LOGIC... When it comes to LOGIC not just my own view but used by Well Known Scientists, even the Great Albert Einstein! In logic, an argument is valid if and only if its conclusion is logically entailed by its premises. A formula is valid if and only if it is true under every interpretation, and an argument form (or schema) is valid if and only if every argument of that logical form is valid. Contents 1 Validity of arguments 2 Valid formula 3 Validity of statements 4 Validity and soundness 5 Satisfiability and validity 6 Preservation 7 n-Validity 7.1 ω-Validity 8 See also 9 References 10 External links Validity of arguments An argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion and each step, sub-argument, or logical operation in the argument is valid. Under such conditions it would be self-contradictory to affirm the premises and deny the conclusion. The corresponding conditional of a valid argument is a logical truth and the negation of its corresponding conditional is a contradiction. The conclusion is a logical consequence of its premises. An argument that is not valid is said to be invalid. An example of a valid argument is given by the following well-known syllogism: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. What makes this a valid argument is not that it has true premises and a true conclusion, but the logical necessity of the conclusion, given the two premises. The argument would be just as valid were the premises and conclusion false. The following argument is of the same logical form but with false premises and a false conclusion, and it is equally valid: All cups are green. Socrates is a cup. Therefore, Socrates is green. No matter how the universe might be constructed, it could never be the case that these arguments should turn out to have simultaneously true premises but a false conclusion. The above arguments may be contrasted with the following invalid one: All men are immortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. In this case, the conclusion contradicts the deductive logic of the preceding premises, rather than deriving from it. Therefore the argument is logically invalid, even though the conclusion could be considered true in general terms. The premise All men are immortal would likewise be deemed false outside of the framework of classical logic. However, within that system true and false essentially function more like mathematical states such as binary 1s and 0s than the philosophical concepts normally associated with those terms. A standard view is that whether an argument is valid is a matter of the arguments logical form. Many techniques are employed by logicians to represent an arguments logical form. A simple example, applied to two of the above illustrations, is the following: Let the letters P, Q, and S stand, respectively, for the set of men, the set of mortals, and Socrates. Using these symbols, the first argument may be abbreviated as: All P are Q. S is a P. Therefore, S is a Q. Similarly, the third argument becomes: All P are not Q. S is a P. Therefore, S is a Q. An argument is termed formally valid if it has structural self-consistency, such as when the operands between premises are all true, and the derived conclusion is also true. In the third example, the initial premises cannot logically result in the conclusion and is therefore categorized as an invalid argument, while the same statement in most contexts would be considered valid unless Socrates was in fact immortal. Note that the classically qualified strength of arguments is defined separately from their structural validity. For example, the previous arguments would be formally called strong ones, regardless of their validity. However, they differ from this version of the Socrates mortality example: All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Therefore, Socrates is a man. In formal logic terms this is considered an extremely weak argument, however it can not be categorized as structurally invalid. While the premises certainly dont definitively lead to the conclusion, they do not logically preclude it. Strong and weak descriptors of arguments are generally related to inductive approaches to logic, as opposed to the more absolute qualifications of deductive methods.
Posted on: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 02:57:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015