Truth value relationships, proofs, disproofs, and arguments
In this OP, I will present an explanation of arguments, proofs and disproofs by using what I call truth value relationships as a starting points.
1-Truth value relationships
Truth value relationships are relationships between the truth values of at least two propositions where the truth value(s) of what I call dependant proposition(s) is dependant on the truth value(s) of what I call supporting proposition(s). For example, the truth value of the proposition "John is black" depends on the truth value of the proposition "John exists".
2-Proofs and disproofs
Proving a proposition then, consists of presenting one or more propositions and demonstrating that the truth value of another proposition is dependant on the truth values of those "supporting" propositions in such a way that if those propositions are true, then the other "dependant" proposition must be true.
Disproofs work in a similar way, except that if the supporting propositions are true, then the dependant proposition is false.
3-Arguments
Arguments then are simply natural language presentations of proofs and disproofs.
1-Truth value relationships
Truth value relationships are relationships between the truth values of at least two propositions where the truth value(s) of what I call dependant proposition(s) is dependant on the truth value(s) of what I call supporting proposition(s). For example, the truth value of the proposition "John is black" depends on the truth value of the proposition "John exists".
2-Proofs and disproofs
Proving a proposition then, consists of presenting one or more propositions and demonstrating that the truth value of another proposition is dependant on the truth values of those "supporting" propositions in such a way that if those propositions are true, then the other "dependant" proposition must be true.
Disproofs work in a similar way, except that if the supporting propositions are true, then the dependant proposition is false.
3-Arguments
Arguments then are simply natural language presentations of proofs and disproofs.
Comments (3)
I think this argument is twisted. We can't give this level of value or awareness to something as subjective as "black". If John is black is due to our perception about reality and how our interpretation works (because we the humans tend to categorize everything as ethnics and races) . John exists and then will be still existing as a living human, doesn't matter the "black" character here.
What is "black" to someone could be "brown" to others... Depends a lot of perception.
Why are logical proofs required in regards to John? Wouldn't John and his characteristics be demonstrated by empirical observation?