#### Rabbitz

##### Diabloii.Net Member

Excatly my thoughts.Raena said:I fit in my coat, my coat fits in my bag, therefore I fit in my bag.

- Thread starter Kiba
- Start date

Excatly my thoughts.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.Raena said:I fit in my coat, my coat fits in my bag, therefore I fit in my bag.

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

That's tautological.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 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.dondrei said:That's tautological.

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).

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

I live in 2006...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).

All dogs are wolves.

Some dogs can bark.

-therefore-

Some Wolves can bark.

I don't see any problem with my logic.

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.I fit in my coat, my coat fits in my bag, therefore I fit in my bag.

This is a valid logical argument. This is also different from your original statements:PlagueBearer said:All dogs are wolves.

Some dogs can bark.

-therefore-

Some Wolves can bark.

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.Dogs can bark. (not some dogs can bark)

-therefore-

Some wolves can bark

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.dondrei said:Sorry, I thought it was wrong but looking at it more closely it was merely vacuous.

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.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.

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.

Yeah, I know it's not the same. It's just something we always say in Holland when someone has some flawed logic. :laugh: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.

-----------------------------------------------

Muhahahhaa.... http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/Assets/necromancer.jpg

Anyway, what a strange thread.