(August 7, 2012 at 8:52 am)Rhythm Wrote: Your first doesn't follow, the second premise is not true. You haven't disputed or elaborated upon anything that you responded to.
The point was that an invalid argument can nevertheless have a true conclusion. Which was what I said.
Quote:Since the first doesn't follow, it matters very little what your premise was to begin with.
Since the second premise is not true, even though you may have "stumbled" upon the correct answer (you didn't, actually, you already knew the correct answer so you just strung nonsense before it as if to make a point) the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Not "as if to make a point". To make the point that whether an argument's conclusion is true does not depend on whether the argument is valid, or whether the premises are true.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
