Mixing
An invalid argument with one or more false premises
$begingroup$
This is an exercise from A Modern Formal Logic Primer (Teller):
4-1. Give examples, using sentences in English, of arguments of each
of the following kind. Use examples in which it is easy to tell
whether the premises and the conclusion are in fact (in real life)
true or false.
e) An invalid argument with one or more false premises
Validity of an argument has been defined as follows:
The argument "$X$. Therefore $Y$" is valid just in case the sentence
$neg (X land neg Y)$ is a logical truth.
Now my confusion is twofold:
An invalid argument with one or more false premises appears to require that at least one premise and the conclusion are contradictions. Otherwise there are cases in which all premises are true. But for the argument to be invalid, there must be at least one case in which the conjunction of the premises is true while the conclusion is false. How is this possible?
I am not sure how to interpret "logical truth" in terms of English sentences with invariable truth values. Here is the solution given in the book:
Anyone who loves logic is bald.
Robert Redford is bald.
Therefore Redford loves logic.
As far as I can tell, both of the premises are false (is it correct to interpret invariably false natural language sentences as contradictions?). Which makes $neg (X land neg Y)$ true. Now since the truth value of the premises is invariable, there is no case in which the conjunction of the premises is true while the conclusion is false. So how is this an invalid argument?
logic
asked Jan 15 at 17:03
user245312user245312
126118
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is an exercise from A Modern Formal Logic Primer (Teller):
4-1. Give examples, using sentences in English, of arguments of each
of the following kind. Use examples in which it is easy to tell
whether the premises and the conclusion are in fact (in real life)
true or false.
e) An invalid argument with one or more false premises
Validity of an argument has been defined as follows:
The argument "$X$. Therefore $Y$" is valid just in case the sentence
$neg (X land neg Y)$ is a logical truth.
Now my confusion is twofold:
An invalid argument with one or more false premises appears to require that at least one premise and the conclusion are contradictions. Otherwise there are cases in which all premises are true. But for the argument to be invalid, there must be at least one case in which the conjunction of the premises is true while the conclusion is false. How is this possible?
I am not sure how to interpret "logical truth" in terms of English sentences with invariable truth values. Here is the solution given in the book:
Anyone who loves logic is bald.
Robert Redford is bald.
Therefore Redford loves logic.
As far as I can tell, both of the premises are false (is it correct to interpret invariably false natural language sentences as contradictions?). Which makes $neg (X land neg Y)$ true. Now since the truth value of the premises is invariable, there is no case in which the conjunction of the premises is true while the conclusion is false. So how is this an invalid argument?
logic
asked Jan 15 at 17:03
user245312user245312
126118
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is an exercise from A Modern Formal Logic Primer (Teller):
4-1. Give examples, using sentences in English, of arguments of each
of the following kind. Use examples in which it is easy to tell
whether the premises and the conclusion are in fact (in real life)
true or false.
e) An invalid argument with one or more false premises
Validity of an argument has been defined as follows:
The argument "$X$. Therefore $Y$" is valid just in case the sentence
$neg (X land neg Y)$ is a logical truth.
Now my confusion is twofold:
An invalid argument with one or more false premises appears to require that at least one premise and the conclusion are contradictions. Otherwise there are cases in which all premises are true. But for the argument to be invalid, there must be at least one case in which the conjunction of the premises is true while the conclusion is false. How is this possible?
I am not sure how to interpret "logical truth" in terms of English sentences with invariable truth values. Here is the solution given in the book:
Anyone who loves logic is bald.
Robert Redford is bald.
Therefore Redford loves logic.
As far as I can tell, both of the premises are false (is it correct to interpret invariably false natural language sentences as contradictions?). Which makes $neg (X land neg Y)$ true. Now since the truth value of the premises is invariable, there is no case in which the conjunction of the premises is true while the conclusion is false. So how is this an invalid argument?
logic
asked Jan 15 at 17:03
user245312user245312
126118
$endgroup$
This is an exercise from A Modern Formal Logic Primer (Teller):
4-1. Give examples, using sentences in English, of arguments of each
of the following kind. Use examples in which it is easy to tell
whether the premises and the conclusion are in fact (in real life)
true or false.
e) An invalid argument with one or more false premises
Validity of an argument has been defined as follows:
The argument "$X$. Therefore $Y$" is valid just in case the sentence
$neg (X land neg Y)$ is a logical truth.
Now my confusion is twofold:
An invalid argument with one or more false premises appears to require that at least one premise and the conclusion are contradictions. Otherwise there are cases in which all premises are true. But for the argument to be invalid, there must be at least one case in which the conjunction of the premises is true while the conclusion is false. How is this possible?
I am not sure how to interpret "logical truth" in terms of English sentences with invariable truth values. Here is the solution given in the book:
Anyone who loves logic is bald.
Robert Redford is bald.
Therefore Redford loves logic.
As far as I can tell, both of the premises are false (is it correct to interpret invariably false natural language sentences as contradictions?). Which makes $neg (X land neg Y)$ true. Now since the truth value of the premises is invariable, there is no case in which the conjunction of the premises is true while the conclusion is false. So how is this an invalid argument?
logic
logic
asked Jan 15 at 17:03
user245312user245312
126118
asked Jan 15 at 17:03
user245312user245312
126118
asked Jan 15 at 17:03
user245312user245312
126118
asked Jan 15 at 17:03
user245312user245312
126118
asked Jan 15 at 17:03
user245312user245312
126118
126118
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
An invalid argument does not require any contradictions at all. Example: 1. Unicorns exist. 2. It rains everywhere on the Earth at all times. Therefore, 3. I am flying to San Francisco.
Your second example commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle. You haven't talked about all bald people, so it can't be the middle term in an Aristotelian syllogism.
answered Jan 15 at 17:09
Adrian KeisterAdrian Keister
5,26771933
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I don't see how your argument is invalid under the definition given in the book: An argument is invalid given an assignment of truth values to sentence letters which makes the conjunction of premises true and the conclusion false.
$endgroup$
– user245312
Jan 15 at 17:48
1
$begingroup$
The book is asking you to provide an invalid argument with false premises. I have provided you an invalid argument with false premises. It's invalid because if the premises WERE true, they would not force the conclusion to be true.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Keister
Jan 15 at 18:32
$begingroup$
I see, if the premises are independent from the conclusion then $neg (X land neg Y)$ cannot be a logical truth.
$endgroup$
– user245312
Jan 15 at 19:39
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3074649%2fan-invalid-argument-with-one-or-more-false-premises%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
An invalid argument does not require any contradictions at all. Example: 1. Unicorns exist. 2. It rains everywhere on the Earth at all times. Therefore, 3. I am flying to San Francisco.
Your second example commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle. You haven't talked about all bald people, so it can't be the middle term in an Aristotelian syllogism.
answered Jan 15 at 17:09
Adrian KeisterAdrian Keister
5,26771933
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I don't see how your argument is invalid under the definition given in the book: An argument is invalid given an assignment of truth values to sentence letters which makes the conjunction of premises true and the conclusion false.
$endgroup$
– user245312
Jan 15 at 17:48
1
$begingroup$
The book is asking you to provide an invalid argument with false premises. I have provided you an invalid argument with false premises. It's invalid because if the premises WERE true, they would not force the conclusion to be true.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Keister
Jan 15 at 18:32
$begingroup$
I see, if the premises are independent from the conclusion then $neg (X land neg Y)$ cannot be a logical truth.
$endgroup$
– user245312
Jan 15 at 19:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
An invalid argument does not require any contradictions at all. Example: 1. Unicorns exist. 2. It rains everywhere on the Earth at all times. Therefore, 3. I am flying to San Francisco.
Your second example commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle. You haven't talked about all bald people, so it can't be the middle term in an Aristotelian syllogism.
answered Jan 15 at 17:09
Adrian KeisterAdrian Keister
5,26771933
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I don't see how your argument is invalid under the definition given in the book: An argument is invalid given an assignment of truth values to sentence letters which makes the conjunction of premises true and the conclusion false.
$endgroup$
– user245312
Jan 15 at 17:48
1
$begingroup$
The book is asking you to provide an invalid argument with false premises. I have provided you an invalid argument with false premises. It's invalid because if the premises WERE true, they would not force the conclusion to be true.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Keister
Jan 15 at 18:32
$begingroup$
I see, if the premises are independent from the conclusion then $neg (X land neg Y)$ cannot be a logical truth.
$endgroup$
– user245312
Jan 15 at 19:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
An invalid argument does not require any contradictions at all. Example: 1. Unicorns exist. 2. It rains everywhere on the Earth at all times. Therefore, 3. I am flying to San Francisco.
Your second example commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle. You haven't talked about all bald people, so it can't be the middle term in an Aristotelian syllogism.
answered Jan 15 at 17:09
Adrian KeisterAdrian Keister
5,26771933
$endgroup$
An invalid argument does not require any contradictions at all. Example: 1. Unicorns exist. 2. It rains everywhere on the Earth at all times. Therefore, 3. I am flying to San Francisco.
Your second example commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle. You haven't talked about all bald people, so it can't be the middle term in an Aristotelian syllogism.
answered Jan 15 at 17:09
Adrian KeisterAdrian Keister
5,26771933
answered Jan 15 at 17:09
Adrian KeisterAdrian Keister
5,26771933
answered Jan 15 at 17:09
Adrian KeisterAdrian Keister
5,26771933
answered Jan 15 at 17:09
Adrian KeisterAdrian Keister
5,26771933
5,26771933
$begingroup$
I don't see how your argument is invalid under the definition given in the book: An argument is invalid given an assignment of truth values to sentence letters which makes the conjunction of premises true and the conclusion false.
$endgroup$
– user245312
Jan 15 at 17:48
1
$begingroup$
The book is asking you to provide an invalid argument with false premises. I have provided you an invalid argument with false premises. It's invalid because if the premises WERE true, they would not force the conclusion to be true.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Keister
Jan 15 at 18:32
$begingroup$
I see, if the premises are independent from the conclusion then $neg (X land neg Y)$ cannot be a logical truth.
$endgroup$
– user245312
Jan 15 at 19:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't see how your argument is invalid under the definition given in the book: An argument is invalid given an assignment of truth values to sentence letters which makes the conjunction of premises true and the conclusion false.
$endgroup$
– user245312
Jan 15 at 17:48
1
$begingroup$
The book is asking you to provide an invalid argument with false premises. I have provided you an invalid argument with false premises. It's invalid because if the premises WERE true, they would not force the conclusion to be true.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Keister
Jan 15 at 18:32
$begingroup$
I see, if the premises are independent from the conclusion then $neg (X land neg Y)$ cannot be a logical truth.
$endgroup$
– user245312
Jan 15 at 19:39
$begingroup$
I don't see how your argument is invalid under the definition given in the book: An argument is invalid given an assignment of truth values to sentence letters which makes the conjunction of premises true and the conclusion false.
$endgroup$
– user245312
Jan 15 at 17:48
$begingroup$
I don't see how your argument is invalid under the definition given in the book: An argument is invalid given an assignment of truth values to sentence letters which makes the conjunction of premises true and the conclusion false.
$endgroup$
– user245312
Jan 15 at 17:48
1
1
$begingroup$
The book is asking you to provide an invalid argument with false premises. I have provided you an invalid argument with false premises. It's invalid because if the premises WERE true, they would not force the conclusion to be true.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Keister
Jan 15 at 18:32
$begingroup$
The book is asking you to provide an invalid argument with false premises. I have provided you an invalid argument with false premises. It's invalid because if the premises WERE true, they would not force the conclusion to be true.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Keister
Jan 15 at 18:32
$begingroup$
I see, if the premises are independent from the conclusion then $neg (X land neg Y)$ cannot be a logical truth.
$endgroup$
– user245312
Jan 15 at 19:39
$begingroup$
I see, if the premises are independent from the conclusion then $neg (X land neg Y)$ cannot be a logical truth.
$endgroup$
– user245312
Jan 15 at 19:39
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3074649%2fan-invalid-argument-with-one-or-more-false-premises%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
