Michael

Yes, so this has inconsistent premises: 1. It is raining 2. It is not raining 3. Therefore, is is raining And this has incoherent premises 1. Red fast...

Let's consider a slightly different example. A and B are cut in half along the midsection. A’s lower half is attached to B’s upper half and B’s lower ...

I would say that "this is a valid conclusion" means "this is the conclusion of a valid argument".

Premises and conclusions are either true or false. Arguments are valid if the conclusion follows from the premises. Arguments are sound if they are va...

Hundreds? Thousands? You think that from my perspective I’d fall asleep looking down at my white-skinned body, the operation would be performed, and t...

Well, you could have the valid but unsound argument: 1. It is raining 2. It is not raining 3. Therefore, arguments can be both valid and invalid But r...

Because the brain is where personhood is found. Personhood concerns consciousness, and consciousness is what the brain does. Say currently I'm a white...

As a thought experiment, let's assume that brain transplants are medically possible. My brain is placed in @"NOS4A2"'s body and his brain is placed in...

Remove the arms and legs and they're still a person. Remove the arms and legs and skeleton (but keep the brain alive) and they're still a person. Remo...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yr08xnxw8o

No 3 is a 4 because no argument can be both valid and invalid.

I've never met a person who doesn't have a brain. There is a moral difference between a single-celled zygote and a conscious, talking adult. If you do...

Arguments can be: 1. Valid, consistent, and sound 2. Valid, consistent, and unsound 3. Valid, inconsistent, and unsound 4. Invalid OP's argument is (3...

P ? ¬P ? ¬P ? ¬P ? ¬P P ? ¬P Or more simply: ¬P P ? ¬P It's not raining and it's raining therefore it's not raining.. So yeah, it's "incoherent" in th...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0eq7VNCcYY

The majority respond to populist, easy answers. They're not going to understand or want to hear complicated proposals that aren't going to give them e...

"They go low, we go high" just ain't working. The problem is that Democrats haven't been fighting fire with fire. Populism is fine, just so long as it...

They need a liberal populist "news" channel to compete with Fox News. Bit of competitive propaganda and empty soundbites will do wonders.

This policy? https://preview.redd.it/texas-state-university-one-day-after-the-election-v0-od1o69pd6hzd1.jpeg?auto=webp&s=592dd8cf67cd8e7b1264ef116f0c4...

I'll do it. I mean, I'm not American, and don't know anything, but then that's probably a good thing. I won't golf, because golf sucks, but I will sle...

There is a moral difference between a living body with a functioning brain and a living body without a functioning brain. Brain death is death of the ...

I love his soundtrack for The Leftovers.

The one on the right has a functioning brain. That’s an important difference because it’s an especially important organ. If my heart gives out and I’m...

I took it to refer to the word count. :smirk:

I mean your post does use two different operators? In fact there are a few that come to mind: 1. A ? ¬A 2. A ? ¬A 3. A ? ¬A 4. A ? ¬A As a specific ex...

Good catch. Trying to translate English into proportional logic is hard.

Checking the soundness of one argument using another is done all the time. Here are two arguments: P1. If my name is Michael then I am 36 years old P2...

If they are consistent then they can both be true. If they can never both be true then they are inconsistent.

The reason that there is no interpretation where both premises are true is because the premises are inconsistent, i.e. that their conjunction is a con...

That's the same thing.

That is explosion.

I agree, but this was the specific exchange: What he says certainly follows from what you said, but it isn't what you (literally) said (at least not i...

Why would I? Every argument is its own thing. If the conclusion deductively follows from the premises then the argument is valid. The fact that two co...

Right, so you're talking about the principle of explosion? Given that frank and I were talking about the definition of "valid", I (mis)understood him ...

They're not all true. One of them is false. Either it is raining or it is not raining. But if it were the case that both "it is raining" and "it is no...

This is the misunderstanding. A ? ¬A does not mean "if A is true then A is also false". As I said above, these mean two different things: 1. A ? ¬A 2....

I really don't understand what you're trying to say. Have a look at this. The following argument is valid: It is raining It is not raining George Wash...

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here. I'm just explaining very basic terminology. If the conclusion follows from the premises then ...

That's not what he's saying. I don't know how to explain this to you in an even simpler way.

He's not saying what you think he's saying. These are two different claims: 1. An argument is valid if there is no interpretation in which all the pre...

That's not what he's saying.

And as previously mentioned, P ? Q ? ¬P ? Q. So the above can be rephrased as: a. One of the premises is false or the conclusion is true. And (a) is t...

I can't see that we are. We both agree that the argument is valid because the conclusion deductively follows from the premises, i.e. that if the premi...

Yes, the argument is valid as I said. But it isn't sound because one of the premises is false.

And 2 zygotes have the potential to develop into 1 human being (a chimera). Much like a sperm and an ovum have the potential to develop into 1 human b...

I'll rephrase it into English for you. 1. If Socrates is mortal then Socrates is not mortal 2. Socrates is mortal 3. Therefore, Socrates is not mortal...

No, P is A. Q is ¬A.

No. It doesn't say that Q being true depends on P being true. Q can be true whether P is true or false. It just can't be that P is true and Q is false...

The logic is explained in that link I posted.

These mean the same thing: 1. P ? Q 2. ¬Q ? ¬P These do not mean the same thing: 1. P ? Q 3. P ? (P ? Q) The misunderstanding is that many here are mi...