3

I have recently started learning the basics of propositional logic. According to http://intrologic.stanford.edu/chapters/chapter_03.html, a sentence is valid if and only if it is satisfied by every truth assignment.

As discussed later in the same document, the Equivalence Theorem states that a sentence Φ and a sentence Ψ are logically equivalent if and only if the sentence (Φ ↔︎ Ψ) is valid. Based on the definition of validity in this document, the biconditional cannot be valid. If one of the propositions is true and the other false, then the biconditional yields false. Because the biconditional yields false, then the sentence cannot be valid.

Do I misunderstand the definition of validity provided here, or is there a second definition of validity? Thanks in advance.

3

No, it's the same definition for validity, and you seem to mistake the notation "Φ ↔︎ Ψ" for a sentence.

In Φ ↔︎ Ψ, Φ and Ψ are not variables for truth assignments, but variables for sentences (else the book would have used "p" and "q"). So it is not (only) possible to truth-assign "true" to Φ and "false" to Ψ (unless as sentences). Instead, they first need to each be replaced by actual sentences, and then truth assignment can happen to those sentences. As an example, when Φ is "p" and Ψ is also "p", this yields the sentence "p ↔︎ p", which is satisfied by all truth assignments (true ↔︎ true, false ↔︎ false). Other examples for equivalent statements: "p ∧ q ↔︎ q ∧ p". Not equivalent: "p ↔︎ q", "p ∧ q ↔︎ p ∧ r"

| improve this answer | |
2

As you say, a sentence of the propositional logic is valid if and only if it is satisfied by every truth assignment. So the sentence "Φ ↔︎ Ψ" might be valid if the sentences Φ and Ψ are such that there is no valuation under which one of them is true and the other false. For example, if Φ is ¬(A ⋀ B), and Ψ is (¬A ⋁ ¬B) then Φ ↔︎ Ψ is valid, since there is no way to assign truth values to A and B that makes Φ ↔︎ Ψ come out false. Other examples of Φ ↔︎ Ψ might be invalid.

A more general answer to your question would be to point out that each logic comes with its own specification of what constitutes validity. Validity in propositional logic is simply a matter of assigning truth values to the propositions. In predicate logic things become more complex and we speak of propositions having interpretations under which they may be true. Then there are different logics entirely, such as intuitionistic logic, which have different rules for validity. There is also an important distinction between syntactical and semantic validity. In simple terms, syntactical validity is concerned with the rules that determine whether something is provable just by manipulating formulas, while semantic validity is concerned with whether a semantic property (usually truth) holds under all interpretations, or all possible worlds, or some other generality.

Edit: it is worth clarifying that it is obvious from your question that you are asking about the concept of validity as it occurs in the context of logic and reasoning. In ordinary English 'valid' has other uses, as one can speak of a valid will, or a valid ticket for a journey, or a valid contract. Statisticians also describe a data set as valid, meaning that it is unbiased and correctly represents what they are trying to measure. Those are quite different uses of 'valid' from the way logicians use the term.

| improve this answer | |
1

It is the same definition.

Φ ↔︎ Ψ is not in general a valid formula because, as you say, it is false for some Φ and Ψ.

However, if Φ ↔︎ Ψ is valid for a specific Φ and a specific Ψ, then Φ and Ψ are equivalent. Consider, for instance

Φ = (p OR q)
Ψ = (q OR p)

Φ ↔︎ Ψ is certainly valid in this case. Hence, (p OR q) and (q OR p) are equivalent.

| improve this answer | |
  • I think this approach is muddying the waters - that statement isn't just "certainly valid", until the reader understands that this is because that however the variables p and q are assigned truth values, given a truth value assignment that follows the standard interpretation of the OR operator, that same assignment will give phi and psi the same truth values, and this is sufficient to ground assignment of the bi-implication. – Paul Ross Aug 1 at 8:43
  • It might just be enough for the reader to understand. Or not, and then she will ask. – Clyde Frog Aug 1 at 8:51
-2

If you see the validity of the point of view Knowledge, there are four different philosophies for validity of human knowledge.

  1. Conformity theory of truth

maintains that truth is what corresponds or conforms to existent facts of nature, the actual state of affairs and objective realities.

2.Coherence theory of truth

knowledge is valid if it is consistent and is in harmony with other ideas, statements or concepts.

  1. Pragmatic theory of truth

Everything in the world is relative, the worth of ideas, doctrine, principles, and practices depends on how they function in a given situation.

  1. Marxist theory of truth

“Truth is not in what it is, but in what it ought to be.” -Herbert Marcuse -Truth is achieved as a matter of practice or praxis.

https://fr.slideshare.net/beajanelle/philosophy-validity-of-knowledge

Validity is the best available approximation to the truth of a given proposition, inference, or conclusion. In 1963, Campbell and Stanley (1963) introduced the concepts of internal and external validity, and these have since been fundamental to educational research

  1. Conclusion Validity: there is a relationship between the two variables

2.Internal Validity: Assuming that there is a relationship in this study, the relationship a causal one

Campbell and Stanley understood internal validity as ‘ruling out any random circumstances’ and Denzin and Lincoln defined it as the degree to which findings correctly map the phenomenon in question

3.Construct Validity: Assuming that there is a causal relationship in this study, we can claim that the program reflected well our construct of the program and that our measure reflected well our idea of the construct of the measure

External Validity: Assuming that there is a causal relationship in this study between the constructs of the cause and the effect, we can generalize this effect to other persons, places or times https://conjointly.com/kb/introduction-to-validity/

Also, behind the notions of external and internal validity is the realistic ontology that strives to capture objective reality‘asitis’as much as possible(Denzin and Lincoln, 1994a, p. 5). That is why Denzin and Lincoln label these quality criteria as ‘Positivist’ or ‘Post-positivist’

Heidegger's Theory of Truth and its Importance for Quality of Qualitative Research, Journal of Philosophy of Education · April 2020

For validity of statement see famous logician Bertrand Russell paradox p.15

Bertrand Russell paradox: “If 2+2=5, then I am the Pope”

http://www.cs.mun.ca/~kol/courses/2742-w14/lec6.pdf

https://www2.lawrence.edu/fast/ryckmant/The%20Problems%20of%20Philosophy,%20Bertrand%20Russell.htm

see also

Viviane Durand-Guerrier, Truth versus validity in mathematical proof, ZDM Mathematics Education (2008) 40:373–384

http://www.ardm.asso.fr/ee16/documents/cours/theme2-complet/cours-Durand-Guerrier-complet/docs-preparatoires/Durand-Guerrier-2008-ZDM-40.pdf

| improve this answer | |
  • Your use of language is really hard to parse, and it's not at all clear how the different concepts of truth lead in to your proposed variations in validity. Maybe if you focus this particular answer on one non-standard version, supporting it with an example, it might be clearer what you're trying to say? – Paul Ross Aug 1 at 8:36
  • It seems you did not read the question description, your answer only fits the question title. The title might change however. So this answer is not a good fit for the question. – tkruse Aug 1 at 8:45

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.