{"id":12097,"date":"2009-11-30T04:32:15","date_gmt":"2009-11-30T04:32:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2009\/11\/30\/validity-invalidity-and-logical-form\/"},"modified":"2009-11-30T04:32:15","modified_gmt":"2009-11-30T04:32:15","slug":"validity-invalidity-and-logical-form","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2009\/11\/30\/validity-invalidity-and-logical-form\/","title":{"rendered":"Validity, Invalidity, and Logical Form"},"content":{"rendered":"<p align=\"justify\" class=\"firstinpost\"><font face=\"Georgia\">When we say that an argument is valid we are saying something about its logical form. To put it epigrammatically, validity is a matter of form. We are saying that its form is such that no (actual or possible) argument of that form has true premises and a false conclusion. Validity is necessarily truth preserving. I just used the expression, &#39;its form.&#39; But since an argument can have two or more forms, a better formulation is this:<\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">1. An argument is valid iff it instantiates a valid argument-form.<br \/><\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">Given (1), some will be tempted by<\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">2. An argument is invalid iff it instantiates an invalid argument-form.<\/font><\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\" class=\"trigger\" id=\"shf0ucaw8l.18\" style=\"DISPLAY: none\">&#0160;<\/div>\n<p><font face=\"Georgia\">But (2) is false. After all, <em>every<\/em> (noncircular) argument instantiates an invalid form. &#39;Some cameras are digital devices; therefore, some digital devices are cameras,&#39; which is obviously valid, instantiates the invalid form <em>p therefore q.<\/em> Similarly, every valid syllogism has the invalid form <em>p, q, therefore r.<\/em> Consider this argument: <\/font><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\" class=\"hidden\" style=\"DISPLAY: block\"><font face=\"Georgia\"><\/font><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\" class=\"hidden\" style=\"DISPLAY: block\"><font face=\"Georgia\">3. Zeno is famous for his paradoxes of motion<br \/>4. Zeno is a Stoic<br \/>&#8212;&#8211;<br \/>5. Some Stoic is famous for his paradoxes of motion.<br \/><\/font><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\" class=\"hidden\" style=\"DISPLAY: block\"><font face=\"Georgia\">Is this argument valid?&#0160; <\/font><font face=\"Georgia\">The argument&#0160; is plainly valid inasmuch as it instantiates a valid form. The problem with the argument, of course, is that it is unsound: if (3) is true, then (4) is false, and if (4) is true, then (3) is false. For (3) to be true, &#39;Zeno&#39; must refer to Zeno of Elea, but for (4) to be true, &#39;Zeno&#39; must refer to Zeno of Citium. And of course neither can refer to my late cat, Zeno (may peace be upon him). <\/font><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\" class=\"hidden\" style=\"DISPLAY: block\"><font face=\"Georgia\">Now consider this argument:<\/font><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\" class=\"hidden\" style=\"DISPLAY: block\"><font face=\"Georgia\">6. If God created something, then God created everything<br \/>7. God created everything<br \/>&#8212;&#8211;<br \/>8. God created something.<br \/><\/font><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\" class=\"hidden\" style=\"DISPLAY: block\"><font face=\"Georgia\">This instantiates the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent. Is the argument therefore invalid? No! For it also instantiates a valid form:<\/font><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\" class=\"hidden\" style=\"DISPLAY: block\"><font face=\"Georgia\">Everything is such that: Fx<br \/>&#8212;&#8211;<br \/>Something is such that: Fx.<br \/><\/font><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>When we say that an argument is valid we are saying something about its logical form. To put it epigrammatically, validity is a matter of form. We are saying that its form is such that no (actual or possible) argument of that form has true premises and a false conclusion. Validity is necessarily truth preserving. &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2009\/11\/30\/validity-invalidity-and-logical-form\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Validity, Invalidity, and Logical Form&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[108],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12097","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-logica-docens"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12097","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12097"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12097\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12097"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12097"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12097"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}