Symbolizing Arguments

(1) Is the following arguement symbolized properly?

If Bloor's argument has been INFLUENTIAL, then it is EVIDENCE which causes belief. So, since Bloor's argument has been influential, and if that argument is CORRECT, it is not evidence which causes belief, Bloor's argument must be incorrect.

I -> E, I, C-> ~E [therefore] ~ C

(2) How do you symbolize the following argument?

I have still other arguments against this strange imagination that space is a PROPERTY of God. If it be so, space belongs to the ESSENCE of God. But space HAS parts: therefore there WOULD be parts in the essence of God. [But this is not true]

I'v seen many try to put life into equations, never have they considerd to put any symbols for uncertainty, which is why they usually fail.

HexHammer wrote:

I'v seen many try to put life into equations, never have they considerd to put any symbols for uncertainty, which is why they usually fail.

Meaning what? If anything.

kennethamy wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

I'v seen many try to put life into equations, never have they considerd to put any symbols for uncertainty, which is why they usually fail.

Meaning what? If anything.

I remember 2 threads conserning "any truth must be true" ..or something like that, in that thread there was loooong and extravagant equations of how any truth must be true, just that they forgot the simple fact that truth can be subjective, relative, lies, misunderstandings ..etc..etc, basicly nullyfying anything they have said and done.

As I recall, the perpetrator of that thread could not have been more confused if he had tried, and the symbolization did attempt to, and did, indeed, clarify the issue, and showed him to be confused. That is rejected the clarifications only showed him more confused, not that the symbolization did not deal correctly with the issue. So that your example shows exactly the contrary of what you are trying to show. The long equations (so-called by you) were exactly right. The OP did not understand them, and, apparently, neither do you. And whose fault is that?

kennethamy wrote:

As I recall, the perpetrator of that thread could not have been more confused if he had tried, and the symbolization did attempt to, and did, indeed, clarify the issue, and showed him to be confused. That is rejected the clarifications only showed him more confused, not that the symbolization did not deal correctly with the issue. So that your example shows exactly the contrary of what you are trying to show. The long equations (so-called by you) were exactly right. The OP did not understand them, and, apparently, neither do you. And whose fault is that?

Not saying that I recall the event 100% but as I remember it, there was 2 threads dealing with the same thing, and in those threads people tryed to rationalize the postulation with a logical equation, but that's not the importaint thing, what is importaint is to take account for uncertainty, that's what I try to make as a mainpoint that should exceed the other unimportaint details.

There was no uncertainty that he was confusing: 1. Necessarily if p then p, with 2. If p then necessarily p. Nor, is there any uncertainty that those two expressions are different. You can tell they are different simply by inspection. And, if you knew any logic, you would know, for certain, that he had confused the two expressions. Everyone who knew any logic agreed with both that the two expressions were different, and that he had confused them.

kennethamy wrote:

There was no uncertainty that he was confusing: 1. Necessarily if p then p, with 2. If p then necessarily p. Nor, is there any uncertainty that those two expressions are different. You can tell they are different simply by inspection. And, if you knew any logic, you would know, for certain, that he had confused the two expressions. Everyone who knew any logic agreed with both that the two expressions were different, and that he had confused them.

That's not my point, and that's not the point I'm trying to express here. I have for about 1 year ago, in the PF.com logic section, tryed to tell people that logic can only be applied for very few and simple matters, situations that has no variables, uncertainties ..etc.

You should never rule out the possibility that you do not know what you are talking about.

kennethamy wrote:

You should never rule out the possibility that you do not know what you are talking about.

Yes yes, that goes for all, even you.

Now about this old discussion about "humans and spontanious combustion" ..there's this recent discovery about humans can indeed burn, yes very macaber, but descibes very well the faulty logic.

- many scientist would logically conclude that there was no way that humans could burn, as they consisted of 80% water.
- futher looking at crematories, vast amounts of bones would remain after the burning, which was considerd irrifudeable evidense.
- also looking at the crimescen often a pair of legs would remain, a bit scortched at the area around the missing body, but no burning at the rest of the room, as it would be at any other unregulated burning.

..so how could whole bodies disappear, under these circumstances?

Because of the wig effect, because burning of bone will behave differently in low heat fire that high heat fire.

Therefore logic can be deciveing.

Everything can be faulty. What is that supposed to show? Anyway, your example does not show that logic is faulty. It is people who use logic who make mistakes. Why blame the tool for the misuse of it by the person who uses the tool? If a person misused a hammer, how does that show there is something wrong with the hammer? To argue that it does illustrates how you misuse logic. But is that logic's fault? And if a person makes a mistaken when he does a long addition so that he gets the wrong sum, how is that the fault of arithmetic?

This is a very interesting discussion, but does anyone care to enlighten me regarding the equation for the second argument in the OP??

This is a very interesting discussion, but does anyone care to enlighten me regarding the equation for the second argument in the OP??

kennethamy wrote:

Everything can be faulty. What is that supposed to show? Anyway, your example does not show that logic is faulty. It is people who use logic who make mistakes. Why blame the tool for the misuse of it by the person who uses the tool? If a person misused a hammer, how does that show there is something wrong with the hammer? To argue that it does illustrates how you misuse logic. But is that logic's fault? And if a person makes a mistaken when he does a long addition so that he gets the wrong sum, how is that the fault of arithmetic?

I wouldn't say it like that. Logic can be a weak tool, only really suitable for few areas.