Persuasion as Proof

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo wrote:

But do we call that reasoning fallacious to the degree that it fails to persuade us? Not that Witt is the end-all be-all, but he defined logic as tautological. To the degree that it is tautological it can only make us aware of what we already know. Of course this too could be described as persuasion, but tautologies are so persuasive that I won't go into that.

But what if Witt. meant that tautologies are tautologies no matter who is persuaded by them? What is is what is, no matter if it is persuasive.

Quote:

Does the separation of persuasion and proof require the positing of a neutral standpoint? Is proof just a matter of consensus?

I don't think so. Again, going back to Pythagorean, didn't he prove that theorem without persuading at all? He established mathematically that it was true. It didn't matter if anyone ever even saw it! It was still true!

I think some arguments are sound and some arguments are not, just as I think some tables are made of wood and some tables are not. It's not just how we perceive them. I think those damn arguments have some property which is independent of our perception. Obviously they must, because why would we consider some arguments sound and some arguments not, if they were all identical?!

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;130538 wrote:

But do we call that reasoning fallacious to the degree that it fails to persuade us?

You ought to rid yourself of the idea that what we call things is necessarily what they are. It may be only that what we call things is what they seem to be. Suppose an argument is called fallacious because it is unpersuasive. How does that show it is fallacious? It doesn't of course. And, similarly, to call an argument "sound" doesn't mean it is sound.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;130541 wrote:

It didn't matter if anyone ever even saw it! It was still true!

I can't agree. Of course geometrical theorems are some of the most persuasive. But I don't think the concept of truth exists without the human mind. Also, this is still just Z being persuasive. Can you prove your own statement here? Or do you just find your view persuasive and expect the presentation of it to be equally persuasive?
:Glasses:

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;130545 wrote:

I can't agree. Of course geometrical theorems are some of the most persuasive. But I don't think the concept of truth exists without the human mind. Also, this is still just Z being persuasive. Can you prove your own statement here? Or do you just find your view persuasive and expect the presentation of it to be equally persuasive?
:Glasses:

See, now we go back to the beginning. The very beginning, those months ago when we began. You go back to truth not existing independent of the mind.

Well, I think it does. I think truth exists independent of the mind. I don't know what "ism" this belief is, but I shall find it for you!

It's not about persuasion all the time, my friend. My table is made of glass, no matter who is persuaded that it is made of glass. I shouldn't have to persuade you of that1

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;130541 wrote:

But what if Witt. meant that tautologies are tautologies no matter who is persuaded by them? What is is what is, no matter if it is persuasive.

I don't think so. Again, going back to Pythagorean, didn't he prove that theorem without persuading at all? He established mathematically that it was true. It didn't matter if anyone ever even saw it! It was still true!

I think some arguments are sound and some arguments are not, just as I think some tables are made of wood and some tables are not. It's not just how we perceive them. I think those damn arguments have some property which is independent of our perception. Obviously they must, because why would we consider some arguments sound and some arguments not, if they were all identical?!

Of course. Validity and soundness are objective properties of arguments, as are invalidity, and unsoundness. How could that be disputed? There are objective criteria for each description. Just as there is for whether an addition is correct or incorrect. Anyone who doubt it is simply ignorant of logic. I earlier gave a clear example of a fallacious argument. It was fallacious because it had true premises and a false conclusion. And all (but not only) arguments with true premises, but a false conclusion are fallacious.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;130541 wrote:

I think some arguments are sound and some arguments are not, just as I think some tables are made of wood and some tables are not. It's not just how we perceive them. I think those damn arguments have some property which is independent of our perception. Obviously they must, because why would we consider some arguments sound and some arguments not, if they were all identical?!

I wouldn't argue that all arguments are equal. In fact, I would argue the opposite.Yes, there is something to arguments that seems to be independent of our perception. Some "truths" are common exactly because we find them almost universally persuasive.

---------- Post added 02-21-2010 at 01:06 AM ----------

Zetherin;130546 wrote:

I shouldn't have to persuade you of that1

But you should have to persuade me that you shouldn't have to persuade me?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;130547 wrote:

Of course. Validity and soundness are objective properties of arguments, as are invalidity, and unsoundness. How could that be disputed? There are objective criteria for each description.

It is disputed by people who think that everything is relative, dependent on how we perceive it! Someone could just decide, whoops, this argument is now valid or sound!

NO, Reconstructo! That's not how things work.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;130546 wrote:

I think truth exists independent of the mind.

Yes, this is the crux of our disagreement. Cheers!

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo wrote:

But you should have to persuade me that you shouldn't have to persuade me?

What is the belief that things don't exist outside of our mind? I don't know. It sounds like some sort of psychological disorder. You believe that if no one was persuaded that my table is made of glass, that it is not made of glass? I'll have to do some more research.

My mom works in a psyche hospital, she'll be able to help.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;130550 wrote:

It is disputed by people who think that everything is relative, dependent on how we perceive it! Someone could just decide, whoops, this argument is now valid or sound!

NO, Reconstructo! That's not how things work.

(Smiling) Relativism is a tricky position that I will not claim. Ironism is more like it.

The world we live in won't allow us the liberty you think my views imply. My criticism is aimed at more abstract persuasions. I'm not seriously attacking geometry and tautologies. I just trying to tap on this notion of universal reason a bit to see if it is hollow. Are you familiar with the "transcendental pretense"? I think that life and science are both impossible without assumptions, faith, etc. I'm attacking what I think is a naive faith in reason-as-universal. I think reason and logic are questionable abstractions that are no doubt useful but also dangerous apt to serve as unconsidered idols. Think of Marx whose Dialectical Materialism was no doubt utterly rational to him. So was Hegel's system. And so on. They all claim universal reason as their ally, just as two armies might both claim God.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo wrote:

Yes, this is the crux of our disagreement. Cheers!

So you don't believe it was true the Earth existed before any minds did? What about the entire Milky Way - does it only exist because we are persuaded it does?

I don't understand how any rational human being can think this sort of thing. Maybe under the influence of some sort of drug.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;130550 wrote:

It is disputed by people who think that everything is relative, dependent on how we perceive it! Someone could just decide, whoops, this argument is now valid or sound!

NO, Reconstructo! That's not how things work.

Simple logic machines can decide for any argument in the propositional calculus whether a given argument is valid or not. It is absurd to deny it. There is an effective decision procedure for the propositional calculus, such that for any argument that can be formulated in the calculus, it can be determined whether that argument is valid or invalid. That is simply a matter of fact.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;130552 wrote:

What is the belief that things don't exist outside of our mind? I don't know. It sounds like some sort of psychological disorder. You believe that if no one was persuaded that my table is made of glass, that it is not made of glass? I'll have to do some more research.

My mom works in a psyche hospital, she'll be able to help.

Now don't get silly, bro! That position is called solipsism and I have no truck with it. Let's say that your table is made of glass? Ok. But glass is made of our concept of glass as well as our sensations of "glass." Glass is made of language as well as carbon. That's what I mean. Only a madmad denies a world outside his mind. Please don't fall into a certain person's habit of attacking scarecrows. I want to have friendly debates with someone. Personal attacks don't do your case much good, either. I'm supposed to be the rhetoric-guy, remember?

---------- Post added 02-21-2010 at 01:16 AM ----------

Zetherin;130554 wrote:

So you don't believe it was true the Earth existed before any minds did? What about the entire Milky Way - does it only exist because we are persuaded it does?

I don't understand how any rational human being can think this sort of thing. Maybe under the influence of some sort of drug.

That's because you don't understand what I'm saying, man. Why assume the negative rather than that you may misunderstand me? Are you familiar with German philosophy since Kant? If not, you are likely to take me wrong.

For me, truth is a property of sentences. I accuse your position of a lack of linguistic self-consciousness.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;130538 wrote:

But do we call that reasoning fallacious to the degree that it fails to persuade us?

To be finally persuaded is to give ones assent to a particular position.

If I say A implies B and C implies B therefor A=C is a fallacious argument then what am I trying to persuade you from believing?
A=C? What is A=C? How can you assent or not assent to A=C when you don't know what A or C is?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo wrote:

For me, truth is a property of sentences.

So I don't misunderstand you: The Milky Way exists is a truth. And truths to you are just properties of sentences. So, where does that leave the Milky Way? It is just a property of a sentence...?

Quote:

Personal attacks don't do your case much good, either. I'm supposed to be the rhetoric-guy, remember?

Sorry, not attacking you personally. I am attacking your case. I have nothing wrong with you personally.

@Deckard,

Deckard;130558 wrote:

To be finally persuaded is to give ones assent to a particular position.

If I say A implies B and C implies B therefor A=C is a fallacious argument then what am I trying to persuade you from believing?
A=C? What is A=C? How can you assent or not assent to A=C when you don't know what A or C is?

But a fallacious argument does not prove its conclusion is not true. A fallacious argument may have a true conclusion. The argument: Argument A is fallacious, therefore the conclusion of A is false, is a fallacious argument.

@kennethamy,

Deckard;130558 wrote:

To be finally persuaded is to give ones assent to a particular position.

If I say A implies B and C implies B therefor A=C is a fallacious argument then what am I trying to persuade you from believing?
A=C? What is A=C? How can you assent or not assent to A=C when you don't know what A or C is?

kennethamy;130562 wrote:

But a fallacious argument does not prove its conclusion is not true. A fallacious argument may have a true conclusion. The argument: Argument A is fallacious, therefore the conclusion of A is false, is a fallacious argument.

Yeah I botched it. It was an invalid argument. Maybe I'll start a thread in philosophy 101 about this and so I did

http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/philosophy-101/7679-what-difference-between-fallacious-arguement-invalid-arguement.html

If I say that A implies B and B implies C therefore A implies C is a valid argument then what am I trying to persuade you of? A implies C? What is A? what is C?

This is an example of a proof that is not used to persuade. The point is that this is still an argument but we have no idea what A B and C are. I'm trying to isolate proof from persuasion. I don't know if succeeded.

(Yikes Zetherin edited your post. Makes me think you said something nasty.)

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;130560 wrote:

So I don't misunderstand you: The Milky Way exists is a truth. And truths to you are just properties of sentences. So, where does that leave the Milky Way? It is just a property of a sentence...?

Sorry, not attacking you personally. I am attacking your case. I have nothing wrong with you personally.

I said truth is a property of sentences, not that truths are properties of sentences, but I think you know what I mean. Are you seriously asking if the Milky Way, to me, is the property of a sentence?

@Deckard,

Deckard;130582 wrote:

Yeah I botched it. It was an invalid argument. Maybe I'll start a thread in philosophy 101 about this.

If I say that A implies B and B implies C therefore A implies C is a valid argument then what am I trying to persuade you of? A implies C? What is A? what is C?

This is an example of a proof that is not used to persuade. The point is that this is still an argument but we have no idea what A B and C are. I'm trying to isolate proof from persuasion. I don't know if succeeded.

(Yikes Zetherin edited your post. Makes me think you said something nasty.)

I figured you'd use that as an example, but first you must persuade someone that the framework you have set up through formalizing the argument is correct. One would think this would be easy, but the problem rests in the fact that logic is intuitive, just as the propositions put into a logical proof are intuitive at heart.

@Deckard,

Deckard;130582 wrote:

Yeah I botched it. It was an invalid argument. Maybe I'll start a thread in philosophy 101 about this.

If I say that A implies B and B implies C therefore A implies C is a valid argument then what am I trying to persuade you of?

That such an argument is valid. I admit that when we get down to the most basic examples of proof the similarity to persuasion is less visible/arguable. But this is to steer the thread, in my eyes, from the its intended focus.

For the sake of argument, let's call tautologies proofs. How far can we go from there before the line blues twixt proof and persuasion?

---------- Post added 02-21-2010 at 04:00 AM ----------

Scottydamion;130598 wrote:

One would think this would be easy, but the problem rests in the fact that logic is intuitive, just as the propositions put into a logical proof are intuitive at heart.

Yes, and intuitive pretty much means universally persuasive. Or near-universally persuasive.

---------- Post added 02-21-2010 at 04:01 AM ----------

Deckard;130582 wrote:

(Yikes Zetherin edited your post. Makes me think you said something nasty.)

I don't believe I did. I hope not.

Philosophy Forum

Persuasion as Proof

Quick Links

My Account

able2know