{"id":9701,"date":"2012-05-15T16:40:58","date_gmt":"2012-05-15T16:40:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2012\/05\/15\/abbreviations-place-holders-and-logical-form\/"},"modified":"2012-05-15T16:40:58","modified_gmt":"2012-05-15T16:40:58","slug":"abbreviations-place-holders-and-logical-form","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2012\/05\/15\/abbreviations-place-holders-and-logical-form\/","title":{"rendered":"Abbreviations, Place-Holders, and Logical Form"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"firstinpost\"><span style=\"font-family: Georgia;\">It is one thing to abbreviate an argument, another to depict its logical form. Let us consider the following argument composed in what might be called &#39;canonical English&#39;:<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: Georgia;\">1. If God created some contingent beings, then he created all contingent beings.<br \/>2. God created all contingent beings.<br \/>&#8212;&#8211;<br \/>3. God created some contingent beings. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: Georgia;\">The above &#0160;is an argument, not an argument-form. The following abbreviation of the argument is also an argument, not an argument-form:<\/span><span style=\"font-family: Georgia;\">&#0160;<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<p class=\"hidden\" style=\"display: block;\"><span style=\"font-family: Georgia;\">1. P &#8211;&gt; Q<br \/>2. Q<br \/>&#8212;<br \/>3. P<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"hidden\" style=\"display: block;\"><span style=\"font-family: Georgia;\">Both are arguments; it is just that the second is an abbreviation of the first in which sentences are replaced with upper-case letters and the logical words with symbols from the propositional calculus. But it is easy to confuse the second argument with the following argument-<em>form<\/em>:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"hidden\" style=\"display: block;\"><span style=\"font-family: Georgia;\">1. p &#8211;&gt; q<br \/>2. q<br \/>&#8212;<br \/>3. p<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"hidden\" style=\"display: block;\"><span style=\"font-family: Georgia;\">An argument-form is a one-over-many: many arguments can have the same form. And the same goes for its constituent propositional forms: each is a one-over-many. &#39;p &#8211;&gt; q&#39; is the form of indefinitely many conditional statements. But an argument, whether spelled out or abbreviated, is a particular, and as such uninstantiable. One cannot substitute different statements for the upper-case &#39;P&#39; and &#39;Q&#39; above.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"hidden\" style=\"display: block;\"><span style=\"font-family: Georgia;\">Some of you will call this hair-splitting. But I prefer to think of it as a distinction essential to clear thinking in logic. For suppose you confuse the second two schemata. Then you might think that the original argument, the one in &#39;canonical English,&#39; is an instance of the formal fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. But the second schema, though it is an instance of the third, is also an instance of a valid argument-form:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"hidden\" style=\"display: block;\"><span style=\"font-family: Georgia;\">(x)(Cgx)<br \/>&#8212;<br \/>(Ex)(Cgx).<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"hidden\" style=\"display: block;\"><span style=\"font-family: Georgia;\">In sum, the confusion of abbreviations with place-holders aids and abets the mistake of thinking that an argument that instantiates an invalid form is invalid. Validity and invalidity are asymmetrical: if an argument instantiates a valid form, then it is valid; but if it instantiates an invalid form, then it may or may not be invalid. <\/span><\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>It is one thing to abbreviate an argument, another to depict its logical form. Let us consider the following argument composed in what might be called &#39;canonical English&#39;: 1. If God created some contingent beings, then he created all contingent beings.2. God created all contingent beings.&#8212;&#8211;3. God created some contingent beings. The above &#0160;is an &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2012\/05\/15\/abbreviations-place-holders-and-logical-form\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Abbreviations, Place-Holders, 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-9701","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-logica-docens"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9701","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=9701"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9701\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9701"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9701"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9701"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}