Sound Deductive Reasoning Thread (SDR Thread)

Watch
Mistletoe
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
In this thread you will post a sound deduction from a variety of statements.

Eg...

Statements:

Competition is a race to achieve a finite material goal.
Dogs and cats sometimes race after the same prey.
Prey can be considered as a finite material goal.
The killing and consumption of prey can be seen as an achievement for a dog or a cat.


Deduction:
Dogs and cats sometimes compete with each other.

You may also quote someone and enhance their argument for more completeness or accuracy.

Bonus Points if you look up definitions, continue your argument and thus discover something we don't know.
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
What do you get for a syllogism?
0
reply
Mistletoe
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by Reality Check)
What do you get for a syllogism?
Syllogisms are welcome.
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
Good. Let's kick off.

All Greek gods are mythical.
All mythical gods don’t really exist.
Therefore, all Greek gods don’t really exist.
0
reply
Whitewell
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
I'll be controversial.

Eliminative materialism rules out intentional thoughts.
I have intentional thoughts
Therefore eliminative materialism is false

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Mistletoe
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by Whitewell)
I'll be controversial.

Eliminative materialism rules out intentional thoughts.
I have intentional thoughts
Therefore eliminative materialism is false

Posted from TSR Mobile
How do you get intentional thoughts? By controlling your environment? I've always thought they arise randomly and unintentionally.
0
reply
Whitewell
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by Mistletoe)
How do you get intentional thoughts? By controlling your environment? I've always thought they arise randomly and unintentionally.
Intentionality as the term used in philosophy of mind is simply the idea of thoughts being about something, or aimed at something.

I am thinking about the mind-body problem now. I thinking about this weekends football matches now. That i have intentional thoughts is as obvious as any experience you could have.



Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
All Brexiters wear manmade fibres

Nigel is a Brexiter

ergo Nigel wears manmade fibres
0
reply
Implication
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
Nothing is greater than God.
Cheese is greater than nothing.

Deduction: cheese is greater than God (by the transitivity of being greater than)
0
reply
Mistletoe
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by Implication)
Nothing is greater than God.
Cheese is greater than nothing.

Deduction: cheese is greater than God (by the transitivity of being greater than)
Theists would argue that you are using two different meanings of the word "nothing". The first one means "No thing", the second one means "Nothing" as in the absence of a thing. What say you.
0
reply
Whitewell
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by Implication)
Nothing is greater than God.
Cheese is greater than nothing.

Deduction: cheese is greater than God (by the transitivity of being greater than)
Oh no no no.

Invalid argument! False equivocation

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Implication
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Mistletoe)
Theists would argue that you are using two different meanings of the word "nothing". The first one means "No thing", the second one means "Nothing" as in the absence of a thing. What say you.
I say they are mistaken! Though I confess I misread and thought this thread was for valid rather than sound deductions!

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
Implication
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by Whitewell)
Oh no no no.

Invalid argument! False equivocation

Posted from TSR Mobile
What equivocation? :holmes:

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Whitewell
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by Implication)
What equivocation? :holmes:

Posted from TSR Mobile
Nothing is not anything.

So, not anything is greater than God
Cheese is greater than not anything

To conclude cheese is greater than God is an invalid induction

It may even contradict the first premise too, not anything is greater than God.
0
reply
miser
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
Tim only tells the truth
Tim says his name is Bob

Tim's name is Bob
1
reply
Implication
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by Whitewell)
Nothing is not anything.

So, not anything is greater than God
Cheese is greater than not anything

To conclude cheese is greater than God is an invalid induction

It may even contradict the first premise too, not anything is greater than God.
It was neither invalid nor an induction; it was a valid deduction! I believe you are labouring under the false assumption that I meant something other than the absence of anything when I spoke of 'nothing' in the first premise.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Whitewell
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by Implication)
It was neither invalid nor an induction; it was a valid deduction! I believe you are labouring under the false assumption that I meant something other than the absence of anything when I spoke of 'nothing' in the first premise.

Posted from TSR Mobile
My bad, invalid deduction still though. Tje conclusion doesnt follow from the premises. You use the word nothing as if it was something. If you accept that you meant nothing by its normal definition, not anything, then your conclusion contradicts the first premise.
0
reply
Implication
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by Whitewell)
My bad, invalid deduction still though. Tje conclusion doesnt follow from the premises. You use the word nothing as if it was something. If you accept that you meant nothing by its normal definition, not anything, then your conclusion contradicts the first premise.
The conclusion follows trivially from the premises and the transitivity of the relation!

When I said 'nothing is greater than God' I did not mean 'there exists no entity that is greater than God'.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Mistletoe
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#19
Something is better than nothing.
Cancer is something.
Therefore cancer is better than nothing.

Cheese has a smell.
Dirt has a smell.
Smell is an odour.
Therefore cheese and dirt each have an odour.
An odour is caused by one or more volatilized chemical compounds.
Therefore cheese and dirt each have volitized chemical compounds.
0
reply
Whitewell
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by Implication)
The conclusion follows trivially from the premises and the transitivity of the relation!

When I said 'nothing is greater than God' I did not mean 'there exists no entity that is greater than God'.

Posted from TSR Mobile
What did you mean by 'nothing' in each premise then?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you travelling in the Uni student travel window (3-9 Dec) to go home for Christmas?

Yes (81)
26.91%
No - I have already returned home (38)
12.62%
No - I plan on travelling outside these dates (60)
19.93%
No - I'm staying at my term time address over Christmas (31)
10.3%
No - I live at home during term anyway (91)
30.23%

Watched Threads

View All