True and false apply only to statements, not arguments. For our purposes, it is just nonsense to call an argument true or false. All deductive arguments aspire to validity. If you consider the definitions of validity and invalidity carefully, you'll note that valid arguments have the following important property: valid arguments preserve truth.
If all your premises are true and you make a valid argument from them, it must be the case that whatever conclusion you obtain is true. We shall see below, however, that valid arguments do not necessarily preserve truth value: it is entirely possible to argue validly from false premises to a true conclusion. If my jeans are blue, then they have a colour. Therefore, the argument is valid. Some people believe that, but this is an invalid argument.
What is the probability for a dice to land on six? There are six faces and the dice is likely to land on any of them. It is thus possible for the premise of the argument to be true, but the conclusion false. If there is a purple elephant in the hall, then I am a giant turkey. There is a purple elephant in the hall. If the premises were true, the conclusion would be guaranteed to be true. You need to be careful here. It just means succeeding in establishing conclusive support for its conclusion.
Of course, the premises of this argument are false. But claiming that an argument is valid is not to claim that the premises are true. Validity is about succeeding in providing conclusive support for the conclusion, if the premises were true. So if the conclusion is unlikely to be true when the premises are true, then the argument is weak. Game over. The answer to this question is contextual. As a lecturer, my standards are very strict.
My goal is to make sure that you learn from your mistakes. I need to change my standards there. So establishing that an argument is strong in court is quite demanding. We want to minimise the mistakes we make.
Madison is a vegetarian. Therefore, Madison is probably healthy. If the premises are true, what are the chances that Madison is healthy? Question : What if we discover that the conclusion is true? Is the argument now valid?
The reasoning is still invalid, but we can get lucky and still have true conclusions. Important -- Invalid arguments can have as a matter of luck true premises and a true conclusion, BUT the key difference is that the premises do not guarantee the conclusion as they do with valid arguments.
All Democrats always tell the truth. President Obama is a democrat. So, President Obama always tells the truth. IF the premises are true, we are locked into the conclusion. We go by what the premises are saying. Question: What if the conclusion of the Obama example is false? What do we know about the premises?
IF an argument is valid, but if we know the conclusion is false, then we know at least one premise is false. Because valid arguments can never have ALL true premises and a false conclusion. Important -- see the section on Logic and Belief Testing in Chapter 1.
We know the conclusion is false in the Wen Ho Lee example. True False. In the Obama example, if the premises are true, we know the conclusion is true. In the Obama example, if the conclusion is false, we know at least one premise is false, but the reasonning is still valid. What have we learned about valid arguments? We know that if the premises are true, valid arguments will have true conclusions.
But we don't know the premises are true. On the other hand, if an argument is valid, if the conclusion is false, then we know that at least one premise is false. What have we learned about invalid arguments? The use of an artificially constructed language makes it easier to specify a set of rules that determine whether or not a given argument is valid or invalid.
In short, a deductive argument must be evaluated in two ways. First, one must ask if the premises provide support for the conclusion by examing the form of the argument. If they do, then the argument is valid. Then, one must ask whether the premises are true or false in actuality.
Only if an argument passes both these tests is it sound. However, if an argument does not pass these tests, its conclusion may still be true, despite that no support for its truth is given by the argument.
Note: there are other, related, uses of these words that are found within more advanced mathematical logic. Moreover, an axiomatic logical calculus in its entirety is said to be sound if and only if all theorems derivable from the axioms of the logical calculus are semantically valid in the sense just described.
The author of this article is anonymous. The IEP is actively seeking an author who will write a replacement article. Validity and Soundness 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. The following argument is valid, because it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false: Elizabeth owns either a Honda or a Saturn.
Consider, then an argument such as the following: All toasters are items made of gold. However, the following argument is both valid and sound: In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
For example, consider these two arguments: All tigers are mammals. Now consider: All basketballs are round. The Earth is round. Therefore, the Earth is a basketball. Consider, for example, the following arguments: My table is circular.
Therefore, it is not square shaped. Juan is a bachelor. Therefore, he is not married. These arguments, at least on the surface, have the form: x is F; Therefore, x is not G.
0コメント