RE: Is evidentialism justified?
January 6, 2011 at 10:25 pm
(This post was last modified: January 6, 2011 at 11:14 pm by theVOID.)
@DvF yeah sort of, but there is a problem with that way of putting it though, the acquisition-level "proto-justification " is lost when examination fails while a pragmatic justification is still pragmatic if the examination fails because the examination of the belief does naught to influence the potential usefulness of the belief.
I think Acquisition = Proto-justification, Examination = Justification.
Proto-justification is a mix of pragmatic and epistemic...
And there is where you've got it wrong... The premises do not necessarily need to be assumed to be true, that would be a conditional argument, IF the premises are true THEN the conclusion is necessary. These arguments are designed to show a train of thought and not necessitate or 'prove' a conclusion to be true.
A sound and valid argument is and argument that attempts to prove a conclusion, this is a type of argument in which the premises ARE true, so it is not conditional upon a mutually assumed premise. It can be difficult to determine soundness (far more so than validity) and we are often wrong, but that does not mean that a sound and valid argument does not exist - It's more a statement about the limits of our abilities rather than the validity of the concepts.
You seem to be confusing your terms.
The validity of an argument referrers to the premises following logically to the conclusion (the inference).
A 'Valid' inference is a true conclusion. (you should avoid talking about validity in more than one sense).
It is not possible for an inference to be valid and untrue simultaneously (the law of non-contradiction). You can however have a true inference with an invalid or unsound argument.
You can have an argument that is neither sound nor valid that has a true conclusion.
You may find an argument that isn't sound or isn't valid, but as long as it is both it is necessarily true.
Their arguments weren't sound.
Firstly, a sound and valid argument is evidence. So is a sound and valid Bayesian probability.
Secondly, without me providing you evidence do you refuse to accept the following? The only possible question could be "Is G6523B actually only black?" or "Is keyboard x actually model B6534B?" - The soundness of the argument depends on these both being true while it is a valid argument because of it's form.
1. Keyboard x a G6523B
2. Model G6523B only comes in black
3. Therefore, Keyboard x is black
Also, Evidence only leads to conclusions when considered logically. A fact by it's self is just a fact and is not a conclusion within any conceptual model we might have.
1. The half life of C-14 is 5,730 years.
2. A piece of coal x is 1:1trillion parts C-14 at t1
3. x is 1:500billion parts N-14 at t2
4. Therefore, t1 happened 5,730 years prior to t2
I think you have your terms confused, either that or you are going along some line like "some arguments that claim to be sound and valid can be false therefore all arguments that are in fact sound and valid can be false".
I think Acquisition = Proto-justification, Examination = Justification.
Proto-justification is a mix of pragmatic and epistemic...
padraic Wrote:Quote:An argument that is sound and valid is necessarily true, you can argue whether or not it is sound by demanding evidence for the premises but it is still easy enough to establish a necessary truth.
THERE'S the rub. I only did a year's philosophy at university,but I WAS taught by actual philosophers. I was taught that using the rules of inference, the inference may or may not be true.That in formal logic,the premise is always assumed to be true for the sake of argument.
And there is where you've got it wrong... The premises do not necessarily need to be assumed to be true, that would be a conditional argument, IF the premises are true THEN the conclusion is necessary. These arguments are designed to show a train of thought and not necessitate or 'prove' a conclusion to be true.
A sound and valid argument is and argument that attempts to prove a conclusion, this is a type of argument in which the premises ARE true, so it is not conditional upon a mutually assumed premise. It can be difficult to determine soundness (far more so than validity) and we are often wrong, but that does not mean that a sound and valid argument does not exist - It's more a statement about the limits of our abilities rather than the validity of the concepts.
Quote:That the logical form may be valid and the inference valid,but untrue. This is a common problem with syllogistic logic.
You seem to be confusing your terms.
The validity of an argument referrers to the premises following logically to the conclusion (the inference).
A 'Valid' inference is a true conclusion. (you should avoid talking about validity in more than one sense).
It is not possible for an inference to be valid and untrue simultaneously (the law of non-contradiction). You can however have a true inference with an invalid or unsound argument.
You can have an argument that is neither sound nor valid that has a true conclusion.
You may find an argument that isn't sound or isn't valid, but as long as it is both it is necessarily true.
Quote:It is my understanding that the notion of truth through reason alone goes back to the neo Platonists,(starting with Plotinus) and was used for example by Ptolemy and his geocentric solar system and indeed heavily influenced Christian thinkers such as Augustine.
Their arguments weren't sound.
Quote:I demand logic AND evidence to accept something as true for all practical purposes,until new evidence is found.I have a problem getting my head around the idea of an absolute truth.
Firstly, a sound and valid argument is evidence. So is a sound and valid Bayesian probability.
Secondly, without me providing you evidence do you refuse to accept the following? The only possible question could be "Is G6523B actually only black?" or "Is keyboard x actually model B6534B?" - The soundness of the argument depends on these both being true while it is a valid argument because of it's form.
1. Keyboard x a G6523B
2. Model G6523B only comes in black
3. Therefore, Keyboard x is black
Also, Evidence only leads to conclusions when considered logically. A fact by it's self is just a fact and is not a conclusion within any conceptual model we might have.
1. The half life of C-14 is 5,730 years.
2. A piece of coal x is 1:1trillion parts C-14 at t1
3. x is 1:500billion parts N-14 at t2
4. Therefore, t1 happened 5,730 years prior to t2
Quote:Have I misunderstood or are we perhaps simply talking on different levels?
I think you have your terms confused, either that or you are going along some line like "some arguments that claim to be sound and valid can be false therefore all arguments that are in fact sound and valid can be false".
.
