Talk:Argument/Archive 1 - Knowledge (XXG)

2351:

namespace, it is at least organized well. Why should everywhere in the wikipedia people use the more inconvienient wikilink ] for this very basic concept? Take a look at the "what links here" and do some analysis based on that please. You just don't see the rhetorical aspects of argument as a part of logic and I disagree. Why study it at all for crying out loud? You missed my point about my explaining ind/ded arguments millions of times: all I am saying is that I have explained "argument" to people in the process of studying "argument" formally. I'm sure it will shock and amaze you to learn that I would like a section on legal arguments close to the end of this article as well. They sure do attempt to take the form of a logical argument do they not? They are the same concept, and belong in a comprehensive article that has potential to be FA someday. Comprehensive. Interdisciplinary. Please. Be well

569:

inferencias válidas en teorías matemáticas formales. Una teoría de la validez de teorías matemáticas formales postula dos elementos claros: la sintaxis que da las reglas para cuando una fórmula se construye correctamente y semántico que es esencialmente una función de fórmulas a valores de verdad. Una expresión se dice ser válido si la función semántica asigna el valor verdadero a. Una regla de la inferencia es válida si y sólo si es validez-preservar. Un argumento es válido si y sólo si utiliza las reglas válidas de la inferencia. Note que en el caso de matemático semántico, la sintaxis y semántico son objetos matemáticos.

2504:? Why this sentence at all? If we know the "understanding" is less precise, should we present it at all? Why not replace it by an understanding that is more precise? Finally, is the reader who does not yet know what a deductive argument is supposed to understand the meaning of "proceeds from general principles or premises to derive particulars"? I believe that I know what a deductive argument is, but even then I don't understand the quoted text. The reasoning may proceed according to general principles, but to derive particular conclusions you need particular premises. -- 588:

semántica limitada que utiliza los términos del modelo y la validez del argumento es reducida a que del modelo abstracto. Esta clase de la reducción se utiliza en las ciencias naturales generalmente, y sería especialmente útil en discutir acerca de asuntos sociales si los partidos pueden convenir en un modelo. Desgraciadamente, esto reducción previa rara vez ocurre, con el resultado que argumentos acerca de la política social tienen raramente una resolución satisfactoria.

2559:

necessarily follows from the premises.) Any argument is valid whose conclusion is a necessary truth, no matter its form or premises. Eg I am a walrus therefore it is true that it is raining or it is false that it is raining. I think it most unhelpful and plainly wrong to define a valid argument as one whose concusion is a necessary truth (although it might be). You might just as well say that the president of the united states is a drunkard (becuase he might be)

950:, where validity holds iff the conclusion follows from the premises. In my view, this has the relationship between the two concepts back to front, and the formulation of validity is too strong (many intuitively valid arguments will be counted invalid according to this definition, eg. weakening/thinning). In short,the pages are, like the majority of logic pages, a mess and need sorting out. This page is not bad by the standards of the logic pages... ---- 198:

medieval name for logic: dialectics. Ramist logic, which drove out the old School logic in the mid sixteenth century, aimed to provide a set of practical tools for the orator and the debater. That view of logic had faded away by the eighteenth century. But in the mid twentieth century Charles Hamblin revived the link between dialogue and the rules of sound reasoning, soon after Paul Lorenzen had connected dialogue to constructive foundations of logic.

31: 1305:

cited in the article, where they do consider "truth" as a criterion for judging numerous kinds of arguments and find it inadequate to evaluate most arguments in practice. Concepts such as fairness are completely ignored by strictly semantic theories of truth. This is not to say that some communicating process semantics for such arguments wouldn't be desirable, but as far as I know this idea has only been explored very tentatively.

2974:

of griping, or his contrubutions as silly or tiresome. I do not find them so. Lets remain calm and reason together; there are too few people concerning themselves with the quality of these articles. Many need need rewriting, because they are sloppy and inexact, and a BOT will not do the job. So if you are all sitting comfortably, shall we discuss this with mutual respect, polite language and co-operation?

229:

other words, I am thinking of a argumentative dialogue as being represented by the run of a communication protocol (for some idea of the events principals might engage in in this protocol, see van Eemeren Grootendorst). This approach has other advantages viz-- some of the "timing" issues involved in argument (for instance, delay in response in many instances may be regarded as failing to adequately respond)

478:(ordinarily called deductive validity) to arguments. In part, I have been motivated by thinking of moral arguments or political arguments. For example, moral arguments relate sets of moral hypotheses to moral conclusions. Moral assertions may be true or false under particular interpretations of their constituent terms; rather than say an assertion is true under interpretation σ, I prefer to say 2373:). (I reverted this last time, assuming it vanmdalism, but will not do so again.) The scope of the subject matter has thereby increased beyond logic and that appears to be your intent. Perhasps it canbe merged with other articels referred to at Argument ()disbiguation)? Never mind; if needed a discussion on the terms and concept argument in logic can appear in a logic article. Be happy. -- 2584:

duty to address it. We are certainly better served explaining a misperception than ignoring it altogether. I have to wonder what other stuff you are deleting. We are not perpetuating misusage when we qualify the statement as we have as a "less precise understanding." Obviously we are doing exactly the opposite. I agree on the "necessarily true" v. "necessarily follows" issue.

1159:

soundness are justified as being defined by all these sites. I certainly agree that if you can find substantive proof (greater than a single link, which IMHO does not concur with you) that there is an common alternative to the issues of soundness and validity, then I agree it is important to note both approaches in the article, on the grounds of NPOV. (

3253:) and so we might say that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, or follows of logical necessity. The conclusion of a valid argument is not necessarily true, it depends on whether the premises are true. The conclusion of a valid argument need not be a necessary truth: if it were so, it would be so independently of the premisses. 3331:) and so we might say that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, or follows of logical necessity. The conclusion of a valid argument is not necessarily true, it depends on whether the premises are true. The conclusion of a valid argument need not be a necessary truth: if it were so, it would be so independently of the premisses 1632:(timestamped 13:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)). Given the titles, this should be the same subject, and we should not have two separate different articles covering the same topic. I do not understand why you created this page as a totally new article while keeping the other one. If there is absolutely nothing to be merged, then 2297:

in one article or two; not indeed on whether they should be in a more comprehensive article covering wider aspect of Logic. My only thrust is that an article should relate to its subject and avoid digressions and waffle; and in Logic we should aspire to models of clarity and concission. Do you not agree?--

3334:

NB Gregbard: It was to avoid going into this matter that I proposed using "must follow" rather than "necessarily follows" but you reverted it. IF we are going to use "necessrily follows" then we must explain the distinction between (a) being necessarily, e.g a tautology and (b) following necessarily

3069:

Well, I tell you what... There are valid gripes and invalid gripes. It is my sincere hope that we we hear all the valid gripes that exist and avoid all of the invalid ones. I happen to think criticism in general is a wonderful thing, so we just see things differently. Criticism is how we improve. So

2984:

in the way Gregbasrd suggest, ways which are new to me,but thats even more smoke and less light. I suppse we could make the throy of phlogiston works if we said it meant oxygen, of that the earth is falt if we define it to mean spherical. The para reports a usage which is not techically correct be it

2973:

This all seems to be getting a little heated, and generating more smoke than light! Gregbard: we listen to you and respect your views: there is no reason to keep reminding us how you were a TA; appeals to authority are rarely sucessful in this domain. It may upset and annoy Lambiam if you accuse him

1926:

Please, Philogo. We all realize that you created the new article because you consider it significantly different enough to merit one. The truth is that we don't need to disintegrate the wp so that every article has only one academic department concerned with it. We need to work interdisciplinarily in

1494:

CSTAR: I think there are a lot of articles about logic more deserving of a rewrite than this one. I do think the lead paragraph needs to be reworked, though. One thing the article would benefit from is a proper reconciliation between the notion of validity for informal arguments and the criteria of

1484:

I agree. I do not wish to see a complete restriction to the academic or philosophical definitions of a logical argument, yet at the same time, the I consider the distinctions as mentioned relavant to arguments in general. I also think that it is important to discuss the fact that much socio-political

1308:

For example, legal arguments, though not strictly formal logical arguments are arguments nonetheless, with a structure that needs to be accounted for in some way. But how is a legal argument true? Legal arguments are evaluated by other elements in them. Should we suddenly declare, "well these aren't

1248:

This issue is important, since soundness is a fundamental technical term of logic, and the definition we reach here has repercussions for many pages on logic in Knowledge (XXG). It is possible, since the two definitions are not in outright contradiction, to let both definitions be used freely in the

587:

Para argumentos con respecto a temas tales como la probabilidad, la economía o la física, parte de los problemas semánticos se puede empujar convenientemente bajo la alfombra si podemos servirnos de un modelo del fenómeno bajo la discusión. En este caso, nosotros podemos establecer una interpretación

579:

Un enfoque natural seguiría el paradigma y la tentativa matemáticos para definir la validez en términos de semántico de las afirmaciones en el argumento. Aunque tal enfoque apela en su sencillez, los obstáculos a avanzar esta manera es muy difícil para algo de otra manera que los argumentos puramente

228:

The game theoretic view is too explicitly stateful and largely ignores argument history (I know, histories can always be represented in state by taking state large enough) "Histories" of dialectical positions taken by individual participants are an essential ingredient of argumentative dialogue. In

203:

A different strand, not quite so old, is the use of games for teaching logic. This is probably the right way to think of the medieval game of ‘obligationes’, where a debater tries to drive his opponent into an unnecessary contradiction. We have at least two textbooks of logic from the early sixteenth

3238:. These definitions could justly be said to be synonymous. The nature of the relationship between the premises and the conclusion of valid arguments which makes them such is one, if not the, main concern of Logic and the matter cannot be resolved or properly explained by a mere definition; see 3161:

and not the definition of the term as it appears in reputable text books of Logic (rather than ordinary dictionaries). I would be interested and stand to be corrected to see some citations from reputable text books on Logic or authoritve authors which or who promote this definition. Gregbard says

3083:

does seem more harsh than I intended it. So please forgive me, as I often use harsh words, but don't mean them harshly. You are certainly welcome to gripe about it if and when I am too harsh. BTW, rhetoric really should have no effect on persuasiveness, I try to sustain both a pure and logical heart

3031:

I'm pretty sure this is a complete over reaction on your part Philogo. We have merely discussed something very small at great length. I think Lambiam's contributions and discussion posts are wonderful, and I never said that any of his contributions are silly. The only thing I ever said was silly was

2574:

Since we are writing an enclopedia article and not a dictionary I see no good reason to perpetrate missussage. I do not know how many "textbooks and freshman logic classes" "use this language" and I do not think we should be bothered. I believe we should give the best possible explanation: concise

866:

is also correct to say that in model theory (or more accurately, in the study of formal logical systems), the notion of 'soundness' is a related but different notion to that being discussed here. Nevertheless, the modern technical use of the word 'sound' in the field of logical arguments is what we

622:

is lead by: "In ordinary, philosophical and scientific argumentation abductive arguments and arguments by analogy are also commonly used." These need to be explored further in the body of this article rather than relying on the reader clicking on links. For example, outside brain-scanning machines

583:

Una dificultad mayor de seguir este enfoque es eso determinando un dominio semántico apropiado no es una tarea fácil, levantando numerosos asuntos ontológicos espinosos. Levanta también la perspectiva desalentadoa de tener que trabajar fuera teorías semánticas aceptables es antes capaz de decir algo

3433:

The text "Whereas formal arguments are static, such as one might find in a textbook or research article, argumentative dialogue is dynamic. It serves as a published record of justification for an assertion." is ambiguous to me. I see that formal arguments are static so a static medium such as paper

2636:

Lambiam, This may be a shocker, but there is a "real world" of logic out there. That is, that apart from the pure concepts, and the pure language, and the search for the most precise, and concise formulation, there are real people studying this and trying to learn. Our genius understanding of these

2610:

But, assuming this is found in many textbooks, is the reader really served by our parroting an utterly incomprehensible phrase? Can you cite a source that talks about "general premises" in this context? I think this is plainly wrong, and presumably a textbook using this was written by an author who

2583:

You don't know how common the problem is, and yet you know it isn't worth explaining. Philogo please. I was a TA for a logic class of 400. I've explained this stuff a million-billion times. YES, the language that we BOTH agree is inadequate is PROLIFIC in the literature, even to this day. We have a

2296:

as a cover up for vagueness. Whether we have inductive arguments and deductive argument, say, as seperate articles or seperate sections of one article makes no difference; we should stick to the point. You mistake my intent: I have no opinion on whether inductive and deductive arguments should be

2272:

please. That is the only way this article will ever reach its potential. Please stop narrowing it down to your view, because there is a wider audience to think about. You have zero support for your organizational proposal, and lambiam, richard001 and franktobia all appear to oppose you. Please make

2229:

Do you have a reason for saying this? I noted that no comments were made opposing my suggestion to delete, not even from you. To my mind it is mission creep and makes the articel fluffy rather than comprehensive. I think all the sectins I have written are to do with the concept and tem Argumnet in

1321:

As mentioned above: The definition of 'sound argument' as (i) 'valid argument with true premises' as opposed to (ii) 'valid argument' is not universaly accepted, or if it is only recently. Definition (i) I note appear in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Definition (ii) however appears in e.g.

1158:

I am astounded that you find it easier to believe that every article concerning validity and soundness on the Internet has referred to Knowledge (XXG), rather than the fact that you may be mistaken. Regardless of origin, it appears that such terms are indeed common usage, and therefore validity and

591:

Otro enfoque deberá desarrollar una teoría del argumento pragmático, por lo menos en ciertos casos donde argumento e interacción social son estrechamente relacionados. Esto es muy útil cuando la meta del argumento lógico deberá establecer una resolución mutuamente satisfactoria de una diferencia de

2267:

is a subfield of logic that deals with studying literature and rhetoric from a logical perspective. The rhetorical aspects belong in because (for instance) people in a freshman logic class are studying this term, and this is the type of information that will help them. I was a TA for this subject.

1304:

generally agrees with me on that one), argumentative dialogue is more like a communication protocol between principals than a sequence of WFF's in a formal deductive system. How is such an argument -- (i.e. run of a protocol) true? Look at the Chaim Perelman --- Lucie Tyteca-Olbrechts references,

1179:

I had a simlar criticism made the last time I slapped a a 'disputed' notice on an article. It looks to me a straightforward conflict between the interests of editors in having a quiet life, and the interest of users not having questionable 'facts' passed of on them by would-be authorities. If my

552:

En el idioma ordinario, las personas se refieren a la lógica de una terminología del argumento o el uso que sugiere que un argumento se basa en reglas de inferencia de la lógica formal. Aunque los argumentos utilizan las inferencias que son indisputablemente puramente lógicas (tal como silogismos)

3350:

I see you changed to "must" under validity, while keeping "necessarily" under deductive arguments. That is going to be fine, although I think universally that "necessarily" is much better (for reasons given above). Your proposal to clarify this issue with this language is also fine. It's a little

3009:

is thought to mean dangerously corrosive and a tomatoe is though to be vegatable rather than a fruit. Poeple often thsink that Einstein said everything was relative. And so on. Articles in Physics, Litereture and Chemistry might do well to allude to these misconceptions making clear WHY they are

1218:

The definition of 'sound argument' as (i) 'valid argument with true premises' as opposed to (ii) 'valid argument' is not universaly accepted, or if it is only recently. Definition (i) I note appear in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Definition (ii) however appears in e.g. Mates, Elementary

1146:

It clearly is not; it does not directly contradict the lander.edu, but it maintains the definition of soundness that I am familiar with, namely that it is a property of systems of inference intended to capture logical argument, and not logical argument per se. The Stanford Encyc. article nowhere

1043:

puts things (ie. a sound argument is a valid argument from true premisses). However, I do not think that this is a generally accepted definition, and the link is non-authoratative. An authoritative source, the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy disagrees with the definitions provided both for

2517:

Unfortunately many textbooks and freshman logic classes still use the whole "specific to general is inductive, and general to specific is deductive" language. Although we know there is a better way to understand this, we still need to address this language because it is what the audience of this

568:

5 Otra La creencia predominante entre autores matemáticos es que los argumentos válidos en matemáticas son ésos que se pueden reconocer están como en el formalizable del principio en el abarcar la teoría formal. Sigue que la teoría de argumentos válidos en matemáticas es reducible a la teoría de

128:

OK. BTW, I am generally concerned with relating the idea of political argument and economic argument into an article about logical argument. Something needs to said, but I myself am troubled by what I wrote down... to use Knowledge (XXG)'s terminology, the article does seem POV. But what are the

3456:

My roommate and I noticed that the first sentence is really problematic. He's good at copy editing and I think I know what the sentence is trying to say but, between me not really know the best way to say it and him not knowing what was being said, We couldn't make heads or tails of it. I hope

3207:

I am not happy with this because I think the reader may confuse (a) a conclusion following necessarily from its premsies (b) a conclusion which is a necessarilty truth. There is no point in my editing it, howver, if Gregbard is just going to revert. Therefore I will propose the text below in

1920:

for some wonderful guidelines on how to create substantial encyclopedic articles of wide usefulness. Disintegrating this material is to scatter it to the wind for no good purpose. If you want to go in depth on the "deductive logic" aspect of it, please by all means create some content under the

2687:

Strictly speaking you are incorrect in stating that it is "plainly wrong," or the authors do not "understand the concept." That almost sounds like religion on your part. Really all it is is a less convenient understanding for the expert. It is however helpful for the novice. By and large these

1289:

No - I was making a point about the article, not about the subject. Some articles appear to be pushing a particular agenda, rather than remaining NPOV - I was merely commenting that I think it unlikely that any of us are driven by some sort of idealism regarding the article - we all are merely

1092:

In short, a deductive argument must be evaluated in two ways. First, one must ask if the premises provide support for the conclusion by examining the form of the argument. If they do, then the argument is valid. Then, one must ask whether the premises are true or false in actuality. Only if an

329:

There is another strand of 'Argumentation' that is more concerned with it's use as a machine-executable technique for qualitative decision making, and draws on work done by people sung as Dung, Fox, Parsons and McBurney (to name but a few) This is actually fairly different from this page, so I

2350:

that we talk about "in logic", only more fleshed out. As it stands the article is not better contentwise than it was because you have removed a great deal of valuable content. You aren't putting it elsewhere where it can be developed, so that is a problem. However, now that it is in the right

197:

The links between logic and games go back a long way. If one thinks of a debate as a kind of game, then Aristotle already made the connection; his writings about syllogism are closely intertwined with his study of the aims and rules of debating. Aristotle's viewpoint survived into the common

2812:

refers to the principles of logic (which are generally true), particulars include any statement which is a logical consequence of a stated premise (one particular consequence as opposed to the infinity of others that also follow). So you have identified that there are interpretations of this

2558:

These two terms should be distinguised rather than than confused in an article on Logic. It is the corresponding conditional of a valid argument which is a necessary truth - the conclusion need not be. The conclusion of a valid argument may be but need not be a necessary truth (although it

2446:

I thought Philogo's latest deletions unfortunate. I think we both agree that a deductive argument is more accurately described with the "necessarily follows" language. However it is true, and helpful to make sure to include what most texts and classrooms use, even if it is not the greatest

271:, and treating proof theoretic and game semantical approaches more thoroughly. I'll draw on Wilfred Hodges article, and I'd like there to be some commonality of ground between this article and what I write elsewhere. This is the reason I posted the above excerpt in the first place ---- 3434:

is appropriate but argumentative dialogue (AD) is not. In the next sentence "It serves as...",what does "It" refer to because it seems to me it refers to AD and then implies that it should be published - perhaps on paper. I'm certainly no subject expert so I won't try and correct it. --

418:

I added it, because from what I understand regarding argument, the three basic requirements are necessary (regardless of whether or not the argument is formal). I admit that the WFF article link appears to be particularly focused on formal logic, but remind interested parties that a

2198:

and they are all referring to this same concept. This is how we know what is supposed to be where. ONLY you Philogo have this desire to narrow the scope. This article will never get to GA status with a narrow focus. Please join with me and others of various backgrounds in making a

1839:

focussed on arguments in Deductive Logic, be a waffle free zone, and not get sidetracked into discussions of the art of perusuasion or a list of subjects in which arguments are made (it would be quicker to make a lsit of subjects in which they are not made. I have put a link in

1282:

Am I missing something? I thought we agreed that the broader concept of logical argument should be flexible enough to accomodate argumentative dialogue and arguments in the natural and social sciences which use specialized models. Those arguments include social-political ones.

1260:

I think that it is possibly a good solution, Charles - as long as one is careful regarding any issues of partisanship though I doubt that we need to worry about that here as we are all, in good faith, attempting to clarify rather than promote a socio-political agenda of any sort.

3032:

the idea that Lambiam hadn't studied logic closely enough. That was a mild way to diffuse any heat or light, etc., Philogo. I'm always quite calm, however I do like to use, you know, em-PHA-sis. I pretty much agree with the whole second half of your post. However, the word

86:

One of the original contributors to this trend is the philosopher Chaim Perelman, who together with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, introduced the French term La nouvelle rhetorique in 1958 to describe an approach to argument which is not reduced to application of formal rules of

1949:

for making an edit before doing so, and cerainly before undoing. I have followed this but you have not. It was not my impression that we had reached a concensus to merge. I suggest we edit the merged article on the basis that its subject subject is the term and concept

129:

options? The article should say something practical about logical argument and about the structure of argument in general. Merely listing historical facts about theories of argument wouldn't be very helpful. This is a dilemma confronting anybody writing an NPOV article.

1249:

logic pages. It would, however, in view of the pronounced tension between the two definitions, be a recipe for confusion for many users of Knowledge (XXG), so I think we should establish a policy. Perhaps it is time to dust of my proposal for a Wikiproject Logic?

3283:

Valid argument; the premises entail the conclusion. (Remember that does not mean the conclusion has to be true, only if the premisses are true, and perhaps they are not, perhaps some people are saved and some people are doomed, and perhaps some neither saved nor

941:

The current lead paragraph is not ideal; it should be shorter, and I think it should be more informative about what constitutes an argument in formal logic. Informally, an argument cannot be valid unless it is also sound. The current Knowledge (XXG) entry for

3335:

from premises. I have drafted the above paragraoh in an atemt to provide that explanation. Are you content? Does it need polishing? Need a link to article on "necessary truth" I feel. I do not want to copy it into the article if you are going to revert it.--

965:

Not particularly disagreeing with Charles, though I consider finding mess elsewhere does not defend mess here. AFAIK, soundness is concerned with the truth of premisses, whereas validity is concerned with the agreement of the logical structure. For instance,

531:, the plural. The programmer gets a raise. JoeUser asks for the plural of a word which is not in the list. The programmer is fired for raising expectations unreasonably. In other words, the poor programmer has created a valid program which remains unsound. 1051:

defines validity to be conservation of truth, and soundness to be a property not of logical argument per so, but of systems purported to capture (some) logical reasoning, that they only express valid arguments. I propose we adopt these definitions. ----

3133:

for the reasons given above. Therefore I propose it is deleted until somebody proposes a formulation here which all agree adds value to the article. It is NOT valuable material if it is unhelpful. Such a formultion would have to explain and define (a)

580:

lógicos. Entre otros problemas, nosotros necesitamos interpretar las oraciones no sólo enteras, pero también componentes de oraciones, las frases por ejemplo sustantivas tales como El valor actualizado de renta de gobierno para los próximos doce años.

3078:

tone to things usually. I have a great deal of respect for both of you so lets all not be silly. Being offended is a choice, and I hope we all choose to take it easy on each other. That is the spirit in which I communicate. Don't take it so hard.

623:

abduction is the only way we can ascribe people's actual emotions or intent. Also, in practice analogical arguments are frequently the most compelling. Disallowing these methods because they lack rigor makes most practical argument impossible. -

1801:

I support using Pontiff Greg's merged article in place of the two articles in question. I feel it's a good synthesis of both, and the article is stronger for combining them. As for what the article should be named, I'm afraid I'll have to punt.

1437:

That may be so, but it is IMHO a totally unhelful and confusing statement, in fact just plain wrong. I cannot see how it could be th ---- Insert non-formatted text here---- ought appropriate for an encyclpedia. In act I'm just going to delete

310:

in linguitics); since one can reasonably say these are artificial and pernicnious ideas imposed on one's understanding by theoretical models, all this is POV. I agree with deleting empty headings if the body's arrival isn't imminent ----

1915:

Philogo, I think we all appreciate your focus on deductive logic. However, rather than have two "start" articles which will not be improving, we should be getting this "top" importance topic on the way to GA status. Please take a look at

526:

Here is a small counterexample to the attempt to merge validity and soundness: A programmer is assigned the task of displaying the plural of a word. He creates a list of words and their plurals. The users type in a word, hit a key,

120:

I didn't claim the idea is the same as game semantics; it is obviously is given in a very different spirit. Instead, I claimed the ideas have a common root, namely the idea that logic is dialectical or adversarial in nature ----

575:

las Teorías de Teorías de argumentos de argumentos son estrechamente relacionadas a teorías de la lógica informal. Idealmente, una teoría del argumento debe proporcionar algún mecanismo para explicar la validez de argumentos.

1818:

No merge. There should of course be only one article per subject, but if it is not known what the subject is then the result will be fudge: hardly appropriate when writing articles in the subject of Logic.. The inability of

861:

that assigning a fixed, formal meaning to the notion of the 'soundness' of an argument is a recent (i.e. late 20th Century) development. Historically, and colloquially, soundness is probably not distinguished from validity.

2291:

I never said that there should not be a more comprehensive article, but that the contents should relate to the article's subject, or the title should be changed to reflect the content. Otherwise we are just using the term

834:

I have now altered the introductory paragraph and the two following paragraphs, 'Validity' and 'Proof', as discussed above. Is there a good reason why this article is called 'Logical Argument' instead of Argument (Logic)

237:

To echo myself, I'm not saying that game semantics are the right way to frame this article, but rather there is a common idea behind them; also there are interesting points of contact between the two. Some points:

2456:

The conclusion of a sound deductive argument is not necessarily a "necessary truth" as in "analytic truth", however it is in fact necessarily the truth. I thing the "necessary" language really is needed. Be well,

424:

In essence, though I seek not to get involved in any edit war regarding this, I wished to introduce logical argument with a sentence that draws together four important concepts for understanding argumentation:

584:útil acerca de la comprensión y evaluar los argumentos. Para esta razón que el enfoque puramente semántico se reemplaza generalmente con otros enfoques que son más fácilmente aplicables al discurso práctico. 3010:

misconceptions: and we can do the same for this article. I suggest Lambian and/or I draft a new para below and when we are happy with it seek you comments. Does that sound reasonable? (unsigned by Philogo)

2856:

doubt that it promotes understanding for anyone; rather, I fear that it may cloud the reader's incipient understanding. A deductive argument in standard first-order logic is "GIGO": Generality In, Generality

3303:

I agree with this sentiment. If we can find a way to clarify that we are talking about something that necessarily follows, rather than something that itself is a necessary truth, then that is a worthy goal.

3064:

If Lambiam is not offended by "silly", "gripe" and "tiresome" then thats good, but I find such langauge offensive and unhelpful your ideas would be more persuasive if they were not couched in such language.

1921:

section of that title. If such a section is as substantial as the "argumentative dialogue" section then it too should be spun out as a supporting article, and replaced with a summary in the main article.

1466:

arguments of any kind -- Specifically, when a discussion centers around the logic of an argument, one usually refers (I think) to its structure as opposed to the kind of formal semantics it relies on.

1880:. The latters are terms in their subectm but not the formers. Lewis Crrol would have loved this!) If there re any objections to wht I have done, please comment here with reasons before undoing. -- 1147:

upholds the alternative view provided on the links you give. It is quite possible that the Knowledge (XXG) article (originally penned by Larry Sanger) is the source for all of the links you provide.

1016:

From talk pages on various logic articles, it appears to be clear that the distinctions between soundness and validity are not generally understood. Also, I would agree with the wikipedia entry for

221:

The goal of logical argument is only in a restricted sense a win-lose game. True if the goal is to prove X to the satisfaction of the interlocutor, then one either fails or succeeds. However in most

1093:

argument passes both these tests is it sound. However, if an argument does not pass these tests, its conclusion may still be true, despite that no support for its truth is given by the argument.

92:

The idea that logic is best understood in terms of potential dialogs between opposing positions in an argument predates this idea and can be formalised: Lorenzen was the first to do so. See

3351:

technical, but hopefully the wording will evolve to be more accessible to the novice. I don't think it's very needed, however the article is better having fleshed this out a bit. Thank you.

2342:

is blah blah blah..." If it is true, and logicians study it, then it is supposed to be true for all rational beings. I really would appreciate it if we could portray to people that these

2239:

I suggest we edit the merged article on the basis that its subject subject is the term and concept argument in Logic, and I will do so unless someone gives good reasons not to do so. OK?

2914: 2400:

Should these words not be left in italics as they were and other such follwoing are as per the wiki use/mention distinction and not in double quotes as they have been recently put?

1856:

would be on fallacies; however there is nothing wrong with the standard terms valid argument and fallacy and these are covered elsewhere. Can someone explain the syntax hereL: is

248:-- games as they are applied in the semantics of logic are generally intended to capture formally the concept of dialog. The term dialog games is widely used for just this reason. 2475:"It is more commonly understood as the type of reasoning that proceeds from general principles or premises to derive particulars, although this is a less precise understanding." 2688:

authors are people who have taught the subject. Please consider that there are pedagogical concerns, and so therefore YES the reader really is better served by addressing them.

2453:

The reason you give for the other edit was "Careful: the conclusion of a valid argument need not be a necessary truth, (even though it follwos necessarily from the premises))"

1125:

It appears, in light of evidence available across the internet, that your understanding actually differs from generally accepted definitions within the philosophical community.

254:

And dialog games are often formalised without a notion of winning; if they are they may be labelled win-lose-draw (naturally corresponding to non-bivalent approaches to logic).

3186:

It is more commonly understood as the type of reasoning that proceeds from general principles or premises to derive particulars, although this is a less precise understanding.

260:-- its sort of irrelevant, but recently history-free approaches to game semantics have fallen into disfavour, because of technical difficulties they have handling disjunction. 1208:

The clarity of this distinction has never been doubted. It is its tension with the other definition of soundness that originates in model theory that is the problem. ----

258:

The game theoretic view is too explicitly stateful and largely ignores argument history (I know, histories can always be represented in state by taking state large enough)

2872:, written by a reputable author, that promotes this "understanding". If indeed more common, as claimed, it should not be a difficult task to supply a citation or two. -- 1485:

argument tends towards validity, but often are unsound by using premises that look good on the face of it, but are hollow or faulty in light of the minimum of analysis. (

168:

I'm not sure where you're taking this. Your reference to "states" of an argument is intriguing, although I do not see how an argument can possibly be a stateful object.

518:. This is a just a temporary fix, I'll merge the two articles later today, as I promised Nortexoid last week and provided there are no well-founded objections. ---- 1458:

I would be happy if tthe entire article were rewritten. Nevertheless, there are several important issues which should be addressed by any version of this article.

2059:

I think this is unhelpful waffle and will delete it if nobody disagrees. Better to have a link to proof procedures and/or to article(s) on entailment, validity--

1020:; sound arguments are a subset of valid arguments, which themselves are subsets of well-formed arguments. There is an excellent article concerning such issues at 408:

In my view, this is an unacceptable lead paragrph, as it assumes that logical argument must be conducted in a determinate formal language, so I've RV'ed it. ----

2658:

Obviously the phrase is NOT incomprehensible AT ALL. You are merely using dramatized rhetoric at this point. You are asking for a source for the technical term

1476:

Arguments which rely on reduction to mathematical models (e.g. Arguments about Keynesian economics, supply side economics etc could be resolved better this way)

647:"In logic, an argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion called a conclusion, based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises." 1746:(For my part, interesting though it may be, this latter is not really to do with Logic: more to do with Rhetoric or Sociology.) I would propose the article 1241:

cited above. I plan on contacting several of the authors of other entries to try and get a picture of the usage of this definition, and perhaps to find a

1237:

I have contacted Kevin Klement, who is the Logic Editor of the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, and who is therefore responsible for one of the pages

419:

syntactically/semantically incorrect set of statements hold no argumentative power. Moreover, the validity and soundness of an argument are often confused.

831:"For example, arguments commonly deal with causality, probability and statistics or even specialized areas such as economics." -matt :? is not a sentance 2917:

is using this language, but as long as they and untold others are as well, then we really should explain it rather than ignore it. Your new gripe with

2049:. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) : why do you think this paragraph has any place in this article? I do not see how it is about Arguments in Logic. If its 453:

Different logicians use different terminology anyway. You'll find some books use 'sound' to describe arguments that other books call 'valid' and so on.

2203:

article. You say I haven't given sufficient reason, however anyone who has read the Wikiproject Integration guidelines knows exactly what I am doing.

871:

would confirm), the modern usage of 'sound' is to describe a valid argument with true premises. The other uses should be noted in the main article on

204:

century that present it as a game for an individual student, and Lewis Carroll's The Game of Logic (1887) is a more recent example in the same genre.

400:

Technically, an argument is not true, but statements may be. However, it does begin to summarise the requirements for deriving truth from arguments.

279:

I'm taking a logic class and I'm an English teacher so I'm trying to flesh out articles regarding logic and logical writing. Any help appreciated!--

1900:

Help someone is trying to edit this article at the same time as me and its going to hell in a hand basket! Hang on whoever it is, pne at a time!--

2813:

formulation which do not fit the intended use -- we already state that it's a less precise way to formulate it. So I guess that's it for that?!?!?

113:

That the idea is ant-tarskian is clear. However, I don't agree that this is the same as game semantics. I'll be a little more detailed later on.

2450:"It is more commonly understood as the type of reasoning that proceeds from general principles or premises to derive particular information." 263:

I don't see why your idea of dialogues being modelled by a communication protocol should be considered alien to the game semantical tradition.

2480:

To start, the language is sloppy. If I use seven deductive arguments in an essay, have I then used seven types of reasoning? An argument may

1130:

BTW, I don't think going around sticking 'disputed' everywhere is a particularly constructive solution to anything, but that is my opinion. (

807:, precisely because the fact that there are tides is universally accepted. But could I not conjure up appropriate premises, and then make an 1742:

widens the scope so the boudaries are frayed. I think as a result it allows wooly-creep allowing for the inclusion e.g. of the para headed

3462: 2274: 1928: 729:). Note statements are either true or false (not valid or invalid); arguments are valid, invalid sound or unsound (not true or false). " 294:

If nobody puts anything in them I will delete them. I'm not sure any of these distinctions are useful anyway. I also strongly object to

3131:

It is often – but less precisely – described as the type of argument that proceeds from general principles to derive particular claims.

209:

Though some parts of argumentative dialogue theory can be formulated in terms of games, this would be unfortunate for several reasons:

2394:

re "true" or "false", not as being "valid" or "invalid"; arguments are referred to as being "valid" or "invalid", not as being "true"

1392:

specific structure is followed. An invalid argument is one in which a specfic structure is NOT folloInsert non-formatted text herewed

3324: 3246: 1495:

correctness for formal systems of inference. There is a case for merging the articles on soundness and validty with this one. ----

2860:

I'd still like to see a reliable source offering this less felicitous "understanding", something like a textbook with a title like

814:

Is this really a distinction make by philosophers and/or logicians these days? If so, could we put some references to their names?

2637:

things is often of ZERO use to a student just learning who has a misunderstanding. We actually need to meet such people halfway.

1931:

and see what I am going for with this organization. It really doesn't have to diminish the place of your work the way I see it.

1642: 2273:

your wonderful contributions to a more comprehensive article, and don't worry about mission creep. Please again take a look at

1322:

Mates, Elementary Logic, OUP:1972 p4: "An argument is said to be sound (correct, valid) if its conclusion follows from or is a

350:

Postscript -- in fact they don't, I was mixed up, but what you say might better be a page linked to from the disamb page. ----

2976:

We are agreed are we not that the current para is not quite right; I supppose it might be made correct if we define the terms

1753:

focussed on arguments in Deductive Logic, since such an article is needed, and it might provide a link to the other article

3318:

You do not comment on my propsed new test above. Do you not think the text proposed above is sufficient, i.e. where it says

306:

I think "state" of an argument is an idea that is natural to many perspectives when trying to model discourses (should cf.

2415: 2168: 2140: 2095: 974:

are both generally considered to be valid argument forms. But just because a an argument is valid does not make it sound.

786: 441:. I consider the statement balanced, fair, relevant, informative and NPOV. I understand that there are differing views. ( 3146:

are (on the principle being discussed), valid deductive arguments a fortiori dedcutove arguments, and if so how they are

3422:

I am afraid I think this material is off topic, and we could well do without it. --Philogo 23:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

1781:

that would not be better offered elsewhere. Certainly anybody beginning the study of Logic would depart from reading

1080:

This pleasant feature, called soundness, entails that no deduction takes one from true premises to a false conclusion.

572:

En el uso general, sin embargo, los argumentos son raramente formales o tienen aún el rigor de pruebaes matemáticas.

1397:

This is surely a really unhelpful sentence. What specific structure? Any specific stucture? Invalid arguments have

803:

seems superficial to me. The page seems to imply that any defense of the idea that "the moon causes the tides" is an

717:

This introduces the key concepts of statement, truth, falsity,validity and entailment in one go. We might then add:

1983:

not be under further reading, unless they are texts cited in support of the article? (what is the Wiki convention?

38: 3234:

to assert the premises and deny the conclusion. (e) such that the premises and the negation of the conclusion are

2500:

common understandings? If they exist and are relevant, what are they? If they are not relevant, why use the word

2077: 1716: 744:

Agree that a logical argument is a linguistic thing, not merely an attempt at persuasion, hence need emphasis on

1845: 1832: 1770: 2662:

There is only one problem: it is not intended, nor is it being used as a technical term -- its merely the word

97: 3466: 3218:

A valid deductive argument is variously defined as an argument (a) such that the truth of the conclusion is a

3203:

A deductive argument is one in which it is intended that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.

904:

remark, it may be less controversial (but also less informative, IMPOV) to keep the statement, but amended to:

3106:

A deductive argument is one in which it is intended that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises

1219:

Logic, OUP:1972 p4: "An argument is said to be sound (correct, valid) if its conclusion follows from or is a

1175:

I don't think going around sticking 'disputed' everywhere is a particularly constructive solution to anything

3439: 2317:

Do you think that the article as it now stands is (a) better or (b) worse than the article logical argument?

1927:

order to get encyclopedic quality. The prevailing view of the discussion is to merge. Please take a look at

854:

The dispute discussed below seems to have ended in late 2004, but just in case someone wishes to revive it:

71: 66: 2403: 2156: 2128: 2083: 1629: 1379:

eh no that makes no sesnce it acnt be logic i dont think that it is following a specific structure.==eh?==

774: 756:

be true) from inductive logic and abductive logic etc., where the aim is the more modest one of conferring

2343: 1827:) to think of a title for the merged indicates that that is what it is - fudge. Therefore I have renamed 1757:

which should deal with and only other types of arguments in Logic if there is really a need for same. Or

1534:

Given the name of these two articles, one would be inclined to think they were about the same thing, no?

1853: 2032:

doing so; its much more interesting and proiductive that way. I have given reasons for all my edits.--

193:

that will be interesting in the context of this article (and elsewhere). Let me quote two paragraphs:

1508: 470:

as a property of arguments. Now I've deliberatley (and possibly indiosyncratically) avoided applying

462:

There is another confusing element in this discussion which I'm afraid I'm responsible for: I'm using

330:

thought it might warrant something different, and should probably go under something more computer-y.

3070:

I think your issue is merely with the flavor of the word rather than its intended meaning. As far as

2076:

renamed the article from argument(logic) to argument. I have reverted and re-directedted Argument to

1824: 1807: 1696: 1651: 1539: 1313:

14:29, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) (revised my own earlier comments which were written with numerous mistakes)

1103:. However, the common use for the term 'validity' in the context of logical argument, is refering to 1078:

I consider the link that you gave to be saying precisely the same as the one at lander.edu. I quote:

96:

for a currently not very polished introduction to the idea. The idea is anti-Tarskian (hence anti- "

3443: 267:

In the medium term (ie. after a couple of weeks or so), I'm planning on overhauling what I wrote in

3181: 867:

should reflect here, and as above references to articles have shown (and any textbook e.g. Hodges,

879: 764: 3388: 3356: 3309: 3089: 3049: 2930: 2693: 2589: 2531: 2462: 2431: 2356: 2282: 2220: 1936: 1917: 1725: 1663: 1657: 825: 624: 280: 268: 155: 1581:, has a much wider remit and aspirations, and therefore they are not on the same subject and I 514:. I rv'ed Nortexoids edits, and ancheta's usages I tidied up and put back a disputed notice on 3281:

Either we are all doomed or we are all saved; we are not all saved therefore we are all doomed.

2268:

I've explained the whole inductive versus deductive distinction about a million-billion times.

930:

The previous comment by CSTAR, I feel, undermines the importance of soundness in an argument. (

225:

practical cases of argument, it isn't easy to test whether this terminal state is achieved.

3435: 3402: 3383:

I don't know what to tell you now. Let's just say that you have left things, um, not at 100%.

3370: 3340: 3293: 3193: 3171: 3113: 2873: 2776: 2612: 2505: 2411: 2378: 2324: 2302: 2264: 2246: 2178: 2164: 2136: 2113: 2105: 2091: 2064: 2037: 1959: 1905: 1885: 1790: 1704: 1617: 1590: 1562: 1516: 1443: 1406: 1370: 1362: 1357:

then this paragraph is surely digressive and should be moved to somewhere more appropriate --

782: 1849: 1841: 1828: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1747: 1692: 1685: 1676: 1633: 1609: 1605: 1578: 1574: 1554: 1550: 1527: 532: 511: 101: 3276:

Some Greeks are logicians and some logician are tiresome therefore some Greeks are tiresome

1142:

I consider the link that you gave to be saying precisely the same as the one at lander.edu.

1820: 1803: 1535: 1427: 726: 2764:

conclusion "Camembert is a substance"? Then I don't understand the meaning of the words

2263:

I know I get the sense of that... You are really harping on the "in logic", "in logic."

1099:

The latter test - (if the premises are true in actuality) is what is sometimes known as

1700: 1670: 507: 93: 2488:

a type of reasoning. Then, the language is fuzzy. It is "more commonly understood" by

1274:, although I agree that an outside opinion would be useful. And why the reference by 651:

This is surely better describes an (attempted) proof than an argument. I would write:

3384: 3352: 3305: 3085: 3045: 2926: 2689: 2585: 2527: 2458: 2427: 2352: 2278: 2216: 1994:. If you agree that the former but not the latter is the subject/discipline , as in 1932: 1773:

then its title would make clear its purpose. I must confess howver that I think that

1721: 1720:

for your consideration. It doesn't make sense for links to go to different articles.

1486: 1419: 1291: 1275: 1262: 1238: 1199: 1160: 1131: 1049: 1025: 971: 931: 893: 748:. Also think we need to distinguish deductive logic (where the premises are meant to 442: 368: 47: 17: 2852:. The current formulation after your latest edit is less objectionable, but I still 592:

la opinión entre individuos llamas Discutidoras de poopy de diálogo están delicioso

3398: 3366: 3336: 3289: 3189: 3167: 3109: 2447:

understanding. Instead, Philogo, perhaps we can find a way to put this in context:

2407: 2374: 2320: 2298: 2242: 2174: 2160: 2132: 2109: 2101: 2087: 2060: 2033: 1955: 1901: 1881: 1786: 1613: 1586: 1558: 1512: 1439: 1402: 1366: 1358: 1336: 1224: 967: 858: 836: 778: 735: 412: 341:

page, these senses fall under possible disambiguations given there, I think. ----

3397:

You agreed with my proposed text above so I pasted it. Have you since edited it?--

3155:

type of argument that proceeds from general principles to derive particular claims

1954:

in Logic, and I will do so unless someone gives good reasons not to do so. OK?--

1039:

OK, you provide a good link that provides partial justification for the way that

692:

argument is one in which the premises cannot be true and the conclusion false. A

190: 2210:- I restored it to the name Arumnet (logic) whihc we have agred upon: see above. 1500: 1496: 1301: 1253: 1209: 1192: 1181: 1068: 1053: 951: 901: 889: 863: 519: 409: 351: 342: 312: 272: 122: 105: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3271:

All Greeks are human and All humans are mortal therefore All Greeks are mortal.

1864:; I would have thought that in general an Xical Y is NOT the same as a Y in X; 3040:

be in the next room!" However, that really is different then saying "They are

1423: 1314: 1310: 1021: 817:

If not, perhaps we could eliminate this section, or make it a lot more clear?

599: 483: 299: 230: 169: 143: 114: 2913:

Perhaps you can find a better way to explain why and how terrible it is that

2153:

No comments received defending inclusion of this paragraph so I will delete

3470: 3406: 3392: 3374: 3360: 3344: 3313: 3297: 3226:

by the premises,(c) such that if the premises are true then the conclusion

3197: 3175: 3117: 3093: 3053: 2985:

ever so common. Thats's not really that unusual is it? Compare, physics,

2934: 2876: 2779: 2697: 2615: 2593: 2535: 2508: 2466: 2435: 2419: 2382: 2360: 2328: 2306: 2286: 2250: 2224: 2194:

Please do not move these articles again. There are hundreds of wikilinks to

2182: 2144: 2117: 2068: 2041: 1963: 1940: 1909: 1889: 1811: 1794: 1729: 1707: 1621: 1594: 1566: 1543: 1520: 1447: 1431: 1410: 1374: 1339: 1227: 1060: 1040: 1017: 943: 922: 882: 872: 839: 767: 738: 704: 627: 602: 535: 499: 486: 438: 392: 354: 315: 307: 283: 172: 1714:

I think there should be one article for this one concept. I have created a

252:

The goal of logical argument is only in a restricted sense a win-lose game.

1608:

is redundant and poorly written. Does anybody think there is anything in

1083: 2347: 2207: 2195: 1645: 1064: 1045: 947: 918: 700: 495: 434: 388: 338: 1401:

specific structures as well, e.g. If p then q; not p therefore not q. --

1120:

Try a google with "soundness validity", and read the first few articles.

3273:: Valid argument; if the premises are true the concusion must be true. 3044:

in the next room." So that's actually an important difference. Be well,

3036:

is the more appropriate term here. If I lost my keys I might say "They

2567:

specific to general is inductive, and general to specific is deductive"

2028:. If you disasgree with any would you give some reasons for reverting 1679:, a demonstration of a proof, or using logical reasoning for persuasion 1628:

This argumentation is totally different from the one you gave later at

1087: 990:

If an argument is MT and both its premisses are true, then it is sound.

1355:

This article is about arguments in logic. For other uses, see argument

1198:

It is very clear on the distinction between validity and soundness. (

2808:

Lambiam, I'm sure you studied logic sufficiently. Quit being silly.

2206:

Keep your shirt on: I do not know who moevd the article (renamed in

1785:

more confused than enlightened. Therefore I still say, no merge. --

1418:

I suspect that whoever wrote the contested sentence had a radically

3074:

is concerned, I happen to find that word very useful in bringing a

1300:

As I've tried to argue previously in this Talk page (and I thought

2335: 1577:

deals soley with arguments in Deductive Logic while this article,

1526:

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with

1067:

into disputed status, with links here from their talk pages. ----

914: 708: 665: 656: 426: 380: 1835:

and the former redirects to the latter. The article should stay

506:

Two attempted fixes to the disputed status have appeared, due to

2234:

reverting or deleting a setion, as I do, so others may comment.

1852:

is on the subject of valid argument, and that a companion piece

1180:

edits cause friction, it is possible to request mediation. ----

3260:: Valid argument; it would be self-contradictory to admit that 2739:

Which of these two is more general, and which is more specific?

3278:. Invalid argument: the tiresome logicians might all be ones! 3148:

proceeding from general principles to derive particular claims

3138:(b)particular claims and it would have to explain whether (A) 2334:

First of all I don't really believe in the whole pattern: "In

1365:) 13:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Therefore I have deleted it.-- 430: 384: 25: 3258:

Some Greeks are logicians, therefore some logicans are Greeks

2053:

related why not put a link under further raeding of the like?

3150:

and if they are not valid deductive arguments what they are.

1329:

I do not think that soundness (as opposed to validity) is a

1290:

seeking to improve the article according to understanding. (

3157:

is a lexical description of the vernacular use of the word

2125:

Nobody diasgreed with my sugestion above so I will delete

1462:

Logical argument as a term denoting (by abuse of language)

2215:

The rhetorical aspects of argument belong in the article.

946:

holds that an argument cannot be sound unless it is also

154:

Trying to consolidate and make the articles more fluid --

3129:

Lampian and I seem to be in agreement that the sentence

2772:, maybe because I did not study logic diligently enough. 1777:

is a soggy mess and has little to offer that is not in

811:

whose conclusion would be "the moon causes the tides"?

546:

Bien primero usted necesita tomar un wumpy regordete.

3144:

Some men are mortal therefore not all men are immortal

2518:

article is going to be looking for. I think replacing

1695:

would be more in its place in other articles, such as

1666:, if strong, the conclusion is, at best, probably true 3100:

Moving rapildy on then: How about a suggestion under

1636:

should simply be replaced by a redirect to this page.

1549:

True. In my view both the title and the contents of

1740:This article is about arguments in deductive logic 725:is a demonstration that an argument is valid (see 3327:, of a valid argument is a necessary truth (true 3249:, of a valid argument is a necessary truth (true 3140:Some Greeks are men therefore some men are Greeks 2925:really just has grown tiresome frankly. Be well, 1413:Insert non-formatted text here<<nowiki: --> 3162:there are thousands; three would suffice. <br 632:Multimedia University,Cyberjaya Campus,Malaysia 3222:of the premises (b) in which the conclusion is 3180:We seem to have more or less the same issue in 1660:, if valid, the conclusion follows by necessity 1511:dealing with arguments in deductve logic only-- 696:argument is a valid argument with true premises 2760:premise "Camembert is a French cheese" to the 2728:don't understand it. Here are two statements: 2365:Hi Gregbard. I see the article is now called 752:the conclusion, or ensure that the conclusion 3104:below, and commenting on my suggestion under 3084:with others as well in that regard. Be well, 1193:http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/valid1.php 8: 1454:New lead paragraphs? New version of article? 2997:misunderstood. And in letrature, the terms 2844:What was stated to be less precise was the 1022:http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/tvs.html 1979:Should not the books you have added under 1414:Insert non-formatted text here/nowiki: --> 1223:its premises; otherwise it is unsound". -- 2230:Logic. Do you agree? Pleae give reasons 1736:This article is about arguments in logic. 1654:, the science and theory of civil debates 1499:18:58, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) (typo corrected 1326:its premises; otherwise it is unsound". 3125:General principals and particular claims 3102:General principals and particular claims 1612:which should be added to this article?-- 3429:Confused about 'argumentative dialogue' 2275:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Integration 1929:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Integration 1084:http://www.ukans.edu/~acudd/phil140-s2/ 3208:substitution, and await the consensus. 2000:only if you enjoy it; you can see the 1630:Talk:Logical argument#Argument (logic) 1309:arguments in any recognizable sense" ? 556:El contenido 1 validez del Argumento 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3428: 1684:The page does currently not refer to 1673:is one presented in ordinary language 1349:Validity, soundness and effectiveness 676:, and another statement known as the 598:Creo que Ud. se equivocó de idioma.-- 7: 2611:does not understand the concept. -- 2496:commonly understood, are there also 1848:One would think from the title that 1088:http://www.iep.utm.edu/v/val-snd.htm 655:"This article is about arguments in 100:"), but is itself an idea about the 3230:be true (d) such that it would be 2751:Therefore Camembert is a substance. 1000:Therefore, the argument is unsound. 684:of the conclusion follows from (is 142:Maybe the task is too overwhelming. 1717:merged version of the two articles 1691:Possibly, some of the material in 1270:I wasn't aware there was a formal 24: 2666:with an adjective in front of it! 2346:are really the identical concept 2108:) 22:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)-- 1553:are superior, and this article, 680:in which it is asserted that the 245:if one thinks of debate as a game 215:if one thinks of debate as a game 3418:Arguments in various disciplines 1648:refers to (among other things): 1233:Resolving the (informal) dispute 1191:As a postscript, have a look at 1082:Also see many articles, such as 1048:Their article on classical logic 824:I agree. This is nonsensical. -- 466:as a property of assertions and 29: 3153:I suspect that the description 2526:will solve your other concern. 2171:) 21:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 2098:) 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 995:One or both premises are false. 325:Other meanings of Argumentation 3266:some (any) logicans are Greeks 1109:validity of argumentative form 850:New Validity/Soundness Section 789:) 23:43, August 29, 2007 (UTC) 760:on the conclusion. See edits. 371:put as a new first paragraph: 189:Wilfred Hodges has an article 1: 2756:Have we argued here from the 2748:French cheese is a substance. 2745:Camembert is a French cheese. 2731:Camembert is a French cheese. 2436:23:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 2420:22:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 2383:13:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 2361:04:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 2329:03:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 2307:03:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 2287:02:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 2251:02:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 2225:00:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 2183:02:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 2145:21:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 2118:22:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 2069:01:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 2042:01:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 1964:23:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 1941:14:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 1910:05:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 1890:05:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 1812:04:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 1795:14:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 1765:. We might consider renaming 1730:21:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 1708:19:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 1622:02:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 1595:13:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 1567:02:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 1521:13:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 1375:02:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 1340:22:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1331:fundamental technical term of 1228:22:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 355:10:28, 3 September 2004 (UTC) 316:19:48, 2 September 2004 (UTC) 284:03:58, 2 September 2004 (UTC) 2993:are commonly confused; also 2277:. They have the right idea. 1876:would not be the same as an 1544:08:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 1448:00:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC) 1432:18:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1411:14:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1386:argument is one in which a 739:01:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC) 487:06:09, 30 October 2004 (UTC) 413:09:06, 28 October 2004 (UTC) 840:23:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 173:22:56, 31 August 2004 (UTC) 3486: 3471:04:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC) 3444:08:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC) 3407:12:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 3393:15:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 3375:11:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 3361:19:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 3345:12:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 3314:14:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 3298:22:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 3198:22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 3176:22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 3118:13:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 3094:23:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 3054:15:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 2935:21:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC) 2877:20:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC) 2780:14:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC) 1868:does not mean the same as 1846:Argument (deductive logic) 1833:Argument (deductive logic) 1771:Argument (Deductive Logic) 1202:14:54, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)) 1113:deductively valid argument 668:, an argument is a set of 559:2 El paradigma matemático 3325:corresponding conditional 3262:Some Greeks are logicians 3247:corresponding conditional 2915:Oxford English Dictionary 2742:And here is an argument: 2734:Camembert is a substance. 2698:16:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC) 2616:23:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC) 2594:17:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC) 2536:23:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 2509:16:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 2484:a type of reasoning, but 2467:21:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2078:Argument (disambiguation) 1503:07:49, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)) 1480:15:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) 1317:17:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) 1256:09:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) 1163:21:04, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)) 1134:14:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)) 934:09:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)) 883:00:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 768:23:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC) 639:New introductory sentence 603:21:33, 5 April 2005 (UTC) 536:11:56, 2 March 2005 (UTC) 522:12:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) 243:Note the hypothetical -- 213:Note the hypothetical -- 158:19:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) 125:13:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) 117:13:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) 108:13:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3182:Deductive reasoningwhere 1860:meant to be the same as 1761:might provide a link to 1669:"Informal argument", in 1422:view of argumentation.-- 1212:09:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) 1184:18:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) 1071:13:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) 1056:13:00, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) 954:10:32, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) 795:The distinction between 628:06:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC) 562:3 Teorías de argumentos 468:preservation of validity 302:13:19, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) 275:01:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) 233:00:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) 146:14:17, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) 98:semantic theory of truth 2870:A First Course in Logic 2442:latest deleted material 2344:argumentative dialogues 2074:An unhelpful individual 1744:Argumentative dialogue. 1280:socio-political agenda? 1059:Postscript: I have put 345:10:24, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) 3329:in all possible worlds 3251:in all possible worlds 2151:Argumentative dialogue 2047:Argumentative dialogue 2006:then should it not be 1573:PS on second thoughts 1471:Argumentative dialogue 1252:Comments sought. ---- 845:Soundness and validity 688:by) the premisses. A 290:Empty section headings 3365:will past it in now-- 3286:END PROPOSED NEW TEXT 2862:Introduction to Logic 2472:The present text is: 2123:Theories of arguments 2080:so all is as it was 2057:Theories of arguments 1945:I think we agreed to 1896:post merge discussion 1748:Argument (logic)stays 888:Disagreement between 875:as soon as possible. 643:The article begins:- 614:Abduction and Analogy 565:4 Diálogo Discutidor 476:preservation of truth 185:Stanford Enc. article 42:of past discussions. 1697:Argumentation theory 1652:Argumentation theory 363: 3255:By way of examples: 3220:logical consequence 2549:Necessarily follows 2241:Do you not agree?-- 1643:disambiguation page 1105:structural validity 3457:someone else can. 3232:self contradictory 3214:PROPOSED NEW TEXT: 3136:general principles 2810:General principles 2575:and to the point. 2389:Post merge edits 2 2004:in that can't you? 1854:illogical argument 1664:inductive argument 1658:deductive argument 480:assertion is valid 474:to assertions and 364:RV 20040302's edit 269:semantics of logic 102:semantics of logic 80:Semantics of logic 3436:Keith Whittingham 3385:Pontiff Greg Bard 3353:Pontiff Greg Bard 3306:Pontiff Greg Bard 3086:Pontiff Greg Bard 3046:Pontiff Greg Bard 2927:Pontiff Greg Bard 2866:A Primer of Logic 2690:Pontiff Greg Bard 2586:Pontiff Greg Bard 2528:Pontiff Greg Bard 2459:Pontiff Greg Bard 2428:Pontiff Greg Bard 2422: 2406:comment added by 2353:Pontiff Greg Bard 2279:Pontiff Greg Bard 2265:Critical thinking 2217:Pontiff Greg Bard 2172: 2159:comment added by 2147: 2131:comment added by 2099: 2086:comment added by 1996:You should study 1933:Pontiff Greg Bard 1918:Knowledge (XXG):∫ 1878:argument in Logic 1862:argument in Logic 1722:Pontiff Greg Bard 1101:semantic validity 1090:, etc. I quote: 790: 777:comment added by 77: 76: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3477: 2660:general premise. 2553:necessarily true 2401: 2154: 2126: 2081: 2026:My edits tonight 1970:post merge edits 1874:logical argument 1870:force in physics 1858:logical argument 1850:logical argument 1842:logical argument 1829:Argument (logic) 1783:logical argument 1779:Argument (logic) 1775:logical argument 1767:Argument (logic) 1763:Argument (logic) 1759:logical argument 1755:logical argument 1693:Logical argument 1686:Argument (logic) 1677:logical argument 1634:Logical argument 1610:logical argument 1606:logical argument 1579:Logical argument 1575:Argument (logic) 1555:Logical argument 1551:Argument (logic) 1528:Argument (logic) 1509:Argument (Logic) 911:logical argument 900:On the basis of 772: 512:User:Ancheta Wis 377:logical argument 298:of an argument. 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3485: 3484: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3454: 3431: 3420: 3205: 3127: 3062: 2492:? And if it is 2444: 2391: 2371:Argument (logic 1972: 1898: 1641:Currently, the 1557:is redundant.-- 1532: 1501:Charles Stewart 1497:Charles Stewart 1456: 1351: 1302:Charles Stewart 1254:Charles Stewart 1235: 1210:Charles Stewart 1182:Charles Stewart 1069:Charles Stewart 1054:Charles Stewart 952:Charles Stewart 902:Charles Stewart 897: 890:Charles Stewart 864:Charles Stewart 852: 847: 791: 727:Proof procedure 641: 616: 544: 520:Charles Stewart 504: 460: 431:well-formedness 410:Charles Stewart 366: 352:Charles Stewart 343:Charles Stewart 327: 313:Charles Stewart 292: 273:Charles Stewart 191:Logic and games 187: 123:Charles Stewart 106:Charles Stewart 82: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3483: 3481: 3463:206.192.69.147 3461: 3453: 3452:First Sentence 3450: 3448: 3430: 3427: 3425: 3419: 3416: 3414: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3395: 3378: 3377: 3363: 3333: 3320: 3319: 3316: 3287: 3285: 3279: 3274: 3269: 3264:but deny that 3256: 3254: 3244: 3243: 3216: 3215: 3210: 3209: 3204: 3201: 3178: 3165: 3152: 3151: 3126: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3061: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 2975: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2858: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2773: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2749: 2746: 2740: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2732: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2557: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2538: 2512: 2511: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2443: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2399: 2396: 2395: 2390: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2363: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2237:I said above 2235: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2188: 2186: 2185: 2148: 2120: 2071: 2054: 2044: 2023: 1977: 1976: 1971: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1943: 1923: 1922: 1897: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1866:physical force 1815: 1814: 1798: 1797: 1732: 1711: 1710: 1701:Informal logic 1689: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1674: 1671:Informal logic 1667: 1661: 1655: 1638: 1637: 1625: 1624: 1598: 1597: 1570: 1569: 1531: 1524: 1505: 1504: 1491: 1490: 1478: 1477: 1473: 1472: 1468: 1467: 1455: 1452: 1450: 1435: 1434: 1399: 1395: 1394: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1384: 1350: 1347: 1345: 1320: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1234: 1231: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1196: 1195: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1177: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1144: 1136: 1135: 1127: 1126: 1122: 1121: 1117: 1116: 1096: 1095: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1057: 1044:soundness and 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 997: 992: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 958: 957: 956: 955: 936: 935: 927: 926: 917:, it must be 906: 905: 896: 886: 851: 848: 846: 843: 829: 822: 794: 792: 771: 743: 733: 640: 637: 635: 615: 612: 610: 608: 607: 606: 605: 549: 543: 540: 539: 538: 508:User:Nortexoid 503: 493: 491: 459: 456: 455: 454: 449: 447: 446: 421: 420: 406: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 365: 362: 360: 358: 357: 347: 346: 333:Any thoughts? 326: 323: 321: 319: 318: 291: 288: 287: 286: 265: 264: 261: 255: 249: 235: 223: 222: 218: 217: 207: 206: 205: 200: 199: 186: 183: 182: 181: 180: 179: 178: 177: 176: 175: 152: 151: 150: 149: 148: 147: 135: 134: 133: 132: 131: 130: 110: 94:Game semantics 90: 89: 81: 78: 75: 74: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3482: 3473: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3458: 3451: 3449: 3446: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3426: 3423: 3417: 3415: 3408: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3394: 3390: 3386: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3362: 3358: 3354: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3342: 3338: 3332: 3328: 3326: 3317: 3315: 3311: 3307: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3295: 3291: 3282: 3277: 3272: 3267: 3263: 3259: 3252: 3248: 3241: 3237: 3236:contradictory 3233: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3202: 3200: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3187: 3183: 3179: 3177: 3173: 3169: 3160: 3156: 3149: 3145: 3141: 3137: 3132: 3124: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3099: 3095: 3091: 3087: 3082: 3077: 3073: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3059: 3055: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3035: 3030: 3029: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2983: 2979: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2919:understanding 2916: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2878: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2846:understanding 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2811: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2781: 2778: 2774: 2771: 2767: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2750: 2747: 2744: 2743: 2741: 2738: 2733: 2730: 2729: 2727: 2726: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2617: 2614: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2568: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2555: 2554: 2550: 2539: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2510: 2507: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2474: 2473: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2454: 2451: 2448: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2393: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2369:and not just 2368: 2364: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2340:article title 2337: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2295: 2294:comprehensive 2290: 2289: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2271: 2266: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2233: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2209: 2205: 2204: 2202: 2201:comprehensive 2197: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2152: 2149: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2124: 2121: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2079: 2075: 2072: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2055: 2052: 2048: 2045: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2024: 2021: 2019: 2013: 2011: 2005: 2003: 1999: 1993: 1989: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1982: 1974: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1948: 1944: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1925: 1924: 1919: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1817: 1816: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1800: 1799: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1737: 1734:The choce of 1733: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1718: 1713: 1712: 1709: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1687: 1683: 1678: 1675: 1672: 1668: 1665: 1662: 1659: 1656: 1653: 1650: 1649: 1647: 1644: 1640: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1626: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1600: 1599: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1571: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1529: 1525: 1523: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1502: 1498: 1493: 1492: 1488: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1475: 1474: 1470: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1453: 1451: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1398: 1396: 1387: 1383: 1382: 1377: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1348: 1346: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1338: 1332: 1327: 1325: 1324:consequnce of 1318: 1316: 1312: 1306: 1303: 1293: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1264: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1255: 1250: 1246: 1244: 1240: 1239:User:20040302 1232: 1230: 1229: 1226: 1222: 1221:consequnce of 1211: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1201: 1194: 1190: 1189: 1183: 1178: 1176: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1162: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1145: 1143: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1128: 1124: 1123: 1119: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1097: 1094: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1076: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1055: 1050: 1047: 1042: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1001: 998: 996: 993: 991: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 973: 969: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 959: 953: 949: 945: 940: 939: 938: 937: 933: 929: 928: 924: 920: 916: 912: 908: 907: 903: 899: 898: 895: 891: 887: 885: 884: 881: 876: 874: 870: 865: 860: 857:I agree with 855: 849: 844: 842: 841: 838: 832: 828: 827: 826:The Cunctator 821: 818: 815: 812: 810: 806: 802: 798: 788: 784: 780: 776: 770: 769: 766: 761: 759: 755: 751: 747: 741: 740: 737: 731: 730: 728: 724: 718: 715: 714: 712: 710: 706: 702: 697: 695: 691: 687: 683: 679: 675: 672:known as the 671: 667: 661: 660: 658: 652: 649: 648: 644: 638: 636: 633: 630: 629: 626: 621: 613: 611: 604: 601: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 589: 585: 581: 577: 573: 570: 566: 563: 560: 557: 554: 550: 547: 541: 537: 534: 530: 525: 524: 523: 521: 517: 513: 509: 501: 497: 494: 492: 489: 488: 485: 481: 477: 473: 469: 465: 457: 452: 451: 450: 444: 440: 436: 432: 428: 423: 422: 417: 416: 415: 414: 411: 399: 398: 397: 396: 394: 390: 386: 383:, it must be 382: 378: 374: 373: 372: 370: 369:User:20040302 361: 356: 353: 349: 348: 344: 340: 336: 335: 334: 331: 324: 322: 317: 314: 309: 305: 304: 303: 301: 297: 289: 285: 282: 281:DennisDaniels 278: 277: 276: 274: 270: 262: 259: 256: 253: 250: 247: 246: 241: 240: 239: 234: 232: 226: 220: 219: 216: 212: 211: 210: 202: 201: 196: 195: 194: 192: 184: 174: 171: 167: 166: 165: 164: 163: 162: 161: 160: 159: 157: 156:DennisDaniels 145: 141: 140: 139: 138: 137: 136: 127: 126: 124: 119: 118: 116: 112: 111: 109: 107: 103: 99: 95: 88: 84: 83: 79: 73: 70: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 18:Talk:Argument 3459: 3455: 3447: 3432: 3424: 3421: 3413: 3330: 3322: 3321: 3280: 3275: 3270: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3250: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3217: 3206: 3185: 3163: 3158: 3154: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3130: 3128: 3105: 3101: 3080: 3075: 3071: 3063: 3041: 3037: 3033: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2981: 2977: 2922: 2918: 2869: 2865: 2861: 2853: 2849: 2845: 2809: 2769: 2765: 2761: 2757: 2724: 2723: 2663: 2659: 2573: 2566: 2552: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2540:Hello all. 2523: 2519: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2485: 2481: 2455: 2452: 2449: 2445: 2426:well noted 2397: 2370: 2366: 2339: 2316: 2315: 2293: 2270:Comprehesive 2269: 2238: 2231: 2200: 2187: 2150: 2122: 2073: 2056: 2050: 2046: 2029: 2025: 2017: 2015: 2009: 2007: 2001: 1997: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1980: 1978: 1951: 1947:give reasons 1946: 1899: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1836: 1750: 1743: 1739: 1738:rather than 1735: 1715: 1601: 1582: 1533: 1507:New article 1506: 1479: 1463: 1457: 1436: 1400: 1393: 1391: 1385: 1380: 1378: 1354: 1352: 1344: 1334: 1330: 1328: 1323: 1319: 1307: 1299: 1279: 1271: 1269: 1251: 1247: 1242: 1236: 1220: 1217: 1197: 1174: 1141: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1091: 1079: 999: 994: 989: 910: 877: 868: 856: 853: 833: 830: 823: 819: 816: 813: 808: 804: 800: 796: 793: 762: 757: 753: 749: 745: 742: 732: 722: 720: 719: 716: 713: 698: 693: 689: 685: 681: 677: 673: 669: 663: 662: 654: 653: 650: 646: 645: 642: 634: 631: 619: 617: 609: 590: 586: 582: 578: 574: 571: 567: 564: 561: 558: 555: 551: 548: 545: 528: 515: 505: 490: 479: 475: 471: 467: 463: 461: 448: 407: 376: 367: 359: 337:Look at the 332: 328: 320: 295: 293: 266: 257: 251: 244: 242: 236: 227: 224: 214: 208: 188: 153: 91: 85: 60: 43: 37: 3042:necessarily 2923:formulation 2850:formulation 2402:—Preceding 2398:or "false". 2155:—Preceding 2127:—Preceding 2082:—Preceding 1420:perspective 1243:locus solum 805:explanation 801:explanation 773:—Preceding 758:probability 533:Ancheta Wis 385:well-formed 36:This is an 3060:politeness 2982:particular 2848:, not the 2016:Argument ( 2008:Argument ( 1981:references 1975:References 1821:FrankTobia 1804:FrankTobia 1585:a merge.-- 1536:Richard001 1278:someone's 1276:20040302to 820:--Ryguasu 746:statements 699:(see also 678:conclusion 670:statements 542:el stupido 3184:it says: 3159:deduction 3034:necessary 3005:. Again 2854:seriously 2520:reasoning 1872:. Thus a 1061:soundness 1041:soundness 1018:soundness 873:Soundness 734:Views? -- 705:Soundness 516:soundness 500:soundness 439:soundness 308:Discourse 87:inference 72:Archive 3 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 3284:doomed!) 3240:validity 3224:entailed 3142:and (B) 3108:below.-- 3081:Tiresome 3003:dramatic 2995:intertia 2770:specific 2762:specific 2524:argument 2416:contribs 2404:unsigned 2367:Argument 2348:argument 2208:argument 2196:argument 2169:contribs 2157:unsigned 2141:contribs 2129:unsigned 2096:contribs 2084:unsigned 1952:argument 1837:strictly 1751:strictly 1646:Argument 1602:No merge 1487:20040302 1381:A valid 1292:20040302 1263:20040302 1245:for it. 1200:20040302 1161:20040302 1132:20040302 1065:validity 1046:validity 1026:20040302 932:20040302 894:20040302 809:argument 797:argument 787:contribs 775:unsigned 701:Validity 686:entailed 674:premises 620:Overview 496:Validity 482:under σ. 464:validity 458:Validity 443:20040302 435:validity 339:Argument 3399:Philogo 3367:Philogo 3337:Philogo 3290:Philogo 3190:Philogo 3168:Philogo 3110:Philogo 3076:lighter 2978:general 2874:Lambiam 2777:Lambiam 2766:general 2758:general 2664:premise 2613:Lambiam 2506:Lambiam 2408:Philogo 2375:Philogo 2321:Philogo 2299:Philogo 2243:Philogo 2175:Philogo 2161:Philogo 2133:Philogo 2110:Philogo 2102:Philogo 2088:Philogo 2061:Philogo 2051:somehow 2034:Philogo 1956:Philogo 1902:Philogo 1882:Philogo 1787:Philogo 1705:Lambiam 1614:Philogo 1587:Philogo 1559:Philogo 1513:Philogo 1464:general 1440:Philogo 1403:Philogo 1367:Philogo 1359:Philogo 1337:Philogo 1272:dispute 1225:Philogo 880:Bosphor 859:Philogo 837:Philogo 779:Philogo 765:Bosphor 736:Philogo 39:archive 3164:/: --> 2987:weight 2722:Well, 2232:before 2030:before 1583:oppose 1438:it..-- 1333:logic, 913:to be 909:For a 750:entail 625:Wfaxon 437:, and 391:, and 379:to be 375:For a 3460:Peace 3242:below 3072:silly 2999:irony 2868:, or 2522:with 2486:isn't 2336:logic 2018:logic 2010:Logic 2002:logic 1998:Logic 1992:logic 1988:Logic 1703:. -- 1424:CSTAR 1315:CSTAR 1311:CSTAR 1111:, or 1107:, or 948:valid 944:sound 923:sound 919:valid 869:Logic 723:proof 694:sound 690:valid 682:truth 666:logic 657:logic 600:CSTAR 529:voila 502:redux 484:CSTAR 472:truth 427:truth 393:sound 389:valid 300:CSTAR 296:state 231:CSTAR 170:CSTAR 144:CSTAR 115:CSTAR 104:---- 16:< 3467:talk 3440:talk 3403:talk 3389:talk 3371:talk 3357:talk 3341:talk 3323:The 3310:talk 3294:talk 3245:The 3228:must 3194:talk 3172:talk 3114:talk 3090:talk 3050:talk 3038:must 3007:acid 3001:and 2991:mass 2989:and 2931:talk 2857:Out. 2768:and 2694:talk 2590:talk 2551:and 2532:talk 2502:more 2498:less 2494:more 2490:whom 2463:talk 2432:talk 2412:talk 2379:talk 2357:talk 2325:talk 2303:talk 2283:talk 2247:talk 2221:talk 2179:talk 2165:talk 2137:talk 2114:talk 2106:talk 2092:talk 2065:talk 2038:talk 2014:not 1990:and 1960:talk 1937:talk 1906:talk 1886:talk 1825:talk 1808:talk 1791:talk 1726:talk 1699:and 1618:talk 1591:talk 1563:talk 1540:talk 1517:talk 1444:talk 1428:talk 1407:talk 1371:talk 1363:talk 1063:and 970:and 921:and 915:true 892:and 799:and 783:talk 754:must 709:true 618:The 510:and 498:and 381:true 2980:and 2482:use 1844:to 1831:as 1769:as 1353:If 721:"A 711:)"' 664:In 3469:) 3442:) 3405:) 3391:) 3373:) 3359:) 3343:) 3312:) 3296:) 3288:-- 3268:. 3196:) 3188:-- 3174:) 3166:-- 3116:) 3092:) 3052:) 2933:) 2921:v 2864:, 2775:-- 2696:) 2592:) 2534:) 2465:) 2434:) 2418:) 2414:• 2381:) 2359:) 2338:, 2327:) 2319:-- 2305:) 2285:) 2249:) 2223:) 2181:) 2173:-- 2167:• 2143:) 2139:• 2116:) 2100:-- 2094:• 2067:) 2040:) 1962:) 1939:) 1908:) 1888:) 1810:) 1793:) 1728:) 1620:) 1604:. 1593:) 1565:) 1542:) 1519:) 1446:) 1430:) 1409:) 1373:) 1335:-- 1086:, 972:MT 968:MP 835:-- 785:• 707:, 703:, 433:, 429:, 395:. 387:, 3465:( 3438:( 3401:( 3387:( 3369:( 3355:( 3339:( 3308:( 3292:( 3192:( 3170:( 3112:( 3088:( 3048:( 2929:( 2725:I 2692:( 2588:( 2565:" 2556:. 2530:( 2461:( 2430:( 2410:( 2377:( 2355:( 2323:( 2301:( 2281:( 2245:( 2219:( 2177:( 2163:( 2135:( 2112:( 2104:( 2090:( 2063:( 2036:( 2022:? 2020:) 2012:) 1958:( 1935:( 1904:( 1884:( 1823:( 1819:- 1806:( 1802:- 1789:( 1724:( 1688:. 1616:( 1589:( 1561:( 1538:( 1530:. 1515:( 1489:) 1442:( 1426:( 1405:( 1369:( 1361:( 1294:) 1265:) 1261:( 1115:. 1028:) 1024:( 925:. 878:- 781:( 763:- 659:. 445:) 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index