The GRAS Argument of Robert Baty

   (or, “How Terry Hightower gets ‘schooled’
   by Robert Baty!”)

Terry Hightower, on the run from my "Goliath of GRAS"!
Author: Robert Baty
Date: Sep 12, 2007

Modus Ponens is considered by the force of reason and all noted
logic authorities to simply be a specific form of argument which is
valid and is, in symbolic terms, as follows:

  If p, then q.
  p.
  Therefore, q.

The validity of the "Golaith of GRAS" cannot be successfully
defeated because it does strictly conform to the valid argument form
known as Modus Ponens.

Here is the "Goliath of GRAS" with notations showing its strict
conformity to the valid argument form known as Modus Ponens:

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

Major premise:

  If (p):

  God's word (the text) says everything began over a period
  of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
  days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
  evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few
  thousand years,

  then (q):

  the interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

Minor premise:

  (p):

  God's word (the text) says everything began over a period
  of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
  days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
  evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few
  thousand years.

Conclusion:

  Therefore (q):

  The interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

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

Now let's see how easy it is to rebut Daniel Denham's
representations of Terry Hightower's false and misleading claims
regarding my "Goliath of GRAS".

Daniel Denham starts off by representing Terry Hightower as
proposing:

> Goliath's argument is a very badly botched attempt at using
> the valid form of Modus Tollens:
>
> P implies Q, it is false that Q, therefore it is false that P,
> thereby lending credence to the criticisms by Clifton and Don.

I figure that is a bad start. Terry Hightower is already confused as
to the difference between modus ponens and modus tollens. The
"Goliath of GRAS" is a successful attempt at using the valid modus
ponens form of argument.

It goes like this, Terry:

  If p, then q.
  p.
  Therefore, q.

Maybe we should just stop there and see if Terry Hightower can catch
up and deal with his bad start.

But I will continue.

Terry Hightower writes:

> Goliath makes "P" into a compound antecedent so the form for him
> would be:
>
> 1. If A and B, then C. [(A and B) > C]
>
> I don't have proper symbols so will fake it!
>
> 2. But it is false that C. [ ~ C ]
>
> 3. Therefore, it is false that (A and B).
> [~(A and B)]

Nope! It doesn't get any better. Terry Hightower just indicates he's
getting further and further away from the truth.

My "Goliath of GRAS" would go something like this using Terry's
technique:

> 1. If A and B and C, then D.
>
> 2. A and B and C.
>
> 3. Therefore, D.

Get it yet, Terry Hightower? My "Goliath of GRAS" is modus ponens,
not modus tollens.

Terry Hightower then writes:

> Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, we don't know
> from just the form of the argument if both A and B or
> just A or just B is false.

Regardless of whether it's modus ponens or modus tollens, we have
repeatedly cited noted authorities and appealed to reason to show
that the truth or falsity of the premises has to do with "SOUNDNESS"
not "VALIDITY".

Terry Hightower writes:

> Goliath's attempted tie in of the six 24 hour day creation
> to the age of the earth is fallacious. His (alleged) empirical
> evidence proving great age of the earth (or disproving a young
> earth) would only falsify the "B" part (i.e. creation occurring
> only a few thousand years ago).

Terry Hightower follows similarly false and misleading claims
regarding undisputed aspects of the argument. Before he takes up
such a course seriously, he needs to pick up with my rebuttal to
C. D. Healy and deal with it. If the six 24 hour days and the age of
the Earth are not what they are made out to be, then Terry
Hightower's complaint is with the "young-earth, creation-science"
movement, not with me, or the premises of my "Goliath of GRAS". If
any part of a statement is false, they say, then the statement
itself is false (i.e., if some thing is more than a few thousand
years old, then it is false that everything began over a period of
six 24 hour days a few thousand years ago).

Terry Hightower proposes:

> For illustrative purposes I thought of a parallel...

Terry Hightower, it has already been shown, is not "thougting"
properly when it comes to my "Goliath of GRAS". What he thinks is a
parallel is a bogus modus tollens argument. Terry Hightower needs to
take Jerry McDonald's advice and think seriously about these matters
and then come back, admit his errors, explain them, correct them and
then admit that my "Goliath of GRAS" is just what I have claimed for
it.

Terry Hightowers continued with:

> What Goliath needs to do is properly use Modus Tollens
> and leave out linking the earth's age with the time it took God to
> accomplish the creation.

Nope! My "Goliath of GRAS" doesn't need to do anything of the sort.
It proposes to address the "young-earth, creation-science" claim
which ties the six days to the age of the earth, and that aspect of
the argument is a "given"; it is not even reasonably in dispute.

What Terry Hightower needs to do is some serious thinking and then
get back with us, on the record, admit his errors, explain his
errors, correct his errors and then admit that my "Goliath of GRAS"
is just what I've made it out to be.

There is no good reason why Terry Hightower should be relying on
third party claims regarding my simple, logically valid "Goliath of
GRAS".

Terry Hightower proposes:

> So as I see it, the whole problem with Goliath centers on
> relevancy.

False! Terry Hightower has made no case that there is any problem
with relevancy, and as I recently cited at least one logic authority
on this matter, relevancy is not an issue affecting "VALIDITY"!

Then Daniel Denham, really showing the dunce aspects of his
position, dares to chime in with:

> There you are, Baty! Bye, bye!
>
> And, friends, Goliath's midget corpse lies a mouldering with
> now two rocks firmly between his beady but closed little eyes
> and a mouthful of fish and chips lodged in his throat for good
> measure.
>
> Terry has now cut the head off the little giant!
>
> Daniel Denham

Can you believe it?

Really, we shouldn't have to keep doing this.

But trust me on this! Neither Rick, Todd or I paid Daniel Denham and
Terry Hightower to put together this most obviously false and
misleading attempt to answer the issue of the simple, logical
validity of my undefeated "Goliath of GRAS".

My "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!

Terry Hightower, "come out", "come out" and "let us reason
TOGETHER".

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Baty's Logical Acumen
Author: Terry Hightower
Date: Sep 13, 2007

I can now see why other folks are basically fed up with the likes of
Robert Baty and consider him a total waste of energy and time. I
should have known that anyone who uses the title "GOLIATH" in all
caps must have a superinflated view of his own ability.

I am perfectly willing to let brethren read what I wrote in my
examination of his argument and then to read & compare Robert's
own explanation. I admit did laughing out loud at his scolding me
over the various points which further serve to show that he would
have had trouble passing my classes taught over the years (with
regard to logic). I fear our friend has waded out too deep in the
"ocean" and forgot that his waterwings were still in his station
wagon. Bluff and bravado do not automatically consistency make!

What I wrote was not an attack upon Robert's failed attempt to stay
in the logical ballpark nor an effort to "win" at all costs, but he
fails to see that I was actually humbly attempting to help whoever
wrote such to see the argument in its true light. I do pray that he
signs up at his closest community college for an introductory course
in logic (I would look especially, Rob, for one where the instructor
uses Patrick Hurley's textbook cause it has great simplistic boxed
illustrations which help a lot!). Robbie, please at least try to
find out what "compound statements or antecedents" are all about as
a starter (Hint: look under "conjuncts").

May I suggest that Robert the "Ho-Ho-Ho Green Giant Killer" send his
argument to Dr. Matthew Steup at the University of Wyoming [whom I
have used in the past myself in order to somewhat "objectify" what I
was going to use in an upcoming debate with a brother in Christ] for
his examination? Maybe he'll believe the "no-religious-axe-to-grind"
agnostic Dr. Steup, since he somehow cannot grasp (i.e. accept?"
what Christians have tried to "put on his level" where he can follow
it. For myself, I'd be happy to let Dr. Steup not only examine what
I wrote, but to even give me a grade on it. What about you, Robbie?
As I see it, your real problem lies in the fact that you actually
believe that folks are so slow that they will just accept your
"strong assertions" that such-n-such is so or not so! [Example: that
Hightower is "on the run" from your Goliath of GRAS masterpiece].

Like with Scripture, it can be a dangerous thing to use a mere
quotation from a logic book without understanding its context. Since
we are dealing with Causal Connections to say (as Rob does) that
"relevancy is not an issue affecting VALIDITY" especially in view of
the difference between inductive and deductive arguments and also
its involvement as to truthfulness in each premise in relationship
(HINT: relevancy) to other premises was to say the least INCREDIBLE
even for an expert in logic that is Robert Baty! I know what I say
doesn't apparently mean very much, but do you suppose Dr. Steup's
dictionary says what mine does--namely the the word relevant
"implies close logical relationship with, and importance to, the
matter under consideration"? Since validity is all about the
relationships between premises in an argument as related to each
other and to the conclusion, the only thing I can figure is that you
studied logic under a witchdoctor!

Assuming that Rob has been banned from the CFTF list, I am also
sending this to him at his personal e-mail address. My advice to
everyone would be like my Dad used to tell me: "Give it everything a
good shake, son, and then let it go." I gave it my "shake" and there
are only so many hours in a day.

IN HIM WHO DIED FOR US,
Terry M. Hightower

Hightower speaks and then runs off!
Author: Robert Baty
Date: Sep 13, 2007

Terry Hightower,

It appears to me that it was just a typical cheap shot from such as
are on the faculty at the Spring Bible Institute and are so vocal on
the ContendingFTF and CFTF discussion lists.

Terry, I figure it is your responsibility to "come out" and "let us
reason TOGETHER" regarding your obviously failed effort to impeach
my "Goliath of GRAS".

Run off if you will; the record remains and will remain of your
complete and utter failure to impeach my "Goliath of GRAS".

Terry, you can find my own discussion list at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/

I suggest you take some of your own advice, review the discussions,
and think seriously about responding openly and honestly regarding
your obvious blundering regarding my "Goliath of GRAS".

Please do so by addressing your further comments to my list (you
don't have to be a member to post) at:

Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Terry Hightower's misrepresentation of "relevance" issue!
Author: Robert Baty
Date: Sep 13, 2007

Terry Hightower, in further effort to hide his blundering, has
misrepresented the "relevance" issue and my comments which were in
response to his original claims as posted by Daniel Denham to the
CFTF list.

Following is what Terry Hightower, as reported by Daniel Denham
wrote regarding relevance:

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

From: Terry Hightower
To: Robert Baty
Date: September 13, 2007

Subject: Re: Baty's Logical Acumen

(excerpt)

To merely suggest "apparent age" is not quite the same thing as
demonstrating that uniformitarian theory is based upon assumed
premises and circular reasoning.

Can we somehow determine "apparent"
age from "real" age?

So as I see it, the whole problem with Goliath centers on relevancy.

Though many of us do "link" the two things by upholding them both (6
days & age-RLBaty), they are not logically related.

Terry Hightower

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

Terry's comments above, from all indication, are not related to the
relationship between premises. The above has reference to such
relevance as regards the soundness of an argument, not its validity,
as I have noted with appropriate references from the authorities.

But what does Terry Hightower do to try and hide from his blunder?
Here is what he came back with:

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

From: Terry Hightower
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 12:02 PM
To: List CFTF
Cc: rlbaty@webtv.net

Subject: Baty's Logical Acumen

(excerpt)

Since we are dealing with Causal Connections to say (as Rob does)
that

> "relevancy is not an issue affecting VALIDITY"

especially in view of the difference between inductive and deductive
arguments and also its involvement as to truthfulness in each
premise in relationship (HINT: relevancy) to other premises was to
say the least INCREDIBLE even for an expert in logic that is Robert
Baty!

I know what I say doesn't apparently mean very much, but do you
suppose Dr. Steup's dictionary says what mine does--namely the the
word relevant "implies close logical relationship with, and
importance to, the matter under consideration"?

Since validity is all about the relationships between premises in an
argument as related to each other and to the conclusion, the only
thing I can figure is that you studied logic under a witchdoctor!

Terry Hightower

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

My further comments:

That seems to clearly indicate that Terry Hightower, by design,
accident, incompetence, or whatever, is, as has been typical,
confusing the issue.

The relevance I was criticizing him for bringing up had to do with
the soundness or the argument. Now that that error has been pointed
out, Terry is trying to claim he was talking abou the relevance of
the relationship of the premises.

My contention is, consistent with reason and all the noted
authorities, is that the relevant relationship necessary for a valid
argument in modus ponens form is established by virtue of the modus
ponens form itself.

Modus Ponens is considered by the force of reason and all noted
logic authorities to simply be a specific form of argument which is
valid and is, in symbolic terms, as follows:

  If p, then q.
  p.
  Therefore, q.

The validity of the "Golaith of GRAS" argument shown below cannot be
successfully defeated because it does strictly conform to the valid
argument form known as Modus Ponens.

Here is the "Goliath of GRAS" argument with notations showing its
strict conformity to the valid argument form known as Modus Ponens:

Major premise:

> If (p):

> God's word (the text) says everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few
> thousand years,

> then (q):

> the interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

Minor premise:

> (p):

> God's word (the text) says everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few
> thousand years.

Conclusion:

> Therefore (q):

> The interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

Let Terry Hightower run off if he will, or let him demonstrate that
there is any defect in relevance as it relates the simple, logical
validity of my "Goliath of GRAS".

All Terry has to do is deal with it and address his reply to:

Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Steup v. Hightower: Let's do it!
Author: Robert Baty
Date: Sep 13, 2007

Terry Hightower wrote, in relevant part:

> May I suggest that Robert send his argument to Dr. Matthew
> Steup at the University of Wyoming [whom I have used in
> the past myself in order to somewhat "objectify" what I was
> going to use in an upcoming debate with a brother in Christ]
> for his examination?
>
> Maybe he'll believe the agnostic Dr. Steup, since he somehow
> cannot grasp (i.e. accept?" what Christians have tried to "put on
> his level" where he can follow it.
>
> For myself, I'd be happy to let Dr. Steup not only examine what
> I wrote, but to even give me a grade on it.
>
> What about you, Robbie?

OK, Terry Hightower, let's see what Dr. Steup, for what it's worth,
has to say.

You conspicuously failed to give me any contact information and I
could not easily find any.

Was that intentional?

Did you really think I wouldn't be willing to ask Dr. Steup, or
anyone else, what their opinion is regarding the simple, logical
validity of my argument in modus ponens form is?

So, Terry, just send me a copy of what you send him requesting his
opinion on the simple, logically valid claim I make for my "Goliath
of GRAS" as indicated below:

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

The validity of the "Golaith of GRAS" argument shown below cannot be
successfully defeated because it does strictly conform to the valid
argument form known as Modus Ponens.

Here is the "Goliath of GRAS" argument with notations showing its
strict conformity to the valid argument form known as Modus Ponens:

Major premise:

> If (p):

> God's word (the text) says everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few
> thousand years,

> then (q):

> the interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

Minor premise:

> (p):

> God's word (the text) says everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few
> thousand years.

Conclusion:

> Therefore (q):

> The interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

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

Terry, feel free to send him anything else you wish. If he needs
anything more relevant to my simple, well-documented claim above, he
is welcome to ask.

Terry, if you don't want to do it, just send me his e-mail address
and I'll send it myself.

Terry, if you have any other "expert" sources that are available by
e-mail, and for the record, please feel free to send me their e-mail
addresses and qualifications, in brief, and I'll followup with them.

Terry, just remember, any response you wish to make to this message
should be addressed to:

Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Hightower's failed logical analysis!
Author: Terry Hightower
Date: Sep 13, 2007

Dear Robert:

Since we have taken you over it and over it I have concluded that
you are in need of more help than any of us are able to give. I
really don't understand how you can say that I didn't openly and
honestly answer with regard to your fantastic Goliath of GRAS
argumentation since I reviewed it and Daniel Denham put it out for
people to study. [I have no idea why you didn't see what I wrote
posted in the CFTF list because I did so. Perhaps even your computer
has started to ignore you like everyone else].

I HAVE already taken my own advice: (1) I have an M.A. from studying
under that logical bozo of the brotherhood, Thomas B. Warren--
including my thesis; (2) I have taken logic classes at both the
community college level and higher; (3) have taught logic and the
Bible over the years, including about ten years at the Fla. School
of Preaching; (4) it was no "cheap shot" any more than what you seem
to write all the time, which amounts to repeated assertions that
everything any of us say is "obviously" an utterly failed effort
and "obvious blundering"; (5) as I stated, I have given my arguments
to academic experts like Dr. Matthew Steup at the U of WYO for
examination--why do you fear this so much?; (6) I only have so much
time to devote to those in apparent need of more help than I am able
to deliver (it seems that you not only cannot accept any criticism
of your "pet" but if someone keeps exposing it as fallacious you
will still be arguing it ten years from now instead of moving on to
more important and valuable things).

I stand by what's already been written in answer to you. Why won't
you do the same? I will say this for Dr. Steup, a few times when I
demonstrated his error on something in front of a philosophy class,
he was man enough to recognize it and just give it up. Like I have
had to tell others over the years, I am happy with what I wrote even
if YOU feel dissatisfied by such. If what you've written is so
wonderful and accurate, you should be happy, too. As kindly as I
know how to tell you: PLEASE DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH UNTIL OTHERS
ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR LOGICAL EXPERTISE AS HIGHER THAN A 1 ON A SCALE OF
10! You might just turn blue and die!

That old "obvious" blunderer,
Terry M. Hightower

Re: Terry Hightower's misrepresentation of "relevance" issue!
Author: Terry Hightower
Date: Sep 13, 2007

Dear Robert:

Ditto my previous post.

You are just too great a mind for me to handle.

After all, even God Himself finally knew when to quit in certain
situations:

> "Ephraim is joined to idols, Let him alone."

Cf. Luke 9:5; Matthew 15:14; Acts 13:51; 18:6-7; Titus 3:10-11.

IN HIM,
Terry M. Hightower: That Old Misrepresenter

P.S. I hope that you love your wife and family as much as you do
your marvey Goliath of GRAS invention because if so, they are very
much loved!

Terry Hightower's "swan song"!
Author: Robert Baty
Date: Sep 13, 2007

It has been most interesting to watch the CFTF buddyhood today try
to make a case against Andy Boshers because of his alleged
"attitude" problem and try to get him shut down by the
owners/operators of that website for failing to answer all the
irrelevant questions they trumped up just so they could try to get
him shut up for failing to answer questions.

Terry Hightower has been demonstrating the same "attitude" and
"refusal to answer questions" problem that the CFTF buddyhood has
been alleging against Andy Boshers.

Remember Matthew 7:1,2 and James 3:1.

So comes again Terry Hightower most recently with his further
evasions from his public responsibilities to deal openly and
honestly with his undeniable blunders regarding my "Goliath of GRAS"
and these discussions.

[Read] Terry Hightower's latest demonstration as he seeks to run off
and evade his public responsibilities in these important public
matters.

It is not my mind that Terry Hightower has obligated himself to
handle. Terry Hightower has to handle his clear and undeniable
blunders regarding my "Goliath of GRAS" and these related
discussions.

Let him run off if he will, and he seems determined to do just that,
but as Daniel Denham has already admonished, it is all part of the
public record on these important public issues.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Terry Hightower: who he is that has been so badly beaten!
Author: Robert Baty
Date: Sep 14, 2007

Thanks to the cooperation of the members of the CFTF list, we were
recently provided some insight into just how "high & mighty"
Daniel Denham thinks he is and how "high & mighty" that
buddyhood thinks he is.

That is helpful in understanding the importance of the victories
recently scored by the likes of one no account by the name of Robert
Baty and his simple, logically valid "Goliath of GRAS".

Now comes Terry Hightower to provide some insight into just how
"high & mighty" he is so as to impress us with the significance
of his having been brought so low by such a one as I.

Hear ye Terry Hightower:

(excerpts)

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

> Dear Robert:

> I HAVE already taken my own advice:
>
> (1) I have an M.A. from studying under Thomas B. Warren--including
> my thesis;
>
> (2) I have taken logic classes at both the community college level
> and higher;
>
> (3) have taught logic and the Bible over the years, including
> about ten years at the Fla. School of Preaching;
>
> (5) as I stated, I have given my arguments to academic experts
> like Dr. Matthew Steup at the U of WYO for examination.
>
> (6) I only have so much time to devote to those in apparent need
> of more help than I am able to deliver.

> I stand by what's already been written in answer to you.

> I am happy with what I wrote...

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

My further comments:

I think Terry Hightower, among other things, is providing another
demonstration of the fallacy of invincible ignorance we have
recently discussed and also the fallacy of pigheadedness that Daniel
Denham's own logic authority warned us against.

Jerry McDonald suggested that I couldn't match wits with the "high
and mighty" Terry Hightower. That's right, in a way. I couldn't get
my wits low enough to match his in this discussion.

Terry Hightower demonstrated having no wits at all in starting his
attack on my "Goliath of GRAS" with the false, obviously false,
claim that it was a failed attempt at modus tollens.

Who would have ever guessed that, of all the things he might have
done, he did that?

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

P.S. I propose that, if Terry Hightower has actually reviewed my
"Goliath of GRAS" and what he wrote about it, Terry Hightower's
above claims about "standing by" it and being "happy with it" are
false. I know, that's a serious charge, but I believe it to be true
and challenge anyone to bring Terry Hightower out to personally
challenge it by openly, honestly discussing what my "Goliath of
GRAS" actually is and just his first claim about it being a failed
modus tollens argument.

We have 1 vote!
Author: Rick Hartzog
Date: Sep 14, 2007

Hi Rick,

Sure, it's formally valid, but that won't carry the day,
since critics will deny the truth of the conditional...

[Full text of message sent to Robert.]

Paul K. Moser
Professor and Chairperson
Department of Philosophy
Loyola University of Chicago
http://www.luc.edu/faculty/pmoser/


------- rock zog <w_w_c_l@...> 9/13/07 5:46 PM -------

Dr. Moser:

Will you be so kind as to provide your professional opinion
regarding the following syllogism?

I am involved in several online discussion groups where
this is a frequent and hotly-contested topic.

The argument is presented as a logically valid modus ponens.
I think that is correct, but then, I am not an authority
in the field. It was suggested that I find an unbiased
third-party who might be willing to share their thoughts.

Is the syllogism formally valid? Any other comments you
have will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time,

Rick Hartzog

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

The "Goliath of GRAS":

Major premise:

> If (p):

> God's word (the text) says everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few
> thousand years,

> then (q):

> the interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

Minor premise:

> (p):

> God's word (the text) says everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few
> thousand years.

Conclusion:

> Therefore (q):

> The interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

Terry Hightower loses another vote!
Author: Robert Baty
Date: Sep 14, 2007

From: Linda Rollin
To: Robert Baty
Subject: RE: A question of logical validity!
Date: Thursday, September 13, 2007 10:48 PM

Dear Mr. Baty,

Thank you for you interesting question. As you apparently are aware,
all modus ponens arguments are valid in form, and your argument
certainly fits this form. As I'm sure you are also aware, the
validity of an argument does not guarantee that is conclusion is
true unless its premises are also true. To be guaranteed a true
conclusion, the argument must be "sound," that is, valid with all
true premises.

I am not familiar with you reference to the "Goliath of GRAS", but
certainly if any one agrees to the truth of your premises, then they
are logically compelled to accept the truth of your conclusion. Of
course, even those who do accept your argument as sound can still
have disagreements as to WHOSE interpretation of the text is wrong,
and that is something that logic cannot settle.

I hope this response was helpful.

Sincerely,

Linda Rollin

Linda Rollin, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Director, Core Curriculum Logic Program

Mailing address:
Department of Philosophy
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523-1781

E-mail address:
Linda.Rollin@...
________________________________________________________________

From: Robert Baty [rlbaty@...]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:49 PM
To: Rollin,Linda
Cc: rlbaty@...
Subject: A question of logical validity!

Dear Professor Rollin,

I would like to get your professional opinion, for the record,
regarding my following claim and the validity of the argument
reflected therein, as I have confronted many who have disputed my
position which I have otherwise supported with references from
published authorities in the field:

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

Modus Ponens is considered by the force of reason and all noted
logic authorities to simply be a specific form of argument which is
valid and is, in symbolic terms, as follows:

> If p, then q.
> p.
> Therefore, q.

The validity of the "Golaith of GRAS" argument shown below cannot be
successfully defeated because it does strictly conform to the valid
argument form known as Modus Ponens.

Here is the "Goliath of GRAS" argument with notations showing its
strict conformity to the valid argument form known as Modus Ponens:

Major premise:

> If (p):

> God's word (the text) says everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few
> thousand years,

> then (q):

> the interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

Minor premise:

> (p):

> God's word (the text) says everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few
> thousand years.

Conclusion:

> Therefore (q):

> The interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

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

Your serious consideration and opinion regarding the simple, logical
validity of the above argument will be appreciated.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Re: We have 3 votes! Goliath "clearly valid"!
Author: Rick Hartzog
Date: Sep 14, 2007

Here's another one -- Dr. Moffett has some interesting points
here. He also has some pretty interesting research interests if
you take a look at his home page (link below).

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

Hi Rick,

As you may know, logicians distinguish between logical
or deductive validity and soundness. An argument is
deductively valid if and only if, ASSUMING that the
premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true; one
cannot accept the premises w/out also accepting the
conclusion. And argument is sound if and only if it
is valid and ALL of the premises are in fact true.

Modus ponens (the method of affirming) is a logically
valid argument form:

  1. If p, then q

  2. p

  3. Therefore, q

No matter what two sentences you "stick in" for p and q
(uniformly), the resulting argument will be valid. So,
for instance, the following is a valid argument:

  1. If the moon is made of blue cheese, then I am a movie star.

  2. The moon is made of blue cheese.

  3. Therefore, I am a movie star.

IF you accept my premises (you shouldn't), you must
concede my stardom! Obviously, there is a lot more to
giving a good argument that simply giving a valid argument.
In addition, you want the argument to be sound.

[In point of fact, a good (read: persuasive) argument has
the additional virtue of having relatively uncontroversial
premises. After all, the following (for all I know) is sound:
If the Bible says that God exists, then God exists. The Bible
says that God exists. Therefore, He exists. But clearly this
argument won't be of much use in persuading a skeptic....
Rightly so!]

Now, the argument you present is clearly valid. The first
sentence (the antecedent) is relatively complex, having
roughly the form of r & s & t (where r = the Bible says that
God created everything in six days, s = the text is
interpreted by some in a certain way and t = there is
evidence that the claim, when so interpreted, is false).
This complexity DOES NOT affect the validity of the argument.
So the abstract logical form of the argument you give is the
following:

  1. If (r & s & t), then q

  2. r & s & t

  3. Therefore, q

I will leave it to you guys to settle its soundness. But I will
note that a sentence of the form "p & q" is true if and only if
both p is true and q is true (otherwise it is false); a sentence
of the form "if p, then q" is FALSE if and only if p is true
and q is false (otherwise it is true). [So, a sentence of the
form "if p, then q" is true if and only if either p is false or
q is true.]

Cheers,

Marc


Marc A. Moffett
Department of Philosophy
College of Arts and Sciences
Department 3392
1000 E. University Ave
Laramie, WY 82071
http://www.uwyo.edu/moffett/

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

From: rock zog [mailto:w_w_c_l@...]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:35 PM
To: Mark A Moffett
Subject: Request your opinion: is this syllogism valid?

Dr. Moffett:

Will you be so kind as to provide your professional opinion
regarding the following syllogism?

I am involved in several online discussion groups where
this is a frequent and hotly-contested topic.

The argument is presented as a logically valid modus ponens.
I think that is correct, but then, I am not an authority
in the field. It was suggested that I find an unbiased
third-party who might be willing to share their thoughts.

Is the syllogism formally valid? Any other comments you
have will be greatly appreciated.


Thank you for your time,

Rick Hartzog

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

The "Goliath of GRAS":


Major premise:

> If (p):

> God's word (the text) says everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few
> thousand years,

> then (q):

> the interpretation of the text by some is wrong.


Minor premise:

> (p):

> God's word (the text) says everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few
> thousand years.


Conclusion:

> Therefore (q):

> The interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

Now there are 4 votes for my "Goliath"; Hightower = 0!
Author: Robert Baty
Date: Sep 14, 2007

From: Richard Speer
To: 'Robert Baty'

Subject: RE: A question of logical validity!

Date: Friday, September 14, 2007 7:24 AM

Dear Robert,

I do not see why the argument is anything but valid.

The only question is whether the first premise is true or not.

That would be the only grounds for dispute.

Other than that, it is a clear case of modus ponens.

L. Speer.
________________________________________________________________

From: Robert Baty
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:49 PM
To: Speer,Richard
Cc: rlbaty@...
Subject: A question of logical validity!

Dear Professor Speer,

I would like to get your professional opinion, for the record,
regarding my following claim and the validity of the argument
reflected therein, as I have confronted many who have disputed my
position which I have otherwise supported with references from
published authorities in the field:

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

Modus Ponens is considered by the force of reason and all noted
logic authorities to simply be a specific form of argument which is
valid and is, in symbolic terms, as follows:

> If p, then q.
> p.
> Therefore, q.

The validity of the "Golaith of GRAS" argument shown below cannot be
successfully defeated because it does strictly conform to the valid
argument form known as Modus Ponens.

Here is the "Goliath of GRAS" argument with notations showing its
strict conformity to the valid argument form known as Modus Ponens:

Major premise:

> If (p):

> God's word (the text) says everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few
> thousand years,

> then (q):

> the interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

Minor premise:

> (p):

> God's word (the text) says everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few
> thousand years.

Conclusion:

> Therefore (q):

> The interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

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

Your serious consideration and opinion regarding the simple, logical
validity of the above argument will be appreciated.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

My "Goliath" = 5: Terry Hightower = 0!
Author: Robert Baty
Date: Sep 14, 2007

From: Dan Lyons
To: Robert Baty
Subject: RE: A question of logical validity!
Date: Friday, September 14, 2007 8:54 AM

Yes, the form is valid; Nutty true-believers simply deny the part of
your 2d prem that says"something is older than 6000 years'.
GrandCanyon was carved by Noah's flood (in a book that was being
sold at Natl.Parks agencies as science, for a while.)

________________________________________________________________

From: Robert Baty
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:48 PM
To: Dan Lyons
Subject: A question of logical validity!

Dear Professor Lyons,

I would like to get your professional opinion, for the record,
regarding my following claim and the validity of the argument
reflected therein, as I have confronted many who have disputed my
position which I have otherwise supported with references from
published authorities in the field:

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

Modus Ponens is considered by the force of reason and all noted
logic authorities to simply be a specific form of argument which is
valid and is, in symbolic terms, as follows:

> If p, then q.
> p.
> Therefore, q.

The validity of the "Golaith of GRAS" argument shown below cannot be
successfully defeated because it does strictly conform to the valid
argument form known as Modus Ponens.

Here is the "Goliath of GRAS" argument with notations showing its
strict conformity to the valid argument form known as Modus Ponens:

Major premise:

> If (p):

> God's word (the text) says everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few
> thousand years,

> then (q):

> the interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

Minor premise:

> (p):

> God's word (the text) says everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few
> thousand years.

Conclusion:

> Therefore (q):

> The interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

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

Your serious consideration and opinion regarding the simple, logical
validity of the above argument will be appreciated.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

My "Goliath" = 6: Terry Hightower = 0!
Author: Robert Baty
Date: Sep 14, 2007

From: Philip Cafaro
To: Robert Baty

Subject: Re: A question of logical validity!

Date: Friday, September 14, 2007 10:08 AM

Dear Mr. Baty,

I think you also need to consider the possibility that the major
premise is wrong.

Perhaps the interpretation of the text is right, the text itself is
wrong (asserts a false statement about the world).

Phil C.

Philip Cafaro
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523 USA
Email: cafaro@...
________________________________________________________________

Robert Baty wrote:

Dear Professor Cafaro,

I would like to get your professional opinion, for the record,
regarding my following claim and the validity of the argument
reflected therein, as I have confronted many who have disputed my
position which I have otherwise supported with references from
published authorities in the field:

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

Modus Ponens is considered by the force of reason and all noted
logic authorities to simply be a specific form of argument which is
valid and is, in symbolic terms, as follows:

> If p, then q.
> p.
> Therefore, q.

The validity of the "Golaith of GRAS" argument shown below cannot be
successfully defeated because it does strictly conform to the valid
argument form known as Modus Ponens.

Here is the "Goliath of GRAS" argument with notations showing its
strict conformity to the valid argument form known as Modus Ponens:

Major premise:

> If (p):

> God's word (the text) says everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few
> thousand years,

> then (q):

> the interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

Minor premise:

> (p):

> God's word (the text) says everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few
> thousand years.

Conclusion:

> Therefore (q):

> The interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

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

Your serious consideration and opinion regarding the simple, logical
validity of the above argument will be appreciated.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

We have 7 votes! "Sure, the argument is valid"!
Author: Rick Hartzog
Date: Sep 14, 2007

Hello.

I assume you've chosen me to write to about this because of
my notorious rejection of Modus Ponens as a valid form of
inference. But, n.b. ["note well, take notice" -- RH],
I'd never say that ordinary instances of MP aren't themselves
valid arguments; they are. It's just that the MP form also
admits of non-ordinary instances that aren't valid.

So the question is whether your particular instance is an
ordinary valid one. A slight complication is that the
antecedent (p) as written is not a well-formed sentence;
I assume it means "...six days, and is interpreted...."

Then, sure, the argument is valid.

The only thing to dispute would be the truth of the two
premises.

Best wishes,

WGL

P.S., Just as a terminological point, MP is not a syllogism.
The only syllogisms there are are Aristotle's 15 forms, the
ones with the funny names, made out of so-called A, E, I
and O statements...


William G. Lycan
Department of Philosophy
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
http://www.unc.edu/~ujanel/

Followup from Professor Cafaro!
Author: Robert Baty
Date: Sep 15, 2007

Lest any should doubt the position of Professor Cafaro as inferred
from his previously posted response, I sent him a followup to
clarify what his position is regarding the limited issue as to the
modus ponens validity of my "Goliath of GRAS".

Following my name below is his followup response confirming his
position that he believes my "Goliath of GRAS" to be valid.

The vote count remains "Goliath" = 7; Hightower/Denham = 0!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--------Professor Cafaro's Followup--------

From: Philip Cafaro
To: Robert Baty

Subject: Re: A question of logical validity!

Date: Friday, September 14, 2007 10:46 AM

Looks valid to me!

PJC

Philip Cafaro
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
Email: cafaro@...
________________________________________________________________

Robert Baty wrote:

Philip,

I appreciate your reply, and those are considerations independent of
the simple, modus ponens validity of the argument.

If you don't mind, could you please more directly address whether or
not, in your professional opinion, the argument is simply, and
logically valid.

Thank you again for any further consideration you may give to this
inquiry.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

And then there were 8! Steup says Goliath "a genuine modus ponens"!
Author: Rick Hartzog
Date: Sep 14, 2007

Now, this one is from the logic professor that
Terry Hightower himself suggested we contact.

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

Any argument of the form:

If P then Q
P
Therefore:
Q

is valid. This means that any such argument is such that,
if the premises are true, the conclusion is true.

A valid argument is rationally compelling if you have good
reason to accept the premises. So it all depends on the
premises. If you think you have good reason to reject at
least one premise, you need not accept the conclusion. If
you think you have good reason to think that both premises
are true, then it would be irrational of you to deny the
conclusion...

Thanks for letting me know about the background. I remember
Terry Hightower.

My view is this: The argument is not well written, but its
meaning is pretty clear. It is a genuine form of modus ponens.

To respond to the argument rationally, a young-earth creationist
would have to object to either the <if p then q> premise or
the <p> premise.

Hope that helps.

Matthias Steup

Department of Philosophy
Centennial Hall 315
St.Cloud State University
720 Fourth Avenue South
St. Cloud, MN 56301
http://web.stcloudstate.edu/msteup/

"Goliath of GRAS" = 9; Hightower/Denham = 0!
Author: Robert Baty
Date: Sep 15, 2007

From: Fred Johnson
To: Robert Baty

Subject: RE: A question of logical validity!

Date: Friday, September 14, 2007 6:37 PM

Hi Robert,

For sure, the argument has the form called Modus Ponens, and it is
valid.

Saying it is valid means that there is no possible world in which
both premises are true and the conclusion is false.

Put another way, it is valid since the conclusion is true in a
possible world if both premises are true in that world.

To say an argument is valid is not to say that there is a possible
world in which the premises or the conclusion is true. (The actual
world is one of the possible worlds.)

Sincerely,
Fred Johnson
________________________________________________________________

===== Original Message From Robert Baty =====

> Dear Professor Johnson,
>
> I would like to get your professional opinion, for the record,
> regarding my following claim and the validity of the argument
> reflected therein, as I have confronted many who have disputed my
> position which I have otherwise supported with references from
> published authorities in the field:
>
>----------------------
>
> Modus Ponens is considered by the force of reason and all noted
> logic authorities to simply be a specific form of argument which
> is valid and is, in symbolic terms, as follows:
>
>> If p, then q.
>> p.
>> Therefore, q.
>
> The validity of the "Golaith of GRAS" argument shown below cannot
> be successfully defeated because it does strictly conform to the
> valid argument form known as Modus Ponens.
>
> Here is the "Goliath of GRAS" argument with notations showing its
> strict conformity to the valid argument form known as Modus
> Ponens:
>
> Major premise:
>
>> If (p):
>
>> God's word (the text) says everything began over a period
>> of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
>> days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
>> evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few
>> thousand years,
>
>> then (q):
>
>> the interpretation of the text by some is wrong.
>
>Minor premise:
>
>> (p):
>
>> God's word (the text) says everything began over a period
>> of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
>> days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
>> evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few
>> thousand years.
>
>Conclusion:
>
>> Therefore (q):
>
>> The interpretation of the text by some is wrong.
>
>----------------------------
>
> Your serious consideration and opinion regarding the simple,
> logical validity of the above argument will be appreciated.
>
> Sincerely,
> Robert Baty

Professor McCulloch votes against Daniel Denham!
Author: Robert Baty
Date: Sep 18, 2007

From: Mike McCulloch
To: Robert Baty
Subject: RE: A question of logical validity!

Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 3:21 PM

Robert,

The argument is valid, but the first premise might be false.

It might be that what the text is saying is that God created the
world in 6 days, and meant 6 of our days; in which case it is the
text that is false, if indeed science is right, and not its
conservative interpreters who are making a mistake.

So, though not invalid, the argument would be unsound.

More progressive theological traditions - and most of the main line
Christian traditions - Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism
(etc) I think take your line - the "day" in the text does not mean
one of our days. These traditions have no problem, therefore, with
evolution.

Mike McCulloch
Department of Philosophy
CSU

--------------Inquiry-----------------

To: McCulloch, Mike
From: Robert Baty
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:36 PM

Subject: A question of logical validity

Dear Professor McCulloch,

I would like to get your professional opinion, for the record,
regarding my following claim and the validity of the argument
reflected therein, as I have confronted many who have disputed my
position which I have otherwise supported with references from
published authorities in the field:

Modus Ponens is considered by the force of reason and all noted
logic authorities to simply be a specific form of argument which is
valid and is, in symbolic terms, as follows:

> If p, then q.
> p.
> Therefore, q.

The validity of the "Golaith of GRAS" argument shown below cannot be
successfully defeated because it does strictly conform to the valid
argument form known as Modus Ponens.

Here is the "Goliath of GRAS" argument with notations showing its
strict conformity to the valid argument form known as Modus Ponens:

Major premise:

> If (p):

> God's word (the text) says everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few
> thousand years,

> then (q):

> the interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

Minor premise:

> (p):

> God's word (the text) says everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few
> thousand years.

Conclusion:

> Therefore (q):

> The interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

Your serious consideration and opinion regarding the simple, logical
validity of the above argument will be appreciated.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Peter S. Fosl votes "VALID" on the "Goliath of GRAS"!
Author: Robert Baty
Date: Sep 21, 2007

From: Peter S. Fosl
To: Robert Baty
Subject: Re: A little context, FWIW!

Date: Friday, September 21, 2007 6:57 AM

Hey Robert,

Thanks for the context.

I'll be pleased to add my professional voice to the issue and assure
anyone willing to listen that it's a valid argument.

A straightforward modus ponens.

As you say, soundness the question. In particular the truth of the
first premise.

The second premise is pretty uncontroversial.

Regarding the first premise, a material implication can be true
under two circumstances: (1) if the antecedent is false; and (2) if
both antecedent and consequent are true. A material implication is
false when the antecedent is true and the consequent is false.

In this case, it seems pretty uncontroversial that the antecedent
(which is the same as the minor premise) is true. So, the question
becomes whether the consequent is also true. And, of course, that's
where the controversy lies. Is the text wrong? How can we decide?
One thing's for sure, however, this argument doesn't decide it. It's
logically possible that the antecedent is true but the consequent
false. That is, it's logically possible that empirical evidence
shows that the world is more than a few thousand years old but that
the empirical evidence is wrong or misleading.

You're going to have to appeal to matters beyond this argument to
settle things. For example, you're likely to have to settle the
question: Does empirical evidence defeat Scriptural evidence or
otherwise theological evidence (revelation, for example).

I suspect that your adversaries would maintain that it does not. You
may wish to argue that it does. But that, my friend, is a rather
large issue.

Perhaps the example of Galileo and the Church may help you.
Galileo's claim based on empirical evidence that the moon's surface
has craters was contradicted by the Church arguing that Aristotle
and theology prove that the moon's surface is smooth. Which is the
more compelling position? (Ask Neil Armstrong.)

One story, probably fictitious, has it that a Cardinal remarked that
even if he saw the craters with his own eye he would deny their
reality because when one weighs the evidence of the senses against
the truths of the Church, the senses lose.

Your position might be to hold that the senses and empirical
evidence generally should trump theology when it comes to matters of
physical fact, a position with which I largely agree. (See the
Toolkit entry on the mystical.)

But, again, your argument doesn't prove this. Rather, it assumes it.

Does that help.

P
________________________________________________________________

On Sep 21, 2007, at 12:06 AM, Robert Baty wrote:

Peter,

It occurred to me that it might be appropriate to add a little more
context to our discussion.

Our discussion arose as somewhat of a side issue to an on-going much
contested issue regarding the simple, logical validity of the
following argument which I crafted quite some time ago for purposes
of dealing with an important public issue:

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

Major premise:

> If God's word (the text) says everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few
> thousand years, then the interpretation of the text by
> some is wrong.

Minor premise:

> God's word (the text) says everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is actually much older than a few
> thousand years.

Conclusion:

> The interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

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

The argument has now had quite a fascinating issue as a result of so
many folks wanting to deny its simple, logical validity.

You might have no trouble guessing what kind of folk want to deny
its validity.

So, if you still have some interest, you may wish to voice your
professional opinion regarding its simple, logical "validity" and
what you think would be necessary to establish that it is "sound".

I might add that, for purposes of the argument, it is a "given" that
"the text" says what is alleged and that it is also a "given" as to
how some interpret the "text".

That being the case, it is my position that the "soundness" of the
argument is simply determined by how one might come down on the
issue as to the evidence of age.

I might also add that we've recently had ten authorities in the
field of logic/philosophy state their position that it is a valid
argument.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty