4 ms·

Obviously I'm speaking in the vernacular and as I stated I used the terms as they meant to me. Besides logically sound and sound argument aren't the same thing

by syops 6y ago

Obviously I'm speaking in the vernacular and as I stated I used the terms as they meant to me. Besides logically sound and sound argument aren't the same thing in my mind. One refers to soundness of logic and the other to soundness of the argument. And that was the essence of my point. There's a difference in talking about an argument and talking about the logic used. Logical fallacies are only useful in determining if the reasoning was flawed. I didn't disagree with anything you wrote and even clarified my meaning so as to be clear. There is also the fact that, linguistically speaking, every person has a unique language. The meaning of words can vary slightly between people who nominally speak the same language. That's why I mentioned to me in my previous post. Clearly I was not writing in a mathematically precise way. I took mathematical logic in graduate school many years ago but am not qualified to use all of the terminology in a mathematically precise way. But this is an internet forum and not a course in mathematical logic. The standards of rigor are not so strict. Hence my phrase to me ought to have sufficed as far as clarification.

mannykannot 6y ago
"I used the terms as they meant to me... every person has a unique language." Private languages are useless for communication, which depends on shared semantics. This thread is a clear example of that, as your first post here is very misleading except to anyone who a) knows that you are using your own private language, and b) actually knows what you mean by your words. In that post, using your own private definition of the various terms under discussion is worse than useless, as anyone who does not know what the accepted meanings are will end up worse off for reading it. “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.” ― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
- syops 6y ago
  I agree I should have used "valid" when I used "sound". I also clarified what I meant by "logically sound". I further stated that I was using my parlance when I used "logically sound". What is interesting is that the responses to me have been about the meaning of sound argument and I never used this phrase. I used logically sound. Do you personally think logically sound and sound argument mean the same thing? I'm asking out of curiosity. EDIT: Private languages and the acknowledgement of them is not useless. It's a basis for being able to clarify things without a discussion devolving arguments over definitions of words. We all have slightly different ideas of what certain words mean.
  - mannykannot 6y ago
    > I used logically sound. Do you personally think logically sound and sound argument mean the same thing? Well, the real point is that it is not clear what you mean here, and consequently what you are writing is likely to cause confusion and misunderstanding. In particular, as I pointed out in an earlier post, you were inconsistent in your own usage, sometimes using 'sound' correctly, and sometimes incorrectly. You also seem to think that because, in a series of follow-up posts, you can explain what you meant, then it follows that there was nothing wrong with your original post - but if no-one had replied to it, you would not have corrected it on your own, and it would have remained there, sowing confusion among those who did not know it was wrong (and, of course, being useless to those who do know it is wrong.) The size of the responses to your original post is a clear testament to the way private usage inhibits understanding and spreads confusion (though there would be considerably less if you had simply acknowledged your mistake immediately, and henceforward used 'sound' in its conventional sense.) > Private languages and the acknowledgement of them is not useless. I said that they are useless for communication (of course, they can be useful to the extent that they are not entirely private, but that caveat actually bolsters my point.) >It's a basis for being able to clarify things... Quite the opposite, as shown here: it's most often a basis for confusion and misunderstanding - and how could it not be? You have to achieve a shared meaning before there can be clarity and mutual understanding.
justin66 6y ago
You should step back and read the chapter of an intro to logic textbook where the topic of validity vs soundness is discussed. It’s easy to use these terms in a way that expresses your intent. One nice thing about doing so is that an understanding of validity vs soundness, necessity vs sufficiency, and the truth tables themselves is all you need to understand all the formal fallacies. All you need to understand about the informal fallacies is, if someone appears to need to discuss informal fallacies, what they really need is a hug. Or a kick in the pants.

by syops 6y ago

mannykannot 6y ago

"I used the terms as they meant to me... every person has a unique language." Private languages are useless for communication, which depends on shared semantics. This thread is a clear example of that, as your first post here is very misleading except to anyone who a) knows that you are using your own private language, and b) actually knows what you mean by your words. In that post, using your own private definition of the various terms under discussion is worse than useless, as anyone who does not know what the accepted meanings are will end up worse off for reading it. “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.” ― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

syops 6y ago
I agree I should have used "valid" when I used "sound". I also clarified what I meant by "logically sound". I further stated that I was using my parlance when I used "logically sound". What is interesting is that the responses to me have been about the meaning of sound argument and I never used this phrase. I used logically sound. Do you personally think logically sound and sound argument mean the same thing? I'm asking out of curiosity. EDIT: Private languages and the acknowledgement of them is not useless. It's a basis for being able to clarify things without a discussion devolving arguments over definitions of words. We all have slightly different ideas of what certain words mean.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  > I used logically sound. Do you personally think logically sound and sound argument mean the same thing? Well, the real point is that it is not clear what you mean here, and consequently what you are writing is likely to cause confusion and misunderstanding. In particular, as I pointed out in an earlier post, you were inconsistent in your own usage, sometimes using 'sound' correctly, and sometimes incorrectly. You also seem to think that because, in a series of follow-up posts, you can explain what you meant, then it follows that there was nothing wrong with your original post - but if no-one had replied to it, you would not have corrected it on your own, and it would have remained there, sowing confusion among those who did not know it was wrong (and, of course, being useless to those who do know it is wrong.) The size of the responses to your original post is a clear testament to the way private usage inhibits understanding and spreads confusion (though there would be considerably less if you had simply acknowledged your mistake immediately, and henceforward used 'sound' in its conventional sense.) > Private languages and the acknowledgement of them is not useless. I said that they are useless for communication (of course, they can be useful to the extent that they are not entirely private, but that caveat actually bolsters my point.) >It's a basis for being able to clarify things... Quite the opposite, as shown here: it's most often a basis for confusion and misunderstanding - and how could it not be? You have to achieve a shared meaning before there can be clarity and mutual understanding.

justin66 6y ago

You should step back and read the chapter of an intro to logic textbook where the topic of validity vs soundness is discussed. It’s easy to use these terms in a way that expresses your intent. One nice thing about doing so is that an understanding of validity vs soundness, necessity vs sufficiency, and the truth tables themselves is all you need to understand all the formal fallacies. All you need to understand about the informal fallacies is, if someone appears to need to discuss informal fallacies, what they really need is a hug. Or a kick in the pants.