Do you think Wolves can Bark???

thegiantturtle

Diabloii.Net Member
Raena said:
I fit in my coat, my coat fits in my bag, therefore I fit in my bag.
Not valid. This is more along the lines of a square has 4 sides. Squares are polygons. Some polygons have 4 sides.

If it's true for a subset, then it's true for some of the set.
 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
thegiantturtle said:
Not valid. This is more along the lines of a square has 4 sides. Squares are polygons. Some polygons have 4 sides.

If it's true for a subset, then it's true for some of the set.
That's tautological.
 

thegiantturtle

Diabloii.Net Member
dondrei said:
That's tautological.
That was my point. You can disagree with a premise (1. Dogs are a sub-species of wolves. 2. Dogs can bark), but if the premises are valid, then this "argument" is inherently valid.

The comparison was not valid.


Now, as to dogs being wolves, it depends on what year you live in. Grey wolves are in the taxonomy as Canis Lupus. Domestic dogs were originally classified as Canis familiaris (a different species) in 1758. In 1993, they were reclassified as Canis Lupus familiaris (a subspecies of grey wolves).
 

thegiantturtle

Diabloii.Net Member
dondrei said:
Sorry, I thought it was wrong but looking at it more closely it was merely vacuous.
Hence the word argument in quotes. If the assumptions are correct then the result is inherently true.
 

PlagueBearer

Diabloii.Net Member
thegiantturtle said:
That was my point. You can disagree with a premise (1. Dogs are a sub-species of wolves. 2. Dogs can bark), but if the premises are valid, then this "argument" is inherently valid.

The comparison was not valid.


Now, as to dogs being wolves, it depends on what year you live in. Grey wolves are in the taxonomy as Canis Lupus. Domestic dogs were originally classified as Canis familiaris (a different species) in 1758. In 1993, they were reclassified as Canis Lupus familiaris (a subspecies of grey wolves).
I live in 2006...

All dogs are wolves.
Some dogs can bark.
-therefore-
Some Wolves can bark.

I don't see any problem with my logic.

I fit in my coat, my coat fits in my bag, therefore I fit in my bag.
If you really feel this is a proper comparison then there really isn't any point continuing this, is there? My schooling in logic is quite basic, but you appear to have had none at all.
 

thegiantturtle

Diabloii.Net Member
PlagueBearer said:
All dogs are wolves.
Some dogs can bark.
-therefore-
Some Wolves can bark.
This is a valid logical argument. This is also different from your original statements:
Dogs are a sub-species of wolf. Dogs can bark, and dogs are wolves. Therefore some wolves can bark.
The original statements work out to:
All Dogs are wolves
Dogs can bark. (not some dogs can bark)
-therefore-
Some wolves can bark
These are two different arguments. The "some dogs" one is a valid deductive argument. The other one is a restatement of categorization. It goes from "all of a subset of Y can X" to "some of Y can X." That part is vacuously true.
 

Moosashi

Diabloii.Net Member
dondrei said:
Sorry, I thought it was wrong but looking at it more closely it was merely vacuous.
Like all logic. Like all math. Steps in more complex chains can be obscure, but in the end it's only true because it's internally consistent given your premises. Tautological.

That's why it has been said it's impossible for two logical thinkers to disagree if they accept the same premises.
 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
Moosashi said:
Like all logic. Like all math. Steps in more complex chains can be obscure, but in the end it's only true because it's internally consistent given your premises. Tautological.

That's why it has been said it's impossible for two logical thinkers to disagree if they accept the same premises.
This is true, all knowledge is tautological. Either it proceeds from certain axioms or it has nothing to back it up, end of story.
 

Raena

Diabloii.Net Member
thegiantturtle said:
Not valid. This is more along the lines of a square has 4 sides. Squares are polygons. Some polygons have 4 sides.

If it's true for a subset, then it's true for some of the set.
PlagueBearer said:
If you really feel this is a proper comparison then there really isn't any point continuing this, is there? My schooling in logic is quite basic, but you appear to have had none at all.
Yeah, I know it's not the same. It's just something we always say in Holland when someone has some flawed logic. :laugh:
 
Top