By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
WolfpackN64 on 11 September 2018
Edit Thread
JWeinCom said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Simple. The conclusion DOES follow the premises. The misunderstanding is that you need empirical proof for deductive argumentation. Deductive arguments are a form or argumentation. Just because other people doubt the validity of the conclusion it does not mean the argument is formally invalid.

"To start, don't give me logic 101, I study moral scienced, logic is part of my curriculum. You nicely explained how deductive reasoning works, you kind of forgot inductive and abductive reasoning, which the argument uses. The argument's premises can very well be true and the conclusion false. The latter part we don't know. So the argument stands, once again. Don't try to give me deductive reasoning 101 again, it's just not applicable here. If we had a deductive reasoning, this wouldn't be a debate."

This is you claiming that the argument was not a deductive argument, and that the argument's premises can be true and the conclusion failse.

Now you are claiming this is a deductive argument.  If that is true, then what you said earlier, that the premises can be true and the conclusion false, makes it BY DEFINITION an invalid argument.  That is before we even have to worry about whether the conclusions are actually proven or not.

I first presented it as an inductive argument. Someone already pointed out to me that the form of the argument is usually deductive. I already stated that that was indeed the case. So this changes nothing.