Deductive and inductive arguments

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Kielicious
 
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 01:05 pm
@kennethamy,
Indeed.

Who do you think is going to win the superbowl?

*warning* Rhetorical statement *warning*
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 01:07 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;120504 wrote:
Indeed.

Who do you think is going to win the superbowl?

*warning* Rhetorical statement *warning*


I have heard of rhetorical questions, but what is a rhetorical statement? Anyway, what are you talking about?
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 01:09 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;120507 wrote:
I have heard of rhetorical questions, but what is a rhetorical statement? Anyway, what are you talking about?



LoL keep up the good work ken. :a-ok: You didnt fall for anything...
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 01:11 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;120504 wrote:
Indeed.

Who do you think is going to win the superbowl?

*warning* Rhetorical statement *warning*


It is a rhetorical question, not a rhetorical statement. Even when you are merely attempting to goad kennethamy into wasting time with you, you get things wrong.
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 01:12 pm
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;120511 wrote:
It is a rhetorical question, not a rhetorical statement. Even when you are merely attempting to goad kennethamy into wasting time with you, you get things wrong.



Damn I got two!

You guys are too easy.

Anyway, that was fun. Next time dont be so hard on yourself. Wait a minute, how does one be hard to oneself? Hmmmmmmm.....
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 01:18 pm
@Emil,
Emil;120483 wrote:
I did not get it from anywhere and that is why it is not in quotation marks. I don't understand the question.


Hm, I thought you could have inferred what I meant by my question.

I'll rephrase.

Can you explain why you came to that conclusion in the first place?

kennethamy wrote:
But the intention theory does not make the distinction between deduction and induction depend on psychology. The distinction is still logical between whether the argument is conclusive or not. Where intention comes in is in trying to decide whether the argument is deductive or inductive. That is an epistemological issue, not a logical issue. Intention theory does not psychologize logic (Frege's bid bugaboo). It may psychologize the epistemology of logic, though. But is that so bad?


Thanks, that clears it up a bit. I still don't quite get it, but I'll do more research.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 01:25 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;120509 wrote:
LoL keep up the good work ken. :a-ok: You didnt fall for anything...


Are you trying to make me believe that the silliness and ignorance were intentional.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 01:27 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;120519 wrote:
Are you trying to make me believe that the silliness and ignorance were intentional.


Ignore, don't entertain.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 01:29 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;120522 wrote:
Ignore, don't entertain.


But he might be learning despite himself.
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 01:40 pm
@kennethamy,
You see ken, and others, implied statements are inherent to reasoning skills. Something you guys seem to be lacking.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 01:43 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;120529 wrote:
You see ken, and others, implied statements are inherent to reasoning skills. Something you guys seem to be lacking.


But why imply when you can state? Unless you don't know what you mean, or you do not know how to state what you mean? Are you in the business of testing your readers' reasoning skills, or saying what you mean?
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 01:56 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;120530 wrote:
But why imply when you can state? Unless you don't know what you mean, or you do not know how to state what you mean? Are you in the business of testing your readers' reasoning skills, or saying what you mean?


Why imply when you can state?

Well, Im sure its different for everybody, but I do it for sheer poetic license and, yes, to somewhat test my readers because if they cant even handle a minor speed bump then how are they gonna fair against very well put together rhetoric? They wont. Implied statements are so crucial to reasoning which is why every critical thinking class Ive had stresses this.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 02:29 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;120533 wrote:
Why imply when you can state?

Well, Im sure its different for everybody, but I do it for sheer poetic license and, yes, to somewhat test my readers because if they cant even handle a minor speed bump then how are they gonna fair against very well put together rhetoric? They wont. Implied statements are so crucial to reasoning which is why every critical thinking class Ive had stresses this.


But look at your performance post #47. You got everything wrong. It shows you know very little about logic. So how can you test anyone on logic? How would you know whether their answers are true or false?

It is true that logic is often defined as "the science of inference". But you should distinguish between logical inference, and just suggestion. And, in any case, poetry has as much place in logic, as logic has in poetry.
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 03:01 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;120540 wrote:
But look at your performance post #47. You got everything wrong. It shows you know very little about logic. So how can you test anyone on logic? How would you know whether their answers are true or false?

It is true that logic is often defined as "the science of inference". But you should distinguish between logical inference, and just suggestion. And, in any case, poetry has as much place in logic, as logic has in poetry.



Yea, youre right. I didnt use the correct terminology, but that doesnt mean I dont know what Im talking about. I just dont care enough about MCP format to hardwire the terms into my memory. Sorry, my bad. However, my professors dont seem to have a problem with figuring out what it means. Maybe because they can see what a person is actually trying to say, and not just the words themselves. This is why they stress implied statements.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 03:36 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;120544 wrote:
Yea, youre right. I didnt use the correct terminology, but that doesnt mean I dont know what Im talking about. I just dont care enough about MCP format to hardwire the terms into my memory. Sorry, my bad. However, my professors dont seem to have a problem with figuring out what it means. Maybe because they can see what a person is actually trying to say, and not just the words themselves. This is why they stress implied statements.


I won't know what you are talking about until you say it. And the problem on #47 was not the terminology. It was conceptual. It was mixed up.
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 03:43 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;120547 wrote:
I won't know what you are talking about until you say it. And the problem on #47 was not the terminology. It was conceptual. It was mixed up.



Well you can think that if you want, but how can you come to that conclusion if you dont understand my jargon?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 03:45 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;120550 wrote:
Well you can think that if you want, but how can you come to that conclusion if you dont understand my jargon?


It wasn't your jargon. You were mixed up. For example, you wrote, Deductive arguments have true premises and a conclusion that necessarily follows.

In fact, some deductive arguments do not have true premises, and some deductive arguments do not have conclusions that necessarily follow. So, in just one sentence, you made two elementary mistakes in logic. And that had nothing at all to do with jargon.
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 04:15 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;120551 wrote:
It wasn't your jargon. You were mixed up. For example, you wrote, Deductive arguments have true premises and a conclusion that necessarily follows.

In fact, some deductive arguments do not have true premises, and some deductive arguments do not have conclusions that necessarily follow. So, in just one sentence, you made two elementary mistakes in logic. And that had nothing at all to do with jargon.



Really, some arguments can be invalid? You so smart ken. :sarcastic:

The implication was valid, or sound, (I always get those two confused).
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 04:25 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;120557 wrote:
Really, some arguments can be invalid? You so smart ken. :sarcastic:

The implication was valid, or sound, (I always get those two confused).


But do all deductive arguments have true premises, as you wrote? And do all deductive arguments have conclusions that necessarily follow? The answers to both are, no. You wrote that they were, yes. Case closed. If you get "valid" and "sound" confused, then you are confused about a basic distinction in elementary logic. Case closed, again.
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 04:30 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;120559 wrote:
But do all deductive arguments have true premises, as you wrote? And do all deductive arguments have conclusions that necessarily follow? The answers to both are, no. You wrote that they were, yes. Case closed. If you get "valid" and "sound" confused, then you are confused about a basic distinction in elementary logic.



I never said ALL. Quote me.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 07/27/2021 at 12:13:49