"Logical validity is not a guarantee of truth. What

Learn formal logic. Syntax and semantics are not the same thing. And logical validity is not the sine qua non of phenomenology.

Further, validity and soundness are not the same. And a logical conclusion can have false premises.

P1. All Frenchmen are weeaboos
P2. X is a Frenchman
C: X is a weeaboo.

>>8676265
DFW killed himself and so should you.

>>8676297

This. Validity =/= soundness.

>>8676265
Jews causing 9/11 is logical, because they stood to gain from the wars that ensued against their enemies. And they are sneaky. And jet fuel can't melt steel beams. And the twin towers was owned by a jew. And the insurance thing.

Doesn't mean it's the truth.

>>8676265
the premises may not be true

but really what he meant was this:
>step 1: english majors can't fucking do math or formal logic at all, so I'll just toss in some introductory level shit to mystify them and make them think I'm a genius
>step 2: do this for 5000 pages so they really think i'm a super genious
>step 3: too much pussy
>step 4: ???
>step 5: kms

>>8676297
>>8676302
/thread

This is Logic 101 fyi, nothing to be ashamed of not knowing its just vocabulary that has a different meaning inside symbolic logic than it does otherwise

Basically validity means theres no fallacy but doesnt gaurantee truth, its the basic criteria for an argument to be engaged at all. Soundness is validity and truth, and of course this is the subjective one that can always be argued over

>>8676766
You can argue over validity also since nobody really formalises and presents arguments in symbolic logic, rather doing an ad-hoc surface-grammar-to-object-language conversion.

But Anon all frenchmen ARE weaboos

>>8676745
*yawn*
DFW bashing is pretty old. Get a new schtick, m8.

>>8676265
Just because a swan is white and you see it, that doesn't mean it can't talk.

>>8676265
In order for an argument to be true, it must be logica & sound at the same time. Logical being that the premises entail the conclusion correctly.
For example :
P(demise)1 : If I don't eat, I will be hungry.
P(demise)2 : I am hungry.
C : Therefore, I did not eat.
The premises follow the conclusion accordingly.
Now, soundness is whether or not an argument MAY be true considering that the premises entail the conclusion logically.
An unsound argument may be logical, however.
Here's an example,
P1 : Birds eat.
P2 : I eat.
C : Therefore , I am a bird.
In conclusion, an argument needs both qualities (soundness & validity) in order to be a strong argument, and thus is more likely than not to be true. If an argument has only one quality it is considered a weak argument, and is most likely to be false.

>>8676863
Your second example is not logical, it is fallacious.
P1: If you are a bird, then you eat.
P2: I eat (affirming the consequent)
C: I am a bird.

I eat is multiply realisable. In other words, you don't have to be a bird in order to be able to eat. You can also be a human.

What you want instead is:
P1: If you are a bird, then you eat.
P2: I am a bird.
C: I eat.

Consider:
P1: All men are mortal (If you are a man, then you are mortal)
P2: Socrates is a man (affirming the antecedent).
C: Socrates is mortal. (logical, no fallacious reasoning)
This is the case, unless I've completely misunderstood what you've written or I don't understand what I've been studying.

>>8676301
Love how he glued his hands together beforehand so cute

>>8676265
He meant OP is a faggot

>>8676863
I don't understand example one. It doesn't follow.

>>8676950
You're right, thanks for pointing that out. I took Logic 2 1/2 years ago so I'm quite rusty on the subject & had forgotten that affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent are invalid or fallacious arguments.

>>8677008
It doesn't follow because I affirmed the consequent of the first premise thus rendering the argument invalid
see>>8676950
for a better example

File: uliilia.jpg (12KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x360px

>>8676745
>obtain multiple degrees in a variety of majors
>published in several scientific journals
>tfw rejected for publication again
>they didn't understand my avant-garde dissolution of the art-science divide