[ExI] A Simulation Argument

[Ian Goddard]

Harvey Newstrom wrote:

>>  Right, I agree with your overall point, but the 
>> first assumption is not 'flawed' because it merely 
>> assumes. Assumptions are just * assumptions *. And 
>> so classic logical-argumentation structure is: IF 
>> assumption x is true, THEN... leading by rules of 
>> deduction from x to such and such other statements.
>
> Look up the terms "vacuous truth" 
> and "counterfactual conditional".  There are 
> classical logical fallacies where the major premise 
> is assumed to be true or proposed to be true rather 
> than actually being true.


 Wrong. Counterfactuals and vacuous truths are not
classical logical fallacies. For example, here's a
counterfactural: 'if it rained today, then I'd be
wet'. But in saying that I'm not proposing 'it rained
today' is true, nor am I guilty of a fallacy.

 A vacuous truth is the case where the antecedent is
false. By the truth conditions of the conditional,
that means the conditional is true. So the statement,
'If up is down, then ____' is vacuously true for any
consequent. It's also not a fallacy.



> No, the purpose of deductive argumentation is to 
> deduce further facts from existing known facts.  
> The major premise must be true for the argument 
> to be true.


 Wrong. You're not going to learn new facts about the
world given a set of facts about the world and a
deductive system. You'll only get out of the facts
what's already contained in them. This is basic stuff.
The logical syntax underling deductive argumentation
does not rely on the external world. For example, this
argument is logically valid:

  All unicorns live in England.
  Oscar is a unicorn.
  Ergo, Oscar lives in England.

It makes no difference that the major premise is
false, the argument is deductively valid. But if we
take what you're saying to be the case, that argument
is a fallacy, but it's not. And notice how we didn't
derive a new fact, that 'Oscar lives in England' was
already contained in the premises. 


> If the major premise is assumed, it is 
> called "begging the question" or "circular logic" 
> where the assumption is made first, and then the
> argument is derived from the assumption.

 Harvey, that's not what 'begging the question' or
'circular logic' are... look 'um up! 


http://IanGoddard.net

"Since proofs need premises, it is impossible to prove
anything unless some things are accepted without
proof." - Bertrand Russell 


 

 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs