Philosophical Vegan Forum

This is very simple. If I spew out any type of argument

P(1) The earth is round
P(2) The sky is blue
________________________
Conclusion: The flying spaghetti monster exist

It would not be compelling. Even if its true that the earth IS round and the fact that the sky IS blue. But what is it that makes the conclusion in arguments true as well? This is where Inference rules come into play. Inference rules are what is applied to arguments to infer the conclusion.
Inference rules are a key concept in logic in order to show why an argument is valid. A lot of people like to resort to

"but you can't prove my argument is invalid tho..."

If Inference rules have not been shown to the argument then it's not known whether the argument holds or not. However, claiming something to be true out of thin air is rather retarded. And yes arguments can be "disproved." It's done using the Soundness theorem and is usually learned within the first 2 weeks of a logic course. Now its rather easy to disprove the NTT using soundness although the "translation" into formal logic can be infinitely difficult. This is because so many things in the natural language are ambiguous. But its safe to assume that the NTT is completely underdeveloped for it to be taken seriously.

So long story short, Ask Yourself can babble all he wants that the NTT is a "consistency test", but for anybody who has studied logic, this would clearly not be the case.

Logic 101.

p(1) If it has fur, then it is a cat
p(2) It has fur
(c) Therefore it is a cat

If A, then B
A
Therefore B

This is propositional logic.

p(1) All cats are mammals
p(2) Lions are cats
(c) Therefore, lions are mammals

All X is Y
A is X
Therefore A is Y

The conclusion follows from the premises.


NTT for animal moral value;

P1 - Humans are of moral value
P2 - There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.
C - Therefore without establishing the absence of such a trait in animals, we contradict ourselves by deeming animals valueless

People have pointed out that NTT is missing at least 1 premise, the premise that suggests moral value must be based on a trait, thus rendering the argument invalid, as the conclusion would not logically follow. I think this is implied, but it has to be stated in formal logic.

NTT does not establish that moral value must be based on a trait. Because NTT does not reject arbitrariness, I could accept that humans are of moral value, animals are not of moral value, and produce no contradiction. The trait can be human DNA, or anything else really.

I don't know how to analyze NTT in FOL, so I'll link you to the wiki article on NTT.

http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait#Logical_Validity

(1)If A, then B
(2) A
___________
B

I agree with this. However, do you understand the reasons WHY this is a valid argument? This is why I'm harping on the fundamental concept of inference rules. Inference rules are the STANDARD way of showing why an argument is valid. Resorting to a massive derail about identity law and switching out traits IS NOT an accepted method of showing the validity of an argument. That's like him coming up with his own set of inferences rules and force it down the opponent, which is obviously retarded if you still wanna claim "logical consistency."

It is a valid argument because the premises follow from the conclusion in way that if the premises were true, then it would logically follow that the conclusion is true.

If it has fur, then it is a cat
A implies B (Conditional claim)

It has fur
A is true (Affirms antecedent of conditional claim)

Therefore, it is a cat
Therefore, B is true (the consequent of conditional claim must be true)

If premise 1 and premise 2 are true, one can infer that the conclusion is true.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

Lay Vegan: "It is a valid argument because the premises follow from the conclusion in a way that if the premises were true, then it would logically follow that the conclusion is true."

Again, if you're making this claim about the NTT, then I would except you/Isaac to show me WHICH INFERENCE RULES WAS USED. Hopefully, you understand that just by saying

Lay Vegan:""It is a valid argument because the premises follow ....""

Obviously does not make an argument valid by just stating that it is... Also going on a major tangent about identity law and switching out traits to supposedly match two different objects IS also NOT an accepted method for showing why an argument is valid. The argument you provided about cats and fur HAS inference rules which is called implication elimination, hence it's a valid argument. Can inference rules also be applied to the NTT ? If not obviously it's not valid until proper inference has been shown. AGAIN, going on a tangent about "switching in and out traits of objects" is not a fucking inference rule. Sorry for the tone, my frustration lies with Mr Ego/butthurt/owner of the NTT himself, and not you

unethicalVegan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:24 am Again, if you're making this claim about the NTT, then I would except you/Isaac to show me WHICH INFERENCE RULES WAS USED.

Reread my first comment. I'm not making this claim about NTT, because NTT is not a formally valid argument. I was using an example of what a valid deductive argument would look like.

unethicalVegan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:24 am Obviously does not make an argument valid by just stating that it is... Also going on a major tangent about identity law

unethicalVegan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:24 am The argument you provided about cats and fur HAS inference rules which is called implication elimination

I described implication elimination to you.

If A, then B
A
Therefore, B

If premise 1 and premise 2 are true, one can infer that the conclusion is true. This IS a rule of inference in propositional logic. I assume you wanted me to name this specific rule of inference?

unethicalVegan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:24 am and switching out traits to supposedly match two different objects IS also NOT an accepted method for showing why an argument is valid.

Are you responding to Isaac or to me? If the latter is true, reread my first comment. I was NOT showing that NTT is valid. Formal arguments cannot have implicit premises.

unethicalVegan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:24 am Sorry for the tone, my frustration lies with Mr Ego/butthurt/owner of the NTT himself, and not you

That's fine. I don't take things personal on Internet forums. I know my limitations, and if I'm wrong I'm open to being corrected.

unethicalVegan wrote:And yes arguments can be "disproved." It's done using the Soundness theorem and is usually learned within the first 2 weeks of a logic course

Really curious on how would you do that ?

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:44 am Reread my first comment. I'm not making this claim about NTT, because NTT is not a formally valid argument. I was using an example of what a valid deductive argument would look like.

Sorry, i thought you were defending the NTT.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:44 am If premise 1 and premise 2 are true, one can infer that the conclusion is true. This IS a rule of inference in propositional logic. I assume you wanted me to name this specific rule of inference?

Yupp, its called "implication elimination" or more classically known as modus ponens.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:44 am That's fine. I don't take things personally on Internet forums. I know my limitations, and if I'm wrong I'm open to being corrected.

Awesome!

Nightcell001 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:32 pm

unethicalVegan wrote:And yes arguments can be "disproved." It's done using the Soundness theorem and is usually learned within the first 2 weeks of a logic course

Really curious on how would you do that ?

It depends on how you denote NTT symbolically and also how you conjunct the sentences with logical connectives such as "if", "and", "or, "not"
So I'm not sure if my "disproof" would be correctly transformed the way Ask Yourself perceives it. To be honest I'm more concerned with claiming the NTT being valid in the first place.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:05 pm NTT for animal moral value;

P1 - Humans are of moral value
P2 - There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.
C - Therefore without establishing the absence of such a trait in animals, we contradict ourselves by deeming animals valueless

This argument is silly in that there is obviously such a trait, for example, the presence of a brain. But also who suggests that animals are "valueless"? There are also various semantic tricks in the argument that become apparent when you try to symbolize the argument.