Truth and Unsound Arguments

[MegaAstrodude]

They're closet pragmatists.

[BovrilKetchup]

From one of Dawkin's book if i'm not mistaken, he said that actually aside from mathematical statement, (also based on chain of assumptions (ex: normal triangle have 3 side, =180 deg.)), nothing can be proven at all!! even my cat might be a sophisticated survilliance robot send by aliens, or an illusion/simulation like in the matrix.

[koldkase77]

LOL! I sit through this entire video and all I learned was that Vinnie is your dog and he doesn't have fleas. Way to go, dude, you really know how to convince someone into believing not all dogs have fleas. Next time, have a point, express that point early, and stop using an extensive vocabulary to sound like you know what the crap you are talking about, because obviously you dont. So I ask that you take my advice and make ANOTHER video with some common sense.

[crazypills2]

Well koldkase77, at least you now know that Vinny doesn't have fleas. It looks like your knowledge has doubled as a result of this video...mission accomplished :-)

[insidetrip101]

I don't think you really adequately explained validity. For example: if the conclusion is inherently true the argument is certain to be valid. I'll use your last argument about the bible.

Lets say it is true that the bible is not absolute truth.

However it is not necessary for EITHER of the premises to be true to remain a valid argument. The reason why I bring this up is because you seem to imply that an unsound argument is worthless. When I say if the conclusion is true, who cares? Of course...

[insidetrip101]

This does not really take away from your argument, as an unsound argument generally is worthless in convincing someone of a certain conclusion; which is what you are trying to do.

I do think its important to note, the different forms of argument because I would rather deal with valid arguments which have false premises than an invalid argument all together. That and I just like logic XD

[crazypills2]

Hi inisdetrip101,

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "inherently true" conclusions. Do you mean that the truthfulness is inherited from true premises of a valid argument? If so, I agree with you, otherwise I do not.

I don't think I ever stated that truthfulness of premises affect validity. In fact, I said quite the opposite, as in my example of "all dogs have fleas."

Additionally, I do believe that unsound arguments are worthless even if the conclusion ends up being true

Take care,

Steve

[insidetrip101]

By inherently true I mean something which is true.

For example lets use ancient philosophy for this example. Lets say Plato is trying to make a case as to why the sun gives off light. He says the sun gives off light because it is trying to allow us to experience the Truth more closely. Is his conclusion, that the sun gives off light false? Of course not. Is his argument valid? Perhaps. Sound? Definitely not.

Im just trying to point out that there is a difference between validity and soundness.

[crazypills2]

Although his conclusion may not be false (as the sun does give off light), his argument provided no justification for it. Hence, the argument was worthless.

Arguments are intended to provide an offer of a true conclusion. They must be sound to do this, otherwise they fail.

[insidetrip101]

Right, but its still valid. Speaking in terms of justification of knowledge you are right.

But here is my point, justification isn't a necessary condition for knowledge. In other words, I disagree with your assertion that soundness is necessary for knowledge. I'm not sure if you directly asserted that in the video but I do think you alluded to it. Mostly because justification is what modern epistemology is all about.

[insidetrip101]

If what you say is true about sound arguments, then why even bother with the implication. Wouldn't equivalence be much more precise?

[crazypills2]

Yes, equivalence is more precise, but not the only way to have knowledge.

I do not believe that absolute truth can be known. Instead, the best we can do is try to understand it. This is why I accept both induction and abduction as other ways of gaining knowledge.

My point in all of this is that presuppositionalists claim to have absolute truth, which is what I do not accept. This can be demonstrated by using the law of non contradiction.

[crazypills2]

insidetrip101,

I do not believe it is possible to have knowledge without justification. In order for you to have knowledge, the thing about which you have knowledge must be true, you must believe it is true and your belief must be justified. This is what I refer to as a commonsense skeptic.

For instance, I do not have knowledge that Vinny has fleas unless those criteria are met.

[insidetrip101]

I agree, with what you say about absolute truth, we can only approach it. I agree with what you say about presuppositionalits. This is why validity is so important. Often times the conclusion of an argument can not really be known. For example any argument about God. We can't determine the soundness, but we can determine validity. I don't agree with justification. There are cases in which knowledge is stimulus response. Would you not say that you know more than you can convey to another?

[crazypills2]

insidetrip101,

The type of knowledge I'm talking about is "know-that" and not "know-how." If you cannot justify "know-that" knowledge then it isn't knowledge at all. Instead, it's intuition and superstition.

[insidetrip101]

I'm really having trouble understanding your vocabulary. What exactly do you mean by "know-that" and "know-how"? I believe you are trying to say "know-that" knowledge focuses on a belief when "know-how" focuses on how to more practical functions. Are you saying if I know that a wall is white then I don't have true knowledge unless I understand how light bounces off an object into my eye? That sounds like the same thing because I "know how" light works. I've actually lost you. Furthermore...

[insidetrip101]

if you are saying that not all knowledge requires justification that backs up my assertion that validity is indeed important beyond soundness. First because not all arguments can be determined as sound but can be determined valid or invalid. Secondly because soundness is not necessary for knowledge, but does suffice for it.

[crazypills2]

insidetrip101,

You are correct in my use of "know-that" and "know-how." "Know-that" is propositional knowledge.

What do you think would be adequate justification for your proposition that the "wall is white?" Is understanding "how light works" required? Would you be justified because you have seen this wall and the color of it matches other things that you "know" are white.

Now, the amount of justification required is proportional to the claim. Small claims don't require as much justification

[insidetrip101]

I still don't see how...

1. this addresses the importance of validity beyond that which can be determined to be sound/unsound.

2. that is not justification at all as to how you know the wall is white. You then fall into a regress until you hit an axiom. (if you even do)

3. it even seems to me that you are accepting the claim that there is knowledge which does NOT require justification.

I feel like I'm repeating myself here...

[crazypills2]

Maybe our disconnect is simply our belief as to what qualifies as justification. You appear to believe that justification requires proof. However, what can I really prove? Even if I knew how light worked, can I prove it? And, if I regress to axioms, can I prove them?

Therefore, justification must be less than proof? Are senses adequate? What about the testimony? All can be a part of justification, but it must be beyond reasonable doubt. Only then can it become knowledge instead of faith.

[insidetrip101]

Yes, this would certainly be our disconnect. I was under the assumption you were working under epistemology which would say justification requires proof.

However, I think what you seem to be describing is more Lockean now that I think about it; atleast concerning the comment you made about the white wall.

Thing is, if you do that you fall into a sort of subjectivisim. If that is really what your view is, I'm going to retract the statement of what I said about the Truth earlier...

[insidetrip101]

because I didn't realize you were working under that type of metaphysical reality. I'm guessing you have trouble trying to cross the gap between the subject and object, while I have trouble separating the two.

My apologizes for misunderstanding.

[Iced1992]

Your last argument is unsound. Everyone knows the Bible is true and infallible.

[Iced1992]

This video is win.

[crazypills2]

Your words are too kind. Thanks Iced1992

[Evid3nc3]

This would have been a great video for my former Christian self. Thanks ;-)

[crazypills2]

Thanks Evid3nc3

[Zentz29]

when someone tells me that a passage from the bible doesn't mean exactly what it says, or that i "just don't understand" what the "real message" is, i ask them this:

"are you ordained by god to tell the world how to read the bible properly?

does god speak to you personally, & tell you how to interpret the words in the bible?

if not, how can you tell me that it doesn't mean exactly what it says?"

nobody has answered yet.

[Relativisticism]

another great vid, you are under-rated my friend.

[crazypills2]

Thanks Relativisticism.

[AzmodanKijur]

I have watched this video and it has fed a beast in me that loves logic and its analysis. Great vid, Crazy.

On Presuppositionalists, one would accuse them of the logic fallacy of special pleading. That is, they are indicating that their position is somehow special and unique compared to another and that the rules that they are applying to one situation does not apply to themselves. This is an obvious and rather classic fallacy - special pleading is used in many god claims.

[AzmodanKijur]

They will state that X is true in all instances except where it applies to their belief. Theists use this in a number of situations - for example, many will state that science is right and does good things until they reach a science (like evolution) that they disagree with. In that circumstance, the science wrong. Right the rest of the time, but wrong there because it disagrees with a 2,000 year old tome written by primitives.

[crazypills2]

Hi AzmodanKijur,

I'm glad I stirred the beast :-)

You will notice that many arguments from presuppositionalists, contain fallacies. All to support a holy book, or as Edward Current says, "a 2,000-year-old book of desert scribblings."

[AzmodanKijur]

Yes, I concur with his phrasing. Why it is that people believe that this book, written at a time when literacy was an endangered species, could possibly be more accuracy that our current knowledge has always struck me as weird.

Many arguments from many theists contain fallacies. Just the nature of their arguments and they rarely notice that they are committing them.

[tastybrain]

Good video. Well put. You might consider going into some detail as to what presuppositionalists tend to argue, i.e. give more examples of their "rationale" in action. Or perhaps you might find excerpts from debates. Just a thought.

P.S. there's a typo at 5:00 ("presuppositionalsim")

[crazypills2]

Tastybrain,

Darn, I hate typos...oh well.

Thanks for the comment.

[ReligionFreeDeist]

Awsome video man :)

[crazypills2]

Thanks Jordan. I've decided to take more of an RFD approach in my videos...we'll see how long this lasts :-)

[pirbird14]

If Vinnie is a dog, then Vinnie is a sweetie.

[WorBlux]

Enthymeme.

You need one more premise there to make it an explicit syllogysim.

[crazypills2]

pirbird14,

Vinny is a sweetie. He's a 4-yr-old, 100lb, yellow lab. I just hope my kids don't give him fleas.

[newexperiment]

Great video. I think all who consider themselves religous are presupositionalists. Although some of them are 'closet' presupositionalists.

I find it very hard to believe that there exist individuals who admit that they are presupposing the doctrine in any religion, but especially Christianity since 1 Peter 3 :15 says

'Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the faith that you have'.

[crazypills2]

newexperiment,

I agree that most christians are presuppositionalists. However, when they try to present themselves as the "logical" ones, it's a little funny.

[trifelgeputinage]

For presuppositionalism - read - ignoramism, arrogantism, closedmindedism, bullshitism.

[tattooskin72]

@trifel... I think you summed it up pretty well :)

[crazypills2]

I'm having difficulty debunking your argument, trifelgeputinage :-)

[dreamy2]

thanks

[crazypills2]

Thanks for stopping by dreamy2.

[TheMudbrooker]

Good morning Steve. That was a nice lesson in arguementation.

From what I've seen here on youtube, rather than asking the logical and falsifyable question,"Are you sure you didn't overlook any fleas", most of those argueing against you would flatly state "Since you don't have the Spirit of the Almighty Dog within you, you can't possibly recognize the fact that Vinny is actually a wombat"

[crazypills2]

Well, TheMudbrooker...after a few drinks, I looked at Vinny again. You might be right, as he appeared very wombat-ish. Or maybe it's just that cheap Australian shit I'm drinking.

[TheMudbrooker]

That's why I stick to Irish whisky (Black Bush mostly), of course then I have to put up with all those singing leprechauns...gotta hand it to them though, the little buggers can carry a tune!

[crazypills2]

Uuuuhhhhhmmmm, buuut thatt would....Ah fuck, I got nothing to say. I'm of to walk my wombat.

[digitised]

Excellent introduction to basic logic, maybe you moved a little quick for those not familiar with it. You could also label some of the slides to indicate what they refer to in philosophy (eg law of identity, law of non-contradiction etc) so people can read further on them.

Just thinking of the beginners though!

5 stars

[crazypills2]

Good point digitised.

I'm going to try to do a series on critical thinking, so I'll try to incorporate your suggestion.

[digitised]

I was just thinking about the statment 'all dogs have fleas'

Although it is valid premise, it is also a logical fallacy since it is a universal proposition, such statements should never be made because such a statement can never be proven.

I could bring you an infinite number of dogs with fleas, but it does not prove all dogs have them.

This is an argument however that religion uses time and time again

-all things god does are good/perfect

-everything in the bible/quran is true/perfect

etc

[crazypills2]

digitised,

You bring up an interesting question: should universal propositions be avoided?

I tend to disagree with your position, but maybe I'm just arguing semantics. You are correct that these things can never be proven, but does that make them false? In other words, can something other than absolute certainty be considered truth? Is there a point when my belief is justified, but not 100% certain?

Take the following proposition, "all men are mortal." Can I prove it? No. Is it true? Yes.

[digitised]

Well you should never make a statement which is a universal proposition, it is easy to avoid in practice. Such a statement is intrinsically unknowable, therefore you cannot know it. You can always substitute it for something more modest (hence more accurate).

All men may not be mortal one, may have been born with the ability to not age, hence suffer none of its detrimental effects.

There are immortal bacteria afterall, ageing seems to be a trait of complex life, due to telomere shortneing.

[crazypills2]

disgitsed,

Does science make "universal" statements? Is 100% certainty a requirement for knowledge? Is it incorrect to say that when I let go of a ball, it's gravity that pulls it to the ground?

Philosophical skepticism holds that one can never know anything. The reason they believe this is because they equate knowledge with certainty. However, can I have good reasons to believe something and hold it as knowledge even though I may be wrong?

[digitised]

Well knowledge is a validated belief, so yes you have good reason to claim to know something based on observation and experiment.

But in order to claim that your knowledge is the truth, then your knowledge must be absolute.

These are all different degrees of certainty, with belief being the weakest since it requires no knowledge, understanding or demonstration.

I know things, although i accept them as imperfect.

I would never say my knowledge is true, since i cannot know them to be such.

[digitised]

When scientists make claims about constants (something always happening) they can only make that claim by fulfilling certain requirements such as explaining a mechanism, having a demonstrable test or observation which can be repeatedly tested or observed, and finally by using mathematics to predict outcomes.

Science is about the prediction, since that is the application of knowledge. They will always throw out the model or constant once it is violated. (or adjust the model to allow for it).

[crazypills2]

Scientific theories suffer from the problem of induction. Just because I know the sun "rose" yesterday and for the last several billion years, doesn't mean it will "rise" tomorrow.

However, back to my point, do I have knowledge that the sun will "rise" tomorrow? And if it's not knowledge, then what is it?

I believe I have knowledge that the sun will "rise" tomorrow. It is not absolute certainty, but something I believe to be true and am also justified in believing.

[digitised]

Oh it is knowledge... so far as understanding the process and having witnessed it happen successfully without fail.

But knowing a future event WILL happen without fail?

This whole issue is about truth, you can make a statement based on knowledge, which turns out to be false. Earth might be destroyed by antimatter this evening for example.

The statement itself will have a truth value, but that value will be determined after the event by the event, not before without it having happened.

[crazypills2]

But in order for something to be knowledge, aren't you required to believe it to be true?

Some claim there is no knowledge without certainty. My claim is there is knowledge because what I believe is true and I am justified in believing this.

My intent here isn't really to debate, but to offer different views for the readers.

[digitised]

Oh dont worry im not debating lol

If you look at epistemology you have 3 groups, belief, truth and knowledge. Some argue a 4th set of believed truths, for when you believe in something which is true, without knowing it.

If you know something it means youve tested a belief or had it confirmed. It still may not be true.

Truth is reality, which your senses are detecting but ultimately cannot be trusted to be perfect, even if we were 100% right, we wouldnt know we really were.

[ContinuumXT]

Nice one. Gotta love the classes in logic and philosphy.

I think the absolute truth is something which cannot be spoken or written down.

[crazypills2]

ContinuumXT,

I agree that absolute truth exists, but we can never fully know it. The best we can do is understand bits and pieces.

[ticobassie]

One of your best Crazypills.

[crazypills2]

Thanks a lot ticobassie. I really appreciate your support.

[riversonthemoon]

Perfection!

:-)

[crazypills2]

Oh riversonthemoon, you saved me. I'm still embarrassed about that. I'm considering fleaing...I mean fleeing :-)

[unixhead101]

Very well explained, thank you.

[crazypills2]

Thanks unixhead101.