Timeline for What does Samir Okasha mean in this quote about converting invalid to valid argument?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 8:34 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Feb 9, 2014 at 22:02 | comment | added | virmaior | Not quite that any invalid argument can be brought to validity. Any logically invalid inference can be brought to be validity. The distinction is important. Because the way an inference works is that there must be a principle to justify the inference. Some invalid arguments cannot be fixed by the addition of a premise. | |
| Feb 9, 2014 at 18:11 | comment | added | Koeng | @virmair His wording seems to imply that any invalid argument can be brought to validity. I'm not sure it makes a difference, but he also says invalid, not incomplete, argument. Intuitively it seems true to me that you may turn an invalid argument into a valid one (maybe by including a contradiction?). It's just not really clear to me, specially since he is talking about such an important problem. | |
| Feb 9, 2014 at 14:53 | comment | added | virmaior | I haven't read this particular volume, so I can only guess but I take his point merely to be that there's an infinite number of different ways to bring an incomplete argument to validity -- they just vary in complexity and content. At face value, that claim seems both trivial and true to me. | |
| Feb 9, 2014 at 14:46 | comment | added | Koeng | Okasha does discuss two interpretations of Hume and argues for the most charitable. And I do understand the strategies you suggested. You may be right, but I honestly have the impression that he means somethig more formal when he makes that point. The statement "No logically invalid inference has the property that there is only one additional premise which can be added to make it valid" seems very strict. Do you have any particular reason to think that is what he meant by the "innumerable premises"? Are those strategies something common or well known on logic? Maybe a reference I can read? | |
| S Feb 9, 2014 at 4:57 | history | suggested | Hunan Rostomyan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
a minor change
|
| Feb 9, 2014 at 4:36 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Feb 9, 2014 at 4:57 | |||||
| Feb 9, 2014 at 4:27 | history | answered | virmaior | CC BY-SA 3.0 |