is being written to
you. Obviously, if you have deliberately blinded yourself against
even SEEING what is being written to you, then it's impossible for
you to understand what you've blinded yourself against, and then IT'S
ENTIRELY YOUR OWN FAULT for not understanding it when you're
purposely ignoring it.

Here's a flaw that I keep seeing in your statements: You keep
ignoring and not dealing with the fact that "VALIDITY"
AND "SOUNDNESS" ARE NOT THE SAME THING. An argument can be unsound
even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false premises.

Jerry, when are you going to deal with this fact about the nature of
logical arguments?

> The Goliath of GRAS (and I still haven't figured out what
> GRAS means) is in a kind of format. It is supposed to be
> "if p, then q." However, because the conclusion is not
> forced necessarily and logically by the premises, then it
> is not a valid argument.

The GRAS Argument
http://creationism.outersystem.us/gras.html

GRAS is an argument in modus ponens form. Period.

When you state that "the conclusion is not forced necessarily and
logically by the premises, then it is not a valid argument," you are
merely mistaken. The premises do indeed necessitate the conclusion
(i.e., the conclusion follows logically from the premises). THIS IN
ITSELF DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANY OF THE PREMISES ARE TRUE."VALIDITY"
AND "SOUNDNESS" ARE NOT THE SAME THING. An argument can be unsound
even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false premises.

> I showed the fallacy of such thinking with my cow and
> horse argument.
>
> If Dobbin is an animal then Dobbin is a horse.
> Dobbin is an animal.
> Therefore Dobbin is a horse.
>
> It claims to be in a correct kind of format "if p, then q,"
> but it isn't really correct because the conclusion is not
> forced by the premise. Dobbin could be any kind of animal,
> not necessarily a horse.

No, Jerry, it doesn't "claim" to be in a correct kind of format. It
*IS* an argument in modus ponens format (if P then Q; P; therefore
Q). The conclusion *IS* indeed forced by the premises.

Here's the point - See if you can see it this umpteenth
time: "VALIDITY" AND "SOUNDNESS" ARE NOT THE SAME THING. An argument
can be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have
false premises.

You are CORRECT, that the first premise is FALSE. The fact that the
premise is false does NOT make the argument "invalid" IN TERMS OF
LOGICAL VALIDITY, BECAUSE *IF* THE PREMISES WERE TRUE THEN THE
CONCLUSION WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE TRUE. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER OR
NOT THE PREMISES ARE ACTUALLY TRUE FOR AN ARGUMENT TO BE LOGICALLY
VALID. "VALIDITY" AND "SOUNDNESS" ARE NOT THE SAME THING. An argument
can be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have
false premises.

Your Dobbin argument is thus UNSOUND, even though it is a logically
VALID argument. "VALIDITY" AND "SOUNDNESS" ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

> Robert's claims that his Goliath of GRAS argument is in
> the correct form. However, because the conclusion is not
> forced by the premises, it isn't valid.
>
> In Christ Jesus,
> Jerry McDonald

Jerry, I seriously wish you could get your words straight. Your
statements are confused because you are confused, because you
mistakenly think that an argument must be SOUND in order to be VALID.
That is just wrong.

You present an argument to me such as this:

> If Dobbin is an animal then Dobbin is a horse.
> Dobbin is an animal.
> Therefore Dobbin is a horse.

This argument is indeed a logically valid argument. The reason it is
a logically valid argument is precisely BECAUSE THE CONCLUSION IS
NECESSITATED BY THE PREMISES. Yet, you, because you are seriously
confused, wrongly tell me that this argument is invalid because the
conclusion is NOT forced by the premises. But I'm looking at the
argument. I see that indeed the conclusion is forced by the premises.
So I can tell that you are having a serious comprehension problem in
regard to basic logic, and that when you tell me that with the GRAS
argument the conclusion is not forced by the premises, you have less
than zero credibility, because I can see by your incorrect claim
about your Dobbin argument that you don't know what you're talking
about.

It's really that simple.

PLEASE MAKE A NOTE OF THIS: "VALIDITY" AND "SOUNDNESS" ARE NOT THE
SAME THING. (So an argument can be unsound even if it is valid, since
valid arguments can have false premises.) Please make an attempt to
understand this point, and deal with it.

Logical Validity Quotes
http://creationism.outersystem.us/logicalvalidity.html

- Todd Greene

(As always, this post may be copied by anyone, to anywhere, at any
time, with proper authorship attribution.)

================================================================

[Excerpt; original emphasis]

Modus ponens and Modus tollens
(New World Encyclopedia entry, 9/5/2007)
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Modus_ponens_and_Modus_tollens

Here is an example of an [Modus ponens] inference:

| If Jack is innocent, he has an alibi.
|
| Jack is innocent.
|
| Therefore, Jack has an alibi.

The first two statements are the premises and the third statement is
the conclusion. If the first and second are true, we are forced to
accept the third.

One thing that may be mentioned here is that, in general, the
validity of an inference does not guarantee the truth of the
statements in the inference. The validity only assures us the truth
of the conclusion ASSUMING that the premises are true. Thus, for
instance, it may be the case that not every innocent suspect has an
alibi and that the first statement of the above example of [Modus
ponens] inferences is in fact false. However, this does not affect
the validity of the inference, since the conclusion must be true when
we assume the two premises are true regardless of whether the two
premises are in fact true.

The concept that involves the truth of the premises of inferences is
SOUNDNESS. An inference is sound if it is valid and all the premises
are true; otherwise, the inference is unsound. Thus, an argument can
be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false
premises.

Re: Terry Hightower; on the run from my "Goliath of GRAS"!
(9/16/2007)
________________________

--- In ChallengeII, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #146):
> But you are dreaming, Robert.

No, Jerry, you are the one who is trapped in error on this matter,
because you fail to deal with a basic logical fact: "VALIDITY"
AND "SOUNDNESS" ARE NOT THE SAME THING. An argument can be unsound
even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false premises.

> Just because I
> claim that if the cow jumps over the moon the moon must
> be made of cream cheese, this does not validate the
> argument.

Your statement seems fine if you are using "validate" in the general
sense. However, because of previously mistaken statements you've
made, we know that that's not what you mean. You are trying to tell
us that your Cow Moon argument is not logically valid. But it *IS* a
logically valid argument. Here is what you wrote previously:

| If the cow jumped over the moon,
| then the moon is made of cream cheese.
|
| The cow did jump over the moon.
|
| Therefore, the moon is made of cream cheese.
|
| It is not enough to be in a modus ponens kind of
| format, the argument is not valid unless the conclusion
| logically and necessarily follows from the premise.

Your statement is simply wrong. It *IS* enough to be in a modus
ponens kind of format for an argument to be a logically valid
argument. But being "logically valid" does NOT mean that the argument
is necessarily sound. An argument can be a logically VALID argument
yet still be an UNSOUND argument if any of the premises are
false. "VALIDITY" AND "SOUNDNESS" ARE NOT THE SAME THING. An argument
can be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have
false premises.

> What relation is there to the premise and the conclusion
> that demands that the moon be made of cream cheese if the
> cow jumps over the moon.

The first premise states the "relation." What is the relation that it
states? It states that IF the cow jumped over the moon, THEN the moon
is made of cream cheese. Another way to say this is like this: "The
cow jumping over the moon" would imply that "the moon is made of
cream cheese."

The first premise AND the second premises together force the
conclusion.

Is the first premise wrong? YOU BET IT IS. The first premise is
ABSURD.

And that is why the argument is UNSOUND. However, it remains a
logically VALID argument. This is because the conclusion is forced by
the premises.

"VALIDITY" AND "SOUNDNESS" ARE NOT THE SAME THING. An argument can be
unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false
premises.

> Now you have
> been dancing around this for weeks now, and still you
> have not answered it.

No, Jerry, YOU are the one who's been dancing around this for weeks
now and still have not dealt with it and taken it into account:

"VALIDITY" AND "SOUNDNESS" ARE NOT THE SAME THING. An argument can be
unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false
premises.

> Please tell us
> what is there in the premise "if the cow jumps over the
> moon" that demands that "the moon be made of cream cheese"?
>
> jdm

I know that Rick explained this to you, because I read his
explanation. I know that I have explained this to you, both in a
previous post, and again here. I haven't read all of Robert's posts
on this, so I don't know about him in particular.

The question for you is this: Why are you deliberately ignoring our
explanations, and then here, with this question as you stated it,
falsely pretending that we have not already explained this to you?

Here is a fact about basic logic that you must take into
account: "VALIDITY" AND "SOUNDNESS" ARE NOT THE SAME THING. An
argument can be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments
can have false premises. Jerry, you must understand this point, and
deal with it. If you cannot comprehend this point, then your
statements and claims on this matter will continue to be mired in
error and confusion.

Logical Validity Quotes
http://creationism.outersystem.us/logicalvalidity.html

- Todd Greene

(As always, this post may be copied by anyone, to anywhere, at any
time, with proper authorship attribution.)

================================================================

[Excerpt; original emphasis]

Modus ponens and Modus tollens
(New World Encyclopedia entry, 9/5/2007)
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Modus_ponens_and_Modus_tollens

Here is an example of an [Modus ponens] inference:

| If Jack is innocent, he has an alibi.
|
| Jack is innocent.
|
| Therefore, Jack has an alibi.

The first two statements are the premises and the third statement is
the conclusion. If the first and second are true, we are forced to
accept the third.

One thing that may be mentioned here is that, in general, the
validity of an inference does not guarantee the truth of the
statements in the inference. The validity only assures us the truth
of the conclusion ASSUMING that the premises are true. Thus, for
instance, it may be the case that not every innocent suspect has an
alibi and that the first statement of the above example of [Modus
ponens] inferences is in fact false. However, this does not affect
the validity of the inference, since the conclusion must be true when
we assume the two premises are true regardless of whether the two
premises are in fact true.

The concept that involves the truth of the premises of inferences is
SOUNDNESS. An inference is sound if it is valid and all the premises
are true; otherwise, the inference is unsound. Thus, an argument can
be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false
premises.

Re: Terry Hightower; on the run from my "Goliath of GRAS"!
(9/16/2007)
________________________

--- In ChallengeII, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #148):
> To Todd, Rick and Robert,
>
> You guys are waisting your time in trying to get me to
> come to your side on this argument. It isn't going to
> happen.

Yes, Jerry, all three of us have considerable experience with young
earth creationists being impervious to fact and logic.

> I don't believe
> the Goliath of GRAS is valid,

Well, it's a logically valid argument. What all three of us know that
you mean to say is that you believe that GRAS is not a sound
argument. This is because you believe that if it is correct that the
world has been in existence substantially longer than 10,000 years,
then the Bible is not God's Word. (In other words, you would respond
to GRAS by saying it's not that the young earth creationist
interpretation of the Bible is wrong, it's that the interpretation is
correct and it's just that the Bible is wrong.) You've already told
us this.

> and I am
> not going to admit that it is just because you want me
> to.

Actually, it would be a little interesting to see what you would say
if you were able to comprehend the fact that "validity"
and "soundness" are not the same thing.

> So you might
> as well quit waisting my time and yours. I will no longer
> respond to this argument.
>
> Jerry

But would you respond to the FACT that in terms of logical
argument, "validity" and "soundness" are not the same thing? Would
you respond to the FACT that an argument can be unsound even if it is
valid, since valid arguments can have false premises?

And besides all of this, we see some value in the public record of
young earth creationists demonstrating for people their inability to
recognize and deal with facts (either empirical facts or conceptual
facts), and their inability to correct their errors and then modify
their position as appropriate to the correction of these errors. This
is instructive to others.

Logical Validity Quotes
http://creationism.outersystem.us/logicalvalidity.html

- Todd Greene

(As always, this post may be copied by anyone, to anywhere, at any
time, with proper authorship attribution.)

================================================================

[Excerpt; original emphasis]

Modus ponens and Modus tollens
(New World Encyclopedia entry, 9/5/2007)
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Modus_ponens_and_Modus_tollens

Here is an example of an [Modus ponens] inference:

| If Jack is innocent, he has an alibi.
|
| Jack is innocent.
|
| Therefore, Jack has an alibi.

The first two statements are the premises and the third statement is
the conclusion. If the first and second are true, we are forced to
accept the third.

One thing that may be mentioned here is that, in general, the
validity of an inference does not guarantee the truth of the
statements in the inference. The validity only assures us the truth
of the conclusion ASSUMING that the premises are true. Thus, for
instance, it may be the case that not every innocent suspect has an
alibi and that the first statement of the above example of [Modus
ponens] inferences is in fact false. However, this does not affect
the validity of the inference, since the conclusion must be true when
we assume the two premises are true regardless of whether the two
premises are in fact true.

The concept that involves the truth of the premises of inferences is
SOUNDNESS. An inference is sound if it is valid and all the premises
are true; otherwise, the inference is unsound. Thus, an argument can
be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false
premises.

Re: Terry Hightower; on the run from my "Goliath of GRAS"!
(9/16/2007)
________________________

--- In ChallengeII, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #147):
> Again, Rick, Copi said that the argument is valid only if
> the premises are true which forces the conclusion to be
> true.

No, Jerry, that is not what he said. He said that an argument is
valid if the premises being true forces the conclusion to be true.
Copi NEVER stated that the premises must actually be true for the
argument to be valid. You have misrepresented Copi on this point.

> The conclusion must
> logically and necessarily follow from the premise.

That's right.

> If you tell
> someone that you will give them a dollar if they swim
> across the river and you are telling the truth and they
> swim across the river you are obligated to give them
> the dollar. There is a connection between them. However,
> if you lie and do not give them the dollar then the
> premises are false and the argument is invalid because
> the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the
> premise.

No, Jerry, the argument is VALID because IF the first premise was
true THEN the conclusion would be true. Even if the first premise
happens to be false, that does not change this fact about the
argument. What this would mean is that even if the argument is valid,
IT IS UNSOUND.

"VALIDITY" AND "SOUNDNESS" ARE NOT THE SAME THING. An argument can be
unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false
premises.

> The argument doesn't
> really make much sense,

The argument makes perfect sense.

> but only if
> the premises are true will you be able to logically
> and necessarily force the conclusion to be true.
>
> jdm

That's right, and that is precisely why the argument is a logically
valid argument. However, it may also be an unsound argument, because
the premises may not be true.

"VALIDITY" AND "SOUNDNESS" ARE NOT THE SAME THING. An argument can be
unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false
premises.

Logical Validity Quotes
http://creationism.outersystem.us/logicalvalidity.html

- Todd Greene

(As always, this post may be copied by anyone, to anywhere, at any
time, with proper authorship attribution.)

================================================================

[Excerpt; original emphasis]

Modus ponens and Modus tollens
(New World Encyclopedia entry, 9/5/2007)
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Modus_ponens_and_Modus_tollens

Here is an example of an [Modus ponens] inference:

| If Jack is innocent, he has an alibi.
|
| Jack is innocent.
|
| Therefore, Jack has an alibi.

The first two statements are the premises and the third statement is
the conclusion. If the first and second are true, we are forced to
accept the third.

One thing that may be mentioned here is that, in general, the
validity of an inference does not guarantee the truth of the
statements in the inference. The validity only assures us the truth
of the conclusion ASSUMING that the premises are true. Thus, for
instance, it may be the case that not every innocent suspect has an
alibi and that the first statement of the above example of [Modus
ponens] inferences is in fact false. However, this does not affect
the validity of the inference, since the conclusion must be true when
we assume the two premises are true regardless of whether the two
premises are in fact true.

The concept that involves the truth of the premises of inferences is
SOUNDNESS. An inference is sound if it is valid and all the premises
are true; otherwise, the inference is unsound. Thus, an argument can
be unsound even if it is valid, since valid arguments can have false
premises.

Thomas B. Warren says validity and soundness not the same!
(9/17/2007)
________________________

I transcribed these quotes of Thomas B. Warren from the images
uploaded by Andy Boshers that he gave everyone links to (see CFTF
post #27222).

These have also been added to this web page, as the first two quotes:

Logical Validity Quotes
http://creationism.outersystem.us/logicalvalidity.html

All emphases are in the originals.

Yet again, Daniel Denham is flatly contradicted by a logician. Poor
Daniel didn't have a clue what he was talking about. He got caught in
his error. He could not bring himself to acknowledge an error and
correct it. And his sycophants are the same. They have created a
complete mess, due simply to their hubristic arrogant ignorance and
deliberate refusal to acknowledge and correct error. Notice all the
comments they've made, that to criticize THEIR errors, is to oppose
the Church, oppose Christianity, oppose God, oppose morality, yada
yada yada. This demonstrates the zany arrogance that these men have.

- Todd Greene

------------------------------------------------

When Is An Example Binding?
by Thomas B. Warren
(page 4)

| An argument is VALID when the truth of the premises
| (supporting evidence) NECESSITATES the truth of the
| CONCLUSION. An argument is SOUND when not only is it the
| case that the ARGUMENT is VALID but also that the
| premises are TRUE. An argument may be VALID and have a
| false conclusion (because of false premises), but if an
| argument is SOUND, then the conclusion MUST be true.

------------------------------------------------

Logic and the Bible
by Thomas B. Warren
(pages 10-11)

| 4. VALIDITY. To say that an argument is VALID is to say
| that the CONCLUSION is IMPLIED by the PREMISES: that is,
| an argument is valid if, when the PREMISES are true, the
| truthfulness of the CONCLUSION is demanded by that fact.
| It must be noted that an argument's being valid does not
| guarantee that either the premises are true or that the
| conclusion is true. An ARGUMENT may be VALID even though
| all of the PREMISES are FALSE and the CONCLUSION is
| FALSE. For example:
|
| (1) All cars are Fords.
| (2) All Fords are green.
| (3) Therefore, all cars are green.
|
| This is a VALID ARGUMENT. Not one rule of the categorical
| syllogism is broken by this argument. Yet, BOTH of the
| PREMISES are FALSE, and the CONCLUSION is FALSE! Since
| this is the case the conclusion is NOT proved by this
| argument even though it is a VALID ARGUMENT. But note the
| question of "soundness" in the following point.
|
| 5. SOUNDNESS. To say that an argument is SOUND is to say
| both (1) that the ARGUMENT is VALID and (2) that all of
| the PREMISES are TRUE. If it is the case that either (1)
| the ARGUMENT is not valid or (2) even one of the PREMISES
| is not true, then the ARGUMENT is not sound. And, it must
| be noted, only SOUND arguments prove their conclusions to
| be true.

Re: Thomas B. Warren says validity and soundness not the same!
(9/17/2007)
________________________

So notice what has happened. Andy Boshers supplies DIRECT QUOTES of
Thomas B. Warren showing where he has EXPLICITLY STATED all of the
following:

1. Validity and soundness are not the same.

2. An argument that is logically valid can have false premises, and
a false conclusion.

Daniel Denham, and his sycophants Don DeLong, Skip Francis, Daniel
Coe, Ken Chumbley (and others), just deliberately ignore what Thomas
Warren wrote and then lie about Thomas Warren, and then lie about
Andy Boshers.

In CFTF post #27244 we see the deceitful Daniel saying that "Andy has
stated a view for brother warren that he did not hold relative to
validity." Of course, when we read what Warren wrote we see that Andy
is absolutely correct. Warren got it right. Robert Baty got it right.
Rick Hartzog got it right. Andy Boshers got it right. I got it right.

As we have observe many, many times before Daniel Denham has a
horrible habit of just making up stuff whenever he feels like it when
he's trying to defend his nonsense. And when he gets caught in these
errors he just deliberately ignores his errors and blunders on in
typical manner of defiant, ignorant error, lying about the facts left
and right, and lying about anyone and everyone who dares to criticize
his errors. He and his cohorts even have the audacity to preach that
if you criticize THEM, you are attacking God or attacking God's Word
or attacking the Church. Which shows you just how highly these men
think of themselves. They make jokes about the Pope, even while at
the same time in their rhetoric they're pretending to be like popes.

Logical Validity Quotes
http://creationism.outersystem.us/logicalvalidity.html

Just watch how these men will continue to deceitfully pretend that
these quotes of Thomas B. Warren don't exist.

Rick, this is the big one: The wager is 928 quatloos.

- Todd Greene

------------------------------------------------

[All emphases in the originals]

When Is An Example Binding?
by Thomas B. Warren
(page 4)

| An argument is VALID when the truth of the premises
| (supporting evidence) NECESSITATES the truth of the
| CONCLUSION. An argument is SOUND when not only is it the
| case that the ARGUMENT is VALID but also that the
| premises are TRUE. An argument may be VALID and have a
| false conclusion (because of false premises), but if an
| argument is SOUND, then the conclusion MUST be true.

------------------------------------------------

Logic and the Bible
by Thomas B. Warren
(pages 10-11)

| 4. VALIDITY. To say that an argument is VALID is to say
| that the CONCLUSION is IMPLIED by the PREMISES: that is,
| an argument is valid if, when the PREMISES are true, the
| truthfulness of the CONCLUSION is demanded by that fact.
| It must be noted that an argument's being valid does not
| guarantee that either the premises are true or that the
| conclusion is true. An ARGUMENT may be VALID even though
| all of the PREMISES are FALSE and the CONCLUSION is
| FALSE. For example:
|
| (1) All cars are Fords.
| (2) All Fords are green.
| (3) Therefore, all cars are green.
|
| This is a VALID ARGUMENT. Not one rule of the categorical
| syllogism is broken by this argument. Yet, BOTH of the
| PREMISES are FALSE, and the CONCLUSION is FALSE! Since
| this is the case the conclusion is NOT proved by this
| argument even though it is a VALID ARGUMENT. But note the
| question of "soundness" in the following point.
|
| 5. SOUNDNESS. To say that an argument is SOUND is to say
| both (1) that the ARGUMENT is VALID and (2) that all of
| the PREMISES are TRUE. If it is the case that either (1)
| the ARGUMENT is not valid or (2) even one of the PREMISES
| is not true, then the ARGUMENT is not sound. And, it must
| be noted, only SOUND arguments prove their conclusions to
| be true.

Re: Thomas B. Warren says validity and soundness not the same!
(9/17/2007)
________________________

From:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChallengeII/message/161

Hi Jerry,

As Robert and Rick and I (not to mention Andy Boshers) have all been
been telling you, we see that Thomas B. Warren stated exactly the
same thing: VALIDITY AND SOUNDNESS ARE NOT THE SAME THING! Andy
Boshers has supplied us with DIRECT QUOTES of Thomas B. Warren, where
we see that he has EXPLICITLY STATED both of the following:

1. Validity and soundness are not the same.

2. An argument that is logically valid can have false premises, and a
false conclusion.

Jerry, FORGET ABOUT GRAS FOR THE MOMENT. GRAS IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS
BASIC FACT ABOUT LOGIC.

Are you willing to acknowledge the simple fact that in terms of
logical argument, validity and soundness are not the same thing? Are
you willing to acknowledge that valid arguments can have false
premises?

Logical Validity Quotes
http://creationism.outersystem.us/logicalvalidity.html

- Todd Greene

------------------------------------------------

[All emphases in the originals]

When Is An Example Binding?
by Thomas B. Warren
(page 4)

| An argument is VALID when the truth of the premises
| (supporting evidence) NECESSITATES the truth of the
| CONCLUSION. An argument is SOUND when not only is it the
| case that the ARGUMENT is VALID but also that the
| premises are TRUE. An argument may be VALID and have a
| false conclusion (because of false premises), but if an
| argument is SOUND, then the conclusion MUST be true.

------------------------------------------------

Logic and the Bible
by Thomas B. Warren
(pages 10-11)

| 4. VALIDITY. To say that an argument is VALID is to say
| that the CONCLUSION is IMPLIED by the PREMISES: that is,
| an argument is valid if, when the PREMISES are true, the
| truthfulness of the CONCLUSION is demanded by that fact.
| It must be noted that an argument's being valid does not
| guarantee that either the premises are true or that the
| conclusion is true. An ARGUMENT may be VALID even though
| all of the PREMISES are FALSE and the CONCLUSION is
| FALSE. For example:
|
| (1) All cars are Fords.
| (2) All Fords are green.
| (3) Therefore, all cars are green.
|
| This is a VALID ARGUMENT. Not one rule of the categorical
| syllogism is broken by this argument. Yet, BOTH of the
| PREMISES are FALSE, and the CONCLUSION is FALSE! Since
| this is the case the conclusion is NOT proved by this
| argument even though it is a VALID ARGUMENT. But note the
| question of "soundness" in the following point.
|
| 5. SOUNDNESS. To say that an argument is SOUND is to say
| both (1) that the ARGUMENT is VALID and (2) that all of
| the PREMISES are TRUE. If it is the case that either (1)
| the ARGUMENT is not valid or (2) even one of the PREMISES
| is not true, then the ARGUMENT is not sound. And, it must
| be noted, only SOUND arguments prove their conclusions to
| be true.

Re: Thomas B. Warren says validity and soundness not the same!
(9/17/2007)
________________________

In regard to my post here

Re: Thomas B. Warren says validity and soundness not the same!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/12628

Skip Francis wrote to me as follows: "a 'text' out of 'context' is
merely a 'pretext'. Directly quoting ANYONE out of context does not
do justice to what they had to say."

Of course, Thomas Warren isn't being quoted "out of context"! He's
being quoted in context. This is Skip Francis simply telling us that
he is going to deliberately ignore what Thomas B. Warren has been
DIRECTLY QUOTED to say, and that he's going to lie about it, and lie
about anyone who points out facts that contradict the errors that
Skip has promoted. Just as he and the Daniel Denham buddyhood
deliberately ignore any and all facts that contradict them, and then
lie about everyone who points these facts out.

I have to admit that this mental meltdown of the Contentious For
Tendentious Fallacies on a completely uncontroversial topic, on a
simple fact about basis logic, has its uses.

Keep watching how these men will continue to deceitfully pretend that
these quotes of Thomas B. Warren don't exist. My 928 quatloos are
safe and sound!

- Todd Greene

Logical Validity Quotes
http://creationism.outersystem.us/logicalvalidity.html

------------------------------------------------

[All emphases in the originals]

When Is An Example Binding?
by Thomas B. Warren
(page 4)

| An argument is VALID when the truth of the premises
| (supporting evidence) NECESSITATES the truth of the
| CONCLUSION. An argument is SOUND when not only is it the
| case that the ARGUMENT is VALID but also that the
| premises are TRUE. An argument may be VALID and have a
| false conclusion (because of false premises), but if an
| argument is SOUND, then the conclusion MUST be true.

------------------------------------------------

Logic and the Bible
by Thomas B. Warren
(pages 10-11)

| 4. VALIDITY. To say that an argument is VALID is to say
| that the CONCLUSION is IMPLIED by the PREMISES: that is,
| an argument is valid if, when the PREMISES are true, the
| truthfulness of the CONCLUSION is demanded by that fact.
| It must be noted that an argument's being valid does not
| guarantee that either the premises are true or that the
| conclusion is true. An ARGUMENT may be VALID even though
| all of the PREMISES are FALSE and the CONCLUSION is
| FALSE. For example:
|
| (1) All cars are Fords.
| (2) All Fords are green.
| (3) Therefore, all cars are green.
|
| This is a VALID ARGUMENT. Not one rule of the categorical
| syllogism is broken by this argument. Yet, BOTH of the
| PREMISES are FALSE, and the CONCLUSION is FALSE! Since
| this is the case the conclusion is NOT proved by this
| argument even though it is a VALID ARGUMENT. But note the
| question of "soundness" in the following point.
|
| 5. SOUNDNESS. To say that an argument is SOUND is to say
| both (1) that the ARGUMENT is VALID and (2) that all of
| the PREMISES are TRUE. If it is the case that either (1)
| the ARGUMENT is not valid or (2) even one of the PREMISES
| is not true, then the ARGUMENT is not sound. And, it must
| be noted, only SOUND arguments prove their conclusions to
| be true.

Re: Thomas B. Warren says validity and soundness not the same!
(9/18/2007)
________________________

--- In ChallengeII, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #162):
> This is just another ploy to get me to stay involved in
> the argumentation over GRAS.

Whether you do or not is up to you, not me. Speaking for myself, I
have no ploy. GRAS is NOT my argument, it's Robert's. In fact, I
happen to be on record as disagreeing with the GRAS argument. I
certainly don't have to agree with GRAS to know that you have made
some statements about basic aspect of logic that are completely
wrong, and to discuss this fact.

> Todd says that
> GRAS ins't the issue, but it because that is the whole
> reason for this discussion.

Not for me, Jerry. You already clearly, unequivocally answered my
GRAS-related question. You told me that you think that if it is the
case that the world has been around substantially longer than 10,000
years, then the Bible is wrong. What is of interest to me is
witnessing young earth creationists proclaiming error on a subject
that doesn't happen to be related to young earth creationism, per se,
yet at the same time they seem to be demonstrating the same kinds of
cognitive problems over dealing with (actually, failing to deal with)
their errors on the subject (the subject of the meaning of validity
and soundness in logic terminology). I think this is indicative of
something significant, I'm just not sure exactly what it is.

> I am going to say one last thing about this, then I am going
> to let it drop.

Whatever you've decided is best for you.

> 1. I Jerry McDonald do understand that there is a difference
> between VALIDITY and SOUNDNESS.
>
> 2. I Jerry McDonald do understand that you can have a false
> premise and a false conclusion and still have a valid
> argument.
>
> 3. However, in order to have a valid argument the conclusion
> must LOGICALLY and NECESSARILY follow from the premises. If
> it doesn't irrefutably follow from the premises the argument
> isn't valid.

Jerry, WE AGREE ON THESE THREE POINTS. I have only one quibble, and
that is that the word "However" here doesn't make much sense. Pay
close attention to this point: EVEN AN ARGUMENT THAT HAS FALSE
PREMISES AND A FALSE CONCLUSION CAN STILL BE AN ARGUMENT IN WHICH THE
CONCLUSION *MUST* NECESSARILY FOLLOW FROM THE PREMISES. Indeed, this
is EXACTLY what we've been pointing out to you all along (on this
point about logic).

> An invalid argument would be as follows:
>
> Major Premise: If Jerry McDonald likes to play video
> games, then he is a preacher.
>
> Minor Premise: Jerry McDonald likes to play video games.
>
> CONCLUSION: Therefore Jerry McDonald is a preacher.

You have a serious problem with your statement above. You say "An
invalid argument would be as follows," and then you turn right around
and give us an example of a logically valid argument. Here's the
point: VALIDITY AND SOUNDNESS ARE NOT THE SAME THING. This example
argument is a VALID argument, however, it is an UNSOUND argument
because the first premise is false. The first premise asserts that
the antecedent ("Jerry McDonald likes to play video games") implies
the consequent ("he is a preacher"). But that assertion is wrong.

> The argument is invalid because even though the premises
> are true, the conclusion does not logically and
> necessarily follow from the premises.

This statement is wrong, and it is wrong for two different reasons.
First, the argument is not invalid. It is a VALID argument, because
the conclusion DOES logically and necessarily follow from the
premises, because IF the premises were true, then the conclusion
would have to be true as well. Second, the first premise is not true,
which is why this is an UNSOUND argument.

Incidentally, your example argument is an example of an argument in
modus ponens form:

1. If P, then Q.
2. P.
3. Therefore, Q.

| Vignette 17
| Logic, Truth and Language
| http://www.jcu.edu/math/vignettes/logic.htm
|
| Modus Ponens
|
| Although some logical arguments can be very complicated,
| the most common use of logic boils down to the fact that
|
| (P ^ (P => Q)) => Q

[This is the same as "If P, and if P implies Q, then Q."]

| is a tautology -- that it, it is true under all
| combinations of truth values for P and Q. In other words,
| it doesn't matter whether P is true or false, or whether
| Q is true or false; (P ^ (P => Q)) => Q turns out to be
| true! This fact is known to logicians as modus ponens,
| Latin for "method of affirming." Modus ponens is also
| sometimes called the law of detachment. Whatever you call
| it, it is one of the most basic principles of logic.
|
| Modus ponens can be interpreted as follows. If we know
| that P => Q is true and we know that P is true, then it
| follows that Q must be true. This type argument is also
| referred to as a syllogism, and can be expressed in
| symbolic form as:
| P => Q [P implies Q]
| P
| [Therefore] Q
|
| In this type of argument, there are two premises, P => Q
| (called the major premise) and P (called the minor
| premise) and one conclusion, namely Q. Because of modus
| ponens, if you agree that both of the premises are true,
| then you have no choice but to accept the fact that the
| conclusion is also true. As an example taken from common
| language, consider the argument "If you get your feet
| wet, then you will catch a cold. You got your feet wet.
| Therefore, you will catch a cold." If you believe the
| major premise to be a true statement (if you get your
| feet wet, then you will catch a cold), and if you observe
| that the minor premise is also true (you did, in fact,
| get your feet wet), then you must also believe the
| conclusion -- that you will, in fact, catch a cold.
|
| Validity
|
| Now you may take issue with the major premise in the
| argument above, in which case you are not by any means
| obligated to accept the conclusion. However, the argument
| -- the use of logic -- is nonetheless perfectly valid.
| The validity of an argument has to do only with the
| logical structure of the argument, and not with the truth
| of any of the premises.

> The reason Robert's Goliath of GRAS argument isn't valid
> is not because it is unsound, but because the conclusion
> does not logically or neceesarily follow from the
> premises.

What we have observed is that apparently you are not able to
correctly judge whether or not a conclusion follows from the
premises, because we have seen you wrongly describe arguments as
having conclusions that do not follow from the premises despite the
fact that they do indeed follow from the premises, so your claim here
carries no weight. We have seen you do this again and again and
again. What I have observed is that whenever a valid argument has
false premises (especially a modus ponens form with a false major
premise) you become confused about thinking that the conclusion
doesn't follow from the premises just because a premise is false (or
both are false). A false premise does NOT make an argument invalid. I
do see you making statements that you recognize this fact (that a
valid argument can have false premises), but every time an example of
a valid argument is presented to you that contains false premises you
incorrectly describe it as an invalid argument.

In the current discussion, I have observed that you seem especially
confused about the nature of the first premise of a modus ponens
argument. The PURPOSE of the first premise is to ASSERT an
implication. The PREMISE is that the antecedent (whatever it is)
IMPLIES the consequent. You do not seem to understand that when we
say "The premise is false" and we are referring to the first premise
of a modus ponens argument we are in fact saying that the antecedent
does NOT imply the consequent.

You acknowledge (such as your statement copied above) that you
recognize that an argument can be valid yet still have false
premises, but when you are presented with examples of arguments in
modus ponens form (which are, in fact, valid arguments) EVERY SINGLE
TIME THAT THE FIRST PREMISE WAS FALSE YOU HAVE INCORRECTLY CLAIMED
THAT THE ARGUMENT WAS INVALID. We have observed your confusion on
this very point again and again and again.

> Todd doesn't need to lecture me on anything that Thomas
> Warren taught in his books, because I have most of them. I
> have studied his writings for years.

This is an irrelevant red herring. What is relevant is the simple
fact that you do not understand what he has stated clearly and
unequivocally about this point about we've been discussing. In
particular, what you have just stated in connection with your example
argument is directly contrary to what Warren wrote in the quote I
gave (that I got from Andy Boshers page scan):

| Logic and the Bible
| by Thomas B. Warren
| (pages 10-11)
|
| 4. VALIDITY. To say that an argument is VALID is to say
| that the CONCLUSION is IMPLIED by the PREMISES: that is,
| an argument is valid if, when the PREMISES are true, the
| truthfulness of the CONCLUSION is demanded by that fact.
| It must be noted that an argument's being valid does not
| guarantee that either the premises are true or that the
| conclusion is true. An ARGUMENT may be VALID even though
| all of the PREMISES are FALSE and the CONCLUSION is
| FALSE. For example:
|
| (1) All cars are Fords.
| (2) All Fords are green.
| (3) Therefore, all cars are green.
|
| This is a VALID ARGUMENT.

Incidentally, notice that this example argument by Warren is an
example of a "categorical syllogism":

1. All S are M.
2. All M are P.
4. Therefore, all S are P.

It is FALSE that "all cars are Fords."

It is FALSE that "all Fords are green."

It is FALSE that "all cars are green."

However, this is a VALID argument because the conclusion necessarily
follows from the premises (i.e., IF the premises are true, then the
conclusion must be true), EVEN THOUGH BOTH OF THE PREMISES ARE FALSE.
(And even though the conclusion is false, as well.)

> As long as to conclusion logically and necessarily follows
> from the premises, the argument is valid. If it doesn't,
> then the argument isn't valid.

We agree on this statement. The problem is that you apparently think
that if an argument is wrong (unsound, such as your example argument
above) that this automatically means that the conclusion does not
follow from the premises. But that is wrong. What we're seeing is
that your erroneous statements on this subject, including in
connection with Robert's GRAS argument, are based on your confusion
of what does and does not constitute a logically valid argument.

> I hope that this takes care of all of the quibbles about
> this. This is my last word on the subject.
>
> In Christ Jesus,
> Jerry McDonald

This is not just a "quibble." We're talking about a fundamental
conceptual error concerning a basic aspect of logic.

Logical Validity Quotes
http://creationism.outersystem.us/logicalvalidity.html

- Todd Greene

------------------------------------------------

[All emphases in the originals]

When Is An Example Binding?
by Thomas B. Warren
(page 4)

| An argument is VALID when the truth of the premises
| (supporting evidence) NECESSITATES the truth of the
| CONCLUSION. An argument is SOUND when not only is it the
| case that the ARGUMENT is VALID but also that the
| premises are TRUE. An argument may be VALID and have a
| false conclusion (because of false premises), but if an
| argument is SOUND, then the conclusion MUST be true.

------------------------------------------------

Logic and the Bible
by Thomas B. Warren
(pages 10-11)

| 4. VALIDITY. To say that an argument is VALID is to say
| that the CONCLUSION is IMPLIED by the PREMISES: that is,
| an argument is valid if, when the PREMISES are true, the
| truthfulness of the CONCLUSION is demanded by that fact.
| It must be noted that an argument's being valid does not
| guarantee that either the premises are true or that the
| conclusion is true. An ARGUMENT may be VALID even though
| all of the PREMISES are FALSE and the CONCLUSION is
| FALSE. For example:
|
| (1) All cars are Fords.
| (2) All Fords are green.
| (3) Therefore, all cars are green.
|
| This is a VALID ARGUMENT. Not one rule of the categorical
| syllogism is broken by this argument. Yet, BOTH of the
| PREMISES are FALSE, and the CONCLUSION is FALSE! Since
| this is the case the conclusion is NOT proved by this
| argument even though it is a VALID ARGUMENT. But note the
| question of "soundness" in the following point.
|
| 5. SOUNDNESS. To say that an argument is SOUND is to say
| both (1) that the ARGUMENT is VALID and (2) that all of
| the PREMISES are TRUE. If it is the case that either (1)
| the ARGUMENT is not valid or (2) even one of the PREMISES
| is not true, then the ARGUMENT is not sound. And, it must
| be noted, only SOUND arguments prove their conclusions to
| be true.

Re: Thomas B. Warren says validity and soundness not the same!
(9/19/2007)
________________________

--- In CFTF, Skip Francis wrote (post #27271):
> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Todd Greene wrote (post #12634):
>> In regard to my post here
>>
>> Re: Thomas B. Warren says validity and soundness not the same!
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/12628
>>
>> Skip Francis wrote to me as follows: "a 'text' out of
>> 'context' is merely a 'pretext'. Directly quoting ANYONE
>> out of context does not do justice to what they had to
>> say."
>>
>> Of course, Thomas Warren isn't being quoted "out of
>> context"! He's being quoted in context. This is Skip
>> Francis simply telling us that he is going to
>> deliberately ignore what Thomas B. Warren has been
>> DIRECTLY QUOTED to say, and that he's going to lie about
>> it, and lie about anyone who points out facts that
>> contradict the errors that Skip has promoted. Just as he
>> and the Daniel Denham buddyhood deliberately ignore any
>> and all facts that contradict them, and then lie about
>> everyone who points these facts out.
>>
>> I have to admit that this mental meltdown of the
>> Contentious For Tendentious Fallacies on a completely
>> uncontroversial topic, on a simple fact about basic
>> logic, has its uses.
>>
>> Keep watching how these men will continue to deceitfully
>> pretend that these quotes of Thomas B. Warren don't
>> exist. My 928 quatloos are safe and sound!
>>
>> - Todd Greene
>
>
> Brethren,
>
> I sent the following to Todd just a few days ago.
>
> I decided to take a quick glance at the Maury/Baty
> website (something I try to avoid for the sake of my
> stomache) and see if he addressed me on it. The only
> part of my response to him that he decided to address
> was the comment about "context".

Duh.

That is the ONLY part of Skip's email to me that is relevant to the
subject. Notice how Skip - in his usual Contentious For Tendentious
Fallacies buddyhood manner - deceitfully insinuates something else. I
only addressed the part of Skip's response to me, his comment
about "context," because THAT WAS THE ONLY THING HE WROTE THAT IS
RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION.

Don't you just love the sneaky rhetoric that these guys use all the
time. Remember that Skip Francis is the guy who had the audacity to
accuse Andy Boshers of having "attitude" in his post - even while the
rhetoric spewed out by Skip Francis and Daniel Denham is permeated
with belligerent antagonism. Apparently dedication to hypocrisy is
one of the Ten Commandments of the superior moral standard of the
Contentious For Tendentious Fallacies buddyhood.

The Tendentious buddyhood is the master of deceitful tactics.
Remember how it was Terry Hightower who told Robert Baty to 'get a
second opinion' from logic experts. Robert does this. Then Terry
ignores the outcome and turtles up on the matter. Then Daniel Denham
starts using deceitful red herring prejudice-pandering rhetoric about
Robert (and Rick) running off to get the opinions of wishy-
washy "post-modernist" liberal anti-atheist philosophers. (Remember,
Robert was only doing what Terry told him to do.) Does the hypocrite
Skip make any comments to Daniel about his "attitude" and his
contradiction of Terry Hightower's advice? No, of course not. Oh,
yes, indeed, we most certainly are laughing and laughing and laughing
at the "superior objective moral standard" of these men.

"Oh, Todd, your behavior is so 'ungodly' in how you ridicule these
men."

"Well - HELLO! - I couldn't care less how you like to denigrate me,
the fact of the matter is that I'm ridiculing the ridiculous ridicule
that these men are dishing out, and if ridicule makes me ungodly,
then these men are obviously speaking from the seventh level of hell,
and your double-standard blindness is amazing to behold."

> What Todd said, in essence, was that Thomas Warren
> "WAS" quoted "in context". These guys would not know or
> understand context if it bit them. Truly quoting "in
> context" is to quote ALL that the person has said on the
> subject.

If I'm the one taking Thomas Warren's statements out of context, THEN
WHY IS SKIP FRANCIS THE ONE WHO IS DELIBERATELY IGNORING WHAT WARREN
WROTE?

Poor Skip. Can't get basic logic right. Can't even get "out of
context" right. If we had to quote ALL that the person has said on
the subject, then we'd have to be copying the contents of their book
to everyone all the time and/or copying every article they ever wrote
on the subject.

Nope, that's not what it means. What it means is that YOU CORRECTLY
REPRESENT WHAT THE PERSON HAS STATED, and you need to take the
relevant context of his statements into account in order to make sure
you're doing so. Young earth creationists themselves are NOTORIOUS
for taking the words of scientists out of context and misrepresenting
what they are saying, even sometimes using isolated sentences to make
it appear as if scientists are saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you
see them to actually have been saying simply by reading the
surrounding paragraph or two. I have NOT misrepresented Warren's
statements. This is what Skip is lying about. This is precisely why
Skip is deliberately ignoring what Warren wrote.

> When you deny
> both immediate and remote context you can make someone
> say anything that you want them to, even to support your
> own claims when they are in fact opposed to them.

Skip is absolutely right - and he should know all about this
rhetorical tactic, because he's a promoter of the empirically false
religious dogma of young earth creationism, and young earth
creationists are masters of this tactic.

Of course, Skip here is lying about me. For the purpose of covering
their tracks of irrationality about Thomas Warren, Skip is ASSERTING
that I have taken Warren out of context. He is falsely accusing me of
doing so. Skip has NEVER substantiated this charge. (And just keep
watching, he NEVER WILL. Skip is one of those guys who seriously
thinks that just because he himself has made something up, him making
it up just magically makes it true.)

> Bro. Warren in no way supports these guys spurious claims
> as to logic,

Remember what I wrote previously: "Just watch how these men will
continue to deceitfully pretend that these quotes of Thomas B. Warren
don't exist." How right I was!

Has Skip dealt with what Warren wrote? No! Of course not! AND HE
NEVER WILL. Why won't Skip even recognize the existence of what
Warren wrote, and deal with Warren's words, in public? Because Skip
has already read what Warren stated, that has been quoted, and so he
knows that Warren himself contradicts the errors on basic logic
stated by Daniel Denham, that Skip has jumped in line to defend and
promote himself. And when Skip is faced with facts that contradict
him, he just ignores them and uses any rhetorical trick in the book
to run away from dealing with the facts. (Remember, this is the same
guy who promoted a claim about the moon - that at its current
recession rate would have put it inside the Roche Limit in less than
10,000 years - that would require the recession rate of the moon to
be at least 22.3 MILES PER YEAR - yet he didn't know how ridiculous
this was, and he didn't even comprehend that his argument implied
this absurd value, and when faced with this direct implication of his
argument, he attempted to deceive everyone that he had never even
made the argument to begin with! This is the kind of guy we're
dealing with.)

Thomas B. Warren stated that "an argument's being valid does not
guarantee that either the premises are true or that the conclusion is
true." Daniel Denham and Skip Francis (and others) have been
contradicting Warren by telling people that an argument cannot be
valid unless its premises are true.

Warren stated that "An ARGUMENT may be VALID even though all of the
PREMISES are FALSE and the CONCLUSION is FALSE." Daniel and Skip (and
others) have been contradicting Warren by telling people that an
argument cannot be valid if it has a false premise. Indeed, at the
expense of Robert Baty, Rick Hartzog, Andy Boshers, and myself (yes,
I know, they've been showing everyone how True Christians are
supposed to behave by following their superior moral standards),
they've been sneering, using all manner of personal insults about,
and using all kinds of utterly irrelevant red herring rhetoric ("post-
modern," "liberal," "atheist," etc. etc. with mind-numbing prejudice-
pandering irrationality), merely for pointing out these same simple
facts about basic logic that Warren pointed out.

I think it was in my own very first post on the subject that I told
everyone: VALIDITY AND SOUNDNESS ARE NOT THE SAME. An argument may be
valid even if it has a false premise. Daniel Denham, Skip Francis,
and the other irrational numbskull have denied some simple facts
about basic logic MERELY BECAUSE TO ADMIT THESE SIMPLE FACTS WOULD
SHOW THAT THEIR RHETORIC AGAINST THE GRAS ARGUMENT WAS WRONG.

Think about that for a moment. Because these men had made a simple
mistake in a criticism they had stated against an argument they
oppose, and because these men opposed the argument so much that they
could not even bring themselves to admit they'd made a simple mistake
in one of criticisms they had stated against it, they CHOSE IN THEIR
RHETORIC TO INSTEAD ARBITRARILY CHANGE THE FACTS OF LOGIC TO SUIT
THEIR IMMEDIATE PURPOSES AND THUS TURNED A SIMPLE MISTAKE INTO A
FUNDAMENTAL ERROR ABOUT LOGIC.

The fact of the matter is that an argument may be valid even if it
has a false premise. Indeed, an argument may be valid even if all of
the premises are false, and even if the conclusion is false.

That's what Thomas Warren said. That is not a misrepresentation. That
is not out of context. When Skip Francis tells you that this is
taking Warren out of context, THIS IS SKIP LYING TO YOU. (And we know
it's "lying," and not just a mistake on Skip's part, because this is
why Skip is DELIBERATELY IGNORING WHAT WARREN WROTE, that has been
quoted for him.)

Check out this argument:

1. All cars are Fords.
2. All Fords are green.
3. Therefore, all cars are green.

This has the form of a "categorical syllogism."

All cars are Fords. <== That's FALSE.

All Fords are green. <== That's FALSE.

Therefore, all cars are green. <== Empirically, that's FALSE.

However, THIS IS A VALID ARGUMENT, by the FORMAL DEFINITION OF THE
WORD "VALIDITY" IN LOGIC.

Why? Why is this a logically valid argument? The reason it is a valid
argument is that IF the premises were true, then the conclusion would
also have to be true. FOR VALIDITY, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER OR NOT
THE PREMISES ARE ACTUALLY TRUE.

THOMAS WARREN STATED THAT THIS EXAMPLE ARGUMENT IS A VALID ARGUMENT.
Skip and Daniel want people to believe that this argument cannot
be "valid" because it has false premises.

Now, since the words of Thomas Warren on this have been presented to
Skip and Daniel, who were pretending that Warren said otherwise
(i.e., it was Skip and Daniel who were really the ones taking Warren
out of context), and since Warren's statements here contradict what
Skip and Daniel (and others) have been saying, THEY WANT TO IGNORE
WHAT WARREN HAS STATED, but in order to do so NOW THEY'LL EVEN
DELIBERATELY IGNORE THESE STATEMENTS BY WARREN, and then lie to
people that these statements have been taken out of context, EVEN
WHILE THEY WILL NEVER DEAL WITH WHAT THESE STATEMENTS WRITTEN BY
WARREN ACTUALLY SAY.

As you can see, Warren does in fact support our "spurious claims as
to logic." Daniel Denham, and Skip Francis, due to their utterly
incompetent handling of Robert's GRAS argument, have invented and
then very diligently promoted a much more serious error about logic -
merely in order to try to prop up a less serious mistake in their
criticism of GRAS!

> but you will
> never convince them of that.

As we have been observing, it is the Contentious For Tendentious
Fallacies buddyhood who is quite impervious to fact and logic. Even
Terry Hightower's own rhetorical bluffing bluster tactic blew up on
him. He pretended that he had the "logical high ground" and told
Robert to get expert analysis of his GRAS argument. This was the
bluster: Terry was pretending to people, rhetorically, that the GRAS
argument would not pass "logical validity" muster with "the experts."
This was the bluff: Terry didn't think that Robert would actually get
any expert opinions. BAD MISTAKE. But thanks to Terry, now we have
ten independent expert opinions from philosophy professors and EVERY
SINGLE ONE AGREES THAT "GRAS" IS LOGICALLY VALID.

The GRAS Argument
http://creationism.outersystem.us/gras.html

As we have observed in case after case after case after case, the
Tendentious buddyhood ignores the facts whenever they feel like it
and also lies about people left and right, all to cover up their
errors.

> They talk a
> lot about "empirical evidence" but don't even know what
> empirical evidence IS.

> Even when something
> is in their face, they deny it.

This is Skip giving us a good self-portrait of the Tendentious
buddyhood:

1. Impervious to fact and logic ("you will never convince them of
that").

2. Incapable of comprehending basic aspects of relevant science or
relevant concepts, and making all kinds of claims that are clueless
about the relevant facts ("talk a lot about 'empirical evidence' but
don't even know what empirical evidence IS" <== this is really funny,
these are young earth creationists we're dealing with, who
deliberately ignore whole fields of science, such as astronomy and
geology, and deceitfully pretend that these areas of science are
merely propaganda made up to fool people by a conspiracy among
evolutionists!).

3. Deliberately ignore their errors, and then lie to try to cover
this up ("Even when something is in their face, they deny it").

The statements of Thomas B. Warren are now in their faces, and what
are they doing? They're denying what he wrote!

> It reminds me
> of the story of the academic who said, "I don't care if
> they drag Noah's ark down off Mt. Ararat and parade it
> down Main Street, I'm STILL not going to believe it is
> Noah's ark."

Of course.

Make up another story.

These guys LOVE to make things up. This is their bread and butter. We
can't expect anything else. Just like they MADE UP the idea that for
an argument to be logically valid, all the premises HAD to be true.

> These guys would
> not believe in God or ANYTHING that God has said if He
> appeared before them in the burning bush!
>
> Dennis (Skip) Francis
> Suffolk church of Christ

Yep, this is EXACTLY the attitude of bellicose arrogance we expect
from Skip Francis, Daniel Denham, and the other members of the
Tendentious buddyhood! You criticize errors made by THEM, and what do
they do? In their sheer arrogance they have the brazen audacity to
pretend that if you criticize them then you are criticizing God
Himself.

Incredible.

- Todd Greene

Logical Validity Quotes
http://creationism.outersystem.us/logicalvalidity.html

The GRAS Argument
http://creationism.outersystem.us/gras.html

Daniel Denham's Disaster on Basic Logic
http://creationism.outersystem.us/cftflogicdisaster.html

------------------------------------------------

[All emphases in the originals]

When Is An Example Binding?
by Thomas B. Warren
(page 4)

| An argument is VALID when the truth of the premises
| (supporting evidence) NECESSITATES the truth of the
| CONCLUSION. An argument is SOUND when not only is it the
| case that the ARGUMENT is VALID but also that the
| premises are TRUE. An argument may be VALID and have a
| false conclusion (because of false premises), but if an
| argument is SOUND, then the conclusion MUST be true.

------------------------------------------------

Logic and the Bible
by Thomas B. Warren
(pages 10-11)

| 4. VALIDITY. To say that an argument is VALID is to say
| that the CONCLUSION is IMPLIED by the PREMISES: that is,
| an argument is valid if, when the PREMISES are true, the
| truthfulness of the CONCLUSION is demanded by that fact.
| It must be noted that an argument's being valid does not
| guarantee that either the premises are true or that the
| conclusion is true. An ARGUMENT may be VALID even though
| all of the PREMISES are FALSE and the CONCLUSION is
| FALSE. For example:
|
| (1) All cars are Fords.
| (2) All Fords are green.
| (3) Therefore, all cars are green.
|
| This is a VALID ARGUMENT. Not one rule of the categorical
| syllogism is broken by this argument. Yet, BOTH of the
| PREMISES are FALSE, and the CONCLUSION is FALSE! Since
| this is the case the conclusion is NOT proved by this
| argument even though it is a VALID ARGUMENT. But note the
| question of "soundness" in the following point.
|
| 5. SOUNDNESS. To say that an argument is SOUND is to say
| both (1) that the ARGUMENT is VALID and (2) that all of
| the PREMISES are TRUE. If it is the case that either (1)
| the ARGUMENT is not valid or (2) even one of the PREMISES
| is not true, then the ARGUMENT is not sound. And, it must
| be noted, only SOUND arguments prove their conclusions to
| be true.

Re: Thomas B. Warren says validity and soundness not the same!
Author: Rick Hartzog
Date: 9/19/2007

I see Todd has alreeady beat me to this, but I'll add my
comments as well.

From:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/27271

Dennis (Skip) Francis writes:

> Brethren,
>
> I sent the following to Todd just a few days ago.
>
> I decided to take a quick glance at the Maury/Baty website
> (something I try to avoid for the sake of my stomache) and
> see if he addressed me on it. The only part of my response
> to him that he decided to address was the comment about
> "context".

The message is below. Just how much of Todd's message did
Skip address? None! And when we get down there to it, we
will see that Skip Francis must not have been thinking
very clearly to have brought up the subject of "context".


> What Todd said, in essence, was that Thomas Warren "WAS"
> quoted "in context". These guys would not know or
> understand context if it bit them. Truly quoting "in context"
> is to quote ALL that the person has said on the subject. When
> you deny both immediate and remote context you can make
> someone say anything that you want them to, even to support
> your own claims when they are in fact opposed to them.

Quoting everything that Thomas B. Warren has said on the
subject is not at all necessary to show that Daniel Denham's
claims about what Warren said are false. It only takes a few
selected quotes from Warren to directly refute what Denham has
claimed.

And if Warren actually did teach what Denham is trying to
claim that he taught, then Warren would be just as wrong as
Daniel Denham is. But as we have seen, that is not the
case. Daniel Denham has simply been misrepresenting what
Thomas B. Warren taught.


> Bro. Warren in no way supports these guys spurious claims as
> to logic, but you will never convince them of that.

This is a spurious claim on the part of Dennis (Skip) Francis.
He has not offered a single thing in support of this claim,
nor has anyone else of the CFTF buddyhood. *Everything* that
has been quoted from Warren by both Boshers and Denham shows
that Boshers and Todd and Robert and Rick are right and
Daniel Denham is wrong.

And again, if Thomas B. Warren had NOT been saying the same
thing about logical validity that ALL of the other textbooks,
experts in the field, and university websites across the
country that we have referenced say, he would simply have
been wrong. But Thomas B. Warren does say the same thing
all these other sources are saying, and Daniel Denham has
simply been misrepresenting what Thomas B. Warren taught.


> They talk a lot about "empirical evidence" but don't even
> know what empirical evidence IS.

This is the guy who told us that the only empirical evidence
there is is that which you can see happening or experience
with one of your five senses.

This is the guy who says, "How do YOU know? YOU WEREN'T
THERE!" and then completely ignores it when you tell him,
yes, we CAN go "there" simply by looking at the starlight
that has taken hundreds of thousands and millions of years
to reach us.

This is the guy who claimed that the only way fossilization
can occur is by rapid burial under water-borne rock, the
guy who says that Carbon-14 dating is only reliable to
about three or four thousand years ago.

We have "empirical evidence" that it is Skip Francis who
doesn't know what "empirical evidence" is.


> Even when something is in their face, they deny it.

This is the guy who denied HIS OWN CLAIMS about moon recession
once it was pointed out to him how fast the moon would have
to travel to get from the Roche Limit to its present position
in 10,000 years.

This is the guy who denies the existence of the thousands
of transitional fossils that have been identified.

This is the guy... no, wait a minute -- this is the
YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONIST who would DARE to say something
about people denying things that are right there before
their eyes. Get real!


> It reminds me of the story of the academic who said, "I don't
> care if they drag Noah's ark down off Mt. Ararat and parade it
> down Main Street, I'm STILL not going to believe it is Noah's
> ark."

After all the false claims we've seen out of young-earth
creationists about Noah's Ark being found, I'd say the guy has
plenty of reason to be skeptical.


> These guys would not believe in God or ANYTHING that God has
> said if He appeared before them in the burning bush!
>
>
> Dennis (Skip) Francis
> Suffolk church of Christ

Um, Skip? Daniel Denham is not God.

And if people can't believe you about relatively simple,
uncontroversial matters such as the basic rules of logic,
why should they believe anything you have to say about God?


My remarks continue:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Francis" 
To: "Todd S. Greene" 
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: Thomas B. Warren says validity and soundness
not the same!


> Todd,
>
> TAKE ME OFF YOUR "SPAM" LIST. I have already said
> that you are on my delete list. The only reason I
> found this one is I had to retrieve a message that
> I deleted in error. I am keeping a copy of this notice
> so that I can address it with proof that I have told
> you you are being a nuisance in continuing to send me
> your garbage.

There is nothing in any of this that addresses Todd's post.
(Remember, Francis is the one who was complaining that
Todd didn't address anything Skip said.)


> And, by the way, a "text" out of "context" is merely a
> "pretext". Directly quoting ANYONE out of context does
> not do justice to what they had to say.

Maybe Skip Francis should remind his buddy Daniel Denham
about this.

And here again Skip doesn't address anything Todd wrote.


> Stop sending me your unsolicited junk mail!
>
> Dennis (Skip) Francis
> Suffolk church of Christ

It is easy enough for Francis to click a button and
block Todd from being able to send him anything if Francis
was really wanting to not read what Todd had to say. This
is the same excuse Francis has been using all along -- he
claims he doesn't read the messages except by accident or
something. That way he can pretend that his nonsense has
never been answered, just like he did with that moon
recession stuff.

AND NOTICE THIS PART, NOW:

Francis has claimed that Warren has been taken out of
context. So is Francis saying that Warren really taught:

1. Validity and soundness ARE the same thing?

2. An argument that is really logically valid CANNOT have
false premises and a false conclusion?

Is Francis claiming that Warren never said the example
syllogism about the green Fords was a valid argument?

Is Francis trying to say that the statement, "All Fords
are green" is "logically and necessarily connected" to
the statement, "All cars are Fords" -- and reflects that
"essential relationship" that Denham claims Warren held
to in his more stringent requirements for logical validity?

Why did Francis not address any of these "out of context"
conclusions?

Why is it that what has been quoted from Thomas B. Warren
agrees so well with what all the other quoted authorities
say, if Warren has been taken out of context?

I think the "pretext" here is Skip Francis's claim that
the text has been taken out of context.

You guys are just incredible, the ridiculous tricks you
will try to pull to keep from admitting your simple
errors.

Rick Hartzog
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism

Re: Modus Ponens- JP
(9/22/2007)
________________________

Hi Jeffrey,

Don DeLong is lying to you. And apparently you don't even understand
what the subject is that he is lying about. It is IMPOSSIBLE for us
to have been advocating some kind of "postmodern form of logic,"
because all Robert, Rick, Andy and I have been pointing out are some
basic facts about CLASSICAL LOGIC, which has been around for over
2,000 years.

Yes, that's right, not only is Don's comment a lie, but it's a very
ignorant lie that proves his cluelessness on the subject.

Additionally, Jeffrey, your comments about creationism are completely
irrelevant to the topic we've been discussing, which is a conceptual
aspect of basic logic regarding the formal meaning of the
word "validity" (as distinct from "soundness") in logic. Your
comments are thus so far of left field they're not even in the
ballpark. Maybe next time, if you're going to interject your comments
into the middle of a discussion you should at least make the attempt
to make your comments at least somewhat relevant to the topic being
discussed.

Daniel Denham's Disaster on Basic Logic
http://creationism.outersystem.us/cftflogicdisaster.html

Logical Validity Quotes
http://creationism.outersystem.us/logicalvalidity.html

- Todd Greene


--- In CFTF, Jeffrey Peter wrote (post #27284):
> Don,
>
> I quite agree with you; "similarities mean similarities
> and not mean implication"; however, to say it is "new"; I
> don't believe is giving justice; there is nothing new
> bout the argument. I ave been advocating the vreationist
> position for many ears and many more years to come; I
> believe in the restoration plea and advcate strongly and
> I also strongly advocate that "right is right and wrong
> is wrong; it is not about who, how many". Which, means, I
> am a very unpopular guy seeing, I give it to them direct
> and blunt.
>
> But, should we call something old as "new"? as if they
> are pathfinders aka vanguard of a "turning point" in
> advocasy of day-age theories when in fact, al hey are
> doing is stating old things in modified semantics?
>
>
> --- In CFTF, Don DeLong wrote (post #27212):
>> Jeff,
>>
>> I guess it all depends on who's position we are discussing.
>>
>> If the position of Andy Boshers, Robert Baty, Todd Greene &
>> Rick Hartzog is the position being discussed, then I would
>> have to whole heartedly agree. However, these males (still
>> can not bring myself to call them men) do not even require
>> similarities. What they have trumpeted has been what Daniel
>> Denham has so accurately (IMHO) characterized (with relevant
>> quotes) as a postmodern form of logic.
>>
>> If the position being discussed is what has been
>> characterized as a relevance form of logic, then I whole
>> heartedly disagree. This form
>> demands strict adherence to the rules and definitions (i.e.
>> similarities = similarities and not similarities =
>> implication... which again, these clowns (though not funny
>> at all) do not even require similarities).
>>
>> Don DeLong

Denham's Disaster: the casualties continue to climb!
Author: Rick Hartzog
Date: 9/24/2007
________________________

In CFTF message #27295, Daniel Denham writes:
> Re: [CFTF] Re: Modus Ponens- JP
>
> Jeffrey,
>
> Let us grant for the moment that Todd is not trying
> to argue from a postmodern view of things (which is
> directly at odds incidentally with their attempt to
> "deconstruct" the Scriptures, especially the Genesis
> account of creation, as evidenced by the Goliath
> argument itself)...

Daniel Denham should have "granted" a long time ago
that none of this has anything at all to do with any
kind of "postmodern" philosophy -- whatever he even
means by "postmodernism". (That's one of those terms
that people like Daniel Denham use as a prejudicial
label, not as any valid criticism of a philosophical
perspective.)

> ...and let us say that they are contending for what is
> termed "classical logic," is Todd willing to admit
> and accept the consequences of the position that he
> is holding to a view of logic that implicitly involves
> certain absurd "paradoxes" as to validity relative to
> hypotheticals?

The "absurdities" of the propositional calculus are not
nearly so absurd as the Bizarro World logic of Daniel
Denham.

Paradoxes are unavoidable. There are paradoxes of strict
implication and there are paradoxes of relevance logic, too.

There is no problem at all with "admitting and accepting
the consequences" of the paradoxes of classical logic;
they are necessary to the propositional calculus, and as
long as you are aware of the "paradoxes" and what the
rules of material implication are really saying, the only
paradox is that the mathematics work out differently than
the way we structure our sentences and attach meaning to
words.

> Is he willing to swallow those "paradoxes," even though
> we intuitively perceive their absurdity, and not demand
> more exactitude in definition and thus in the nature of
> validity itself for hypothetical arguments?

The "validity" has to do with the *validity of the inference*
for hypothetical *statements*, not the formal validity of
hypothetical syllogisms!

Ooops! Denham shows his ignorance again!

> I suspect he will not in practice be so inclined.

I suspect Daniel Denham once again doesn't have a clue
what he is even talking about. More than suspect, as a
matter of fact -- I KNOW -- Daniel Denham has not one
clue of what he is even chattering about.

> Meanwhile headless Goliath still lies upon the field with
> his rotting corpse stuffed full of fish and chips.

While a dozen university professors all say that "Goliath"
is alive and well, and that Mr. Denham seems a bit "confused".

And where is the source of Mr. Denham's confusion? It's
very obvious. He does not comprehend basic logic. He
doesn't know the difference between formal validity and
soundness, doesn't understand the difference between
soundness and truth, and refuses to accept that truth does
not support lies. He has never figured out that people
are not required to accept as truth just any old lie he
wants to make up.

For all the claims Denham has made about destroying "Goliath" --
let's see -- "equivocation fallacy", he failed; "formal
validity", he failed; "badly botched modus tollens", he
failed; "fallacy of relevance", he failed -- *he has not
yet produced a single criticism that he can justify*, and
the fact that he goes from one charge to the other without
being able to back up ANY of them shows that he is not
arguing from rationality, but from emotion.

Nope! -- he just ain't gonna believe it!

Daniel Denham needs to first get the fundamentals of logic
figured out (such as what formal validity means) before
he goes wading off into any talk of "relevance logic".

> Relevance logic, which is the basis I have attacked the
> Goliath argument, demands as much from hypotheticals as
> it would from categoricals.

For *statements*! Not syllogisms!

Daniel Denham has no more attacked Goliath using relevance
logic than Dennis Francis has attacked moon recession
using actual science.

Here is a challenge for Daniel Denham:

Show us the relevance logic formula that proves there is
no relevance between the antecedent and consequent of
Goliath. Make sure your calculus balances out.

Denham has no conception of what "relevance logic" even
is, or he would understand how very easy it is to express
"Goliath" in such a way that (as if we can't see it anyway)
the relationship between the antecedent and consequent will
be blazingly obvious.

> That seems to me the most common sense approach in logic.

ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING! What a HOOT!

You made coffee come out my nose!

> BTW Todd can accuse folks of lying all he wants proving
> it is another matter. Todd has already admitted -- and
> boasts of it no less -- to being a quite proficient liar
> as Steven Heiden, Bible-believing, God-fearing apologist
> for young earth creationism! He has impeached himself
> as a witness on anything. Daniel Denham

So says the biggest liar on any of these lists, Mr. Daniel
Denham, Esq., supposed preacher.

By way of analogy, let's look at the parable of the two
sons in Matthew 21:28-31.

Todd, under no duress, came clean and told everyone he
had been posing as Steve Heiden.

Daniel Denham, caught in lie after lie after lie, still
hasn't come clean; no, he continues, even in this message,
to pile up one lie on top of the other, still trying to
cover his deceitfulness with yet more deceitfulness.

What think ye?

Rick Hartzog
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism

Re: Modus Ponens- JP
(9/24/2007)
________________________

Jeffrey, sometimes I wonder if you even read what is written. You
obviously did not read one word of what I wrote to you.

See if you can focus for more than one second, and PAY ATTENTION.

For example, you write, "Logic has been around since antiquities NOT
ONLY for 2000 years" - as if I had written that it's only been around
for 2,000 years.

Hello? Did I write that? No, I did not. I wrote that classical
logic "has been around for over 2,000 years." Why do you have such
difficulty reading and comprehending plain, simple English?

Daniel Denham and Don DeLong have lied to you and to everyone else
that what Robert, Rick, Andy, and I have been talking about is some
kind of "postmodern form of logic."

Don's statement, that I quoted for you and that is quoted again
below, is this: "What they have trumpeted has been what Daniel Denham
has so accurately (IMHO) characterized (with relevant quotes) as a
postmodern form of logic."

Jeffrey, that is a lie. What we have pointed out is a basic part of
logic that's been around for over 2,000 years. Therefore it is
impossible for it to be a "postmodern form of logic."

Geeze, Jeffrey, try to read and comprehend what I write instead of
just blowing it off and ignoring what I wrote.

Unless you're interest is in just lying about the matter, as Daniel
Denham, Don DeLong, Skip Francis, and some other have demonstrated
themselves to be.

Also, in regard to the main point of this particular discussion, the
formal definition of "logical validity," you are completely wrong
with your claim that "the validity of any argument is dependant upon
the substance."

As Thomas Warren pointed out that "an argument's being valid does not
guarantee that either the premises are true or that the conclusion is
true. An argument may be valid even though all of the premises are
false and the conclusion is false" (Thomas B. Warren, Logic and the
Bible, p. 10).

http://creationism.outersystem.us/img/warren2.gif

Here is a discussion specifically about the FORM of the argument
versus the CONTENT, and how VALIDITY has to do with form and NOT
content:

| Philosophical Terms and Methods - Vocabulary Describing
| Arguments
| http://www.outersystem.us/creationism/logicalvalidity.html#06
| Validity is a property of the argument's form. It doesn't
| matter what the premises and the conclusion actually say.
| It just matters whether the argument has the right form.
| So, in particular, a valid argument need not have true
| premises, nor need it have a true conclusion. The
| following is a valid argument:
|
| 1. All cats are reptiles.
| 2. Bugs Bunny is a cat.
| 3. So Bugs Bunny is a reptile.
|
| Neither of the premises of this argument is true. Nor is
| the conclusion. But the premises are of such a form that
| if they were both true, then the conclusion would also
| have to be true. Hence the argument is valid.

Here's another one:

| Validity and Soundness
| http://www.outersystem.us/creationism/logicalvalidity.html#05
|
| Whether or not the premises of an argument are true
| depends on their specific content. However, according to
| the dominant understanding among logicians, the validity
| or invalidity of an argument is determined entirely by
| its logical form. The logical form of an argument is that
| which remains of it when one abstracts away from the
| specific content of the premises and the conclusion,
| i.e., words naming things, their properties and
| relations, leaving only those elements that are common to
| discourse and reasoning about any subject matter, i.e.,
| words such as "all", "and", "not", "some", etc. One can
| represent the logical form of an argument by replacing
| the specific content words with letters used as
| place-holders or variables.
|
| For example, consider these two arguments:
|
| All tigers are mammals.
| No mammals are creatures with scales.
| Therefore, no tigers are creatures with scales.
|
| All spider monkeys are elephants.
| No elephants are animals.
| Therefore, no spider monkeys are animals.
|
| These arguments share the same form:
|
| All A are B;
| No B are C;
| Therefore, No A are C.
|
| All arguments with this form are valid. Because they have
| this form, the examples above are valid. However, the
| first example is sound while the second is unsound,
| because its premises are false.

Jeffrey, what we're noticing about you guys is that you creationists
ignore the facts about basic logic JUST LIKE you ignore the facts
about basic science, whenever you feel like it, whenever you screw up
and and make mistakes and are so utterly arrogant in pretending that
your human ideas from your human brains are the very ideas of God
Himself, and so you obstinately cling to your errors and refuse to
even look at the facts to check out things to see whether or not you
screwed up. You also seem to work very diligently to be as
inordinately obtuse as you can possibly be.

If you're going to interject yourself into a discussion, you should
at least make the ATTEMPT to get your facts straight. And if you will
not do this, but you interject your FALSE remarks anyway, then you're
just a lying individual just like these other men.

Jeffrey, do you even check out the references I give you? Maybe you
should actually look, you know? Or do you glorify ignorance as these
other men do? I especially suggest that you take a look at
the "Logical Validity Quotes" page.

Daniel Denham's Disaster on Basic Logic
http://creationism.outersystem.us/cftflogicdisaster.html

Logical Validity Quotes
http://creationism.outersystem.us/logicalvalidity.html

- Todd Greene


--- In CFTF, Jeffrey Peter wrote (post #27293):
> Todd,
>
> Logic has been around since antiquities NOT ONLY for 2000
> years; both valid and invalid; Does the "Classical Logic"
> also fall within the same category as "German
> Rationalism"? Does that same semantics "Rationalism"
> qualify as valid arguments?
>
> Just because one were to call it thus does not mean that
> it is; the validity of any argument is dependant upon the
> substance; for one thing, is it factual the secon, does
> it have an impact upon the points?
>
>
> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Todd Greene wrote (post #12703):
>> Hi Jeffrey,
>>
>> Don DeLong is lying to you. And apparently you don't even
>> understand what the subject is that he is lying about. It
>> is IMPOSSIBLE for us to have been advocating some kind of
>> "postmodern form of logic," because all Robert, Rick,
>> Andy and I have been pointing out are some basic facts
>> about CLASSICAL LOGIC, which has been around for over
>> 2,000 years.
>>
>> Yes, that's right, not only is Don's comment a lie, but
>> it's a very ignorant lie that proves his cluelessness on
>> the subject.
>>
>> Additionally, Jeffrey, your comments about creationism
>> are completely irrelevant to the topic we've been
>> discussing, which is a conceptual aspect of basic logic
>> regarding the formal meaning of the word "validity" (as
>> distinct from "soundness") in logic. Your comments are
>> thus so far of left field they're not even in the
>> ballpark. Maybe next time, if you're going to interject
>> your comments into the middle of a discussion you should
>> at least make the attempt to make your comments at least
>> somewhat relevant to the topic being discussed.
>>
>> Daniel Denham's Disaster on Basic Logic
>> http://creationism.outersystem.us/cftflogicdisaster.html
>>
>> Logical Validity Quotes
>> http://creationism.outersystem.us/logicalvalidity.html
>>
>>
>> --- In CFTF, Jeffrey Peter wrote (post #27284):
>>> Don,
>>>
>>> I quite agree with you; "similarities mean similarities
>>> and not mean implication"; however, to say it is "new"; I
>>> don't believe is giving justice; there is nothing new
>>> bout the argument. I ave been advocating the vreationist
>>> position for many ears and many more years to come; I
>>> believe in the restoration plea and advcate strongly and
>>> I also strongly advocate that "right is right and wrong
>>> is wrong; it is not about who, how many". Which, means, I
>>> am a very unpopular guy seeing, I give it to them direct
>>> and blunt.
>>>
>>> But, should we call something old as "new"? as if they
>>> are pathfinders aka vanguard of a "turning point" in
>>> advocasy of day-age theories when in fact, al hey are
>>> doing is stating old things in modified semantics?
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In CFTF, Don DeLong wrote (post #27212):
>>>> Jeff,
>>>>
>>>> I guess it all depends on who's position we are discussing.
>>>>
>>>> If the position of Andy Boshers, Robert Baty, Todd Greene &
>>>> Rick Hartzog is the position being discussed, then I would
>>>> have to whole heartedly agree. However, these males (still
>>>> can not bring myself to call them men) do not even require
>>>> similarities. What they have trumpeted has been what Daniel
>>>> Denham has so accurately (IMHO) characterized (with relevant
>>>> quotes) as a postmodern form of logic.
>>>>
>>>> If the position being discussed is what has been
>>>> characterized as a relevance form of logic, then I whole
>>>> heartedly disagree. This form
>>>> demands strict adherence to the rules and definitions (i.e.
>>>> similarities = similarities and not similarities =
>>>> implication... which again, these clowns (though not funny
>>>> at all) do not even require similarities).