Symbolizing Arguments

You think a hammer is a weak tool because it cannot be used as a screw-driver? Or as a saw? You really could use a course in logic.

(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]

kennethamy wrote:

You think a hammer is a weak tool because it cannot be used as a screw-driver? Or as a saw? You really could use a course in logic.

No, this ia good example of faulty logic, hammer and screwdrivers usally have a very wellknown useage, and have no subjectiveness/relativeness about them.
As I said before things such as numbers have a subjective and relative proberty about them, and therefore can desive people.
..it is you who should expand your knowledge about logic, as you have only understood the basic liniar logic, though you are very good at it.

kennethamy wrote:

You think a hammer is a weak tool because it cannot be used as a screw-driver? Or as a saw? You really could use a course in logic.

No, this ia good example of faulty logic, hammer and screwdrivers usally have a very wellknown useage, and have no subjectiveness/relativeness about them.
As I said before things such as numbers have a subjective and relative proberty about them, and therefore can desive people.
..it is you who should expand your knowledge about logic, as you have only understood the basic liniar logic, though you are very good at it.

Linear logic is a substructural logic proposed by Jean-Yves Girard as a refinement of classical and intuitionistic logic, joining the dualities of the former with many of the constructive properties of the latter.[1] Although the logic has also been studied for its own sake, more broadly, ideas from linear logic have been influential in fields such as programming languages, game semantics, and quantum physics[2], particularly because of its emphasis on resource-boundedness, duality, and interaction.

HexHammer wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

You think a hammer is a weak tool because it cannot be used as a screw-driver? Or as a saw? You really could use a course in logic.

No, this ia good example of faulty logic, hammer and screwdrivers usally have a very wellknown useage, and have no subjectiveness/relativeness about them.
As I said before things such as numbers have a subjective and relative proberty about them, and therefore can desive people.
..it is you who should expand your knowledge about logic, as you have only understood the basic liniar logic, though you are very good at it.

Wait do you mean Linear Logic as in this type of Logic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_logic wrote:

Linear logic is a substructural logic proposed by Jean-Yves Girard as a refinement of classical and intuitionistic logic, joining the dualities of the former with many of the constructive properties of the latter.[1] Although the logic has also been studied for its own sake, more broadly, ideas from linear logic have been influential in fields such as programming languages, game semantics, and quantum physics[2], particularly because of its emphasis on resource-boundedness, duality, and interaction.

I do not think Ken is using this. It seems as though he's using first order Logic. The kind of Logic you learn at the 100 and 300 level philosophy courses. But then again Hex, I have no clue what you are talking about.