ARGUMENT FORMS AND REFUTATION BY LOGICAL ANALOGY

THE PRECISE MEANING OF INVALID AND VALID

ARGUMENT FORMS AND REFUTATION BY LOGICAL ANALOGY

Deductive argument is one whose premises are claimed to provide conclusive
grounds for the truth of its conclusion. If that claim is correct, that is, if the premises
of the argument really do assure the truth of its conclusion with necessity, that
deductive argument is valid. Every deductive argument either does what it claims, or
does not; therefore every deductive argument is either valid, or invalid. If it is valid it is
impossible for its premises to be true without its conclusion being true also.

The central task of deductive logic is discriminating valid arguments from
invalid ones. If the premises of a valid argument are true, its conclusion must be true.
If the conclusion of a valid argument is false, at least one of the premises must be
false. In short, the premises of a valid argument give incontrovertible proof of the
conclusion drawn.

This informal account of validity must be made more precise, thus, the
introduction of the concept of an argument form. Suppose we are presented with
these arguments:

First argument:
If Bacon wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare, then Bacon was a
great writer
Bacon is a great writer.
Therefore, Bacon wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare.

Second argument:
If Washington was assassinated, then Washington is dead.
Washington is dead.
Therefore, Washington was assassinated.

In the first argument, we may agree with the premises but disagree with the
conclusion, judging the argument to be invalid. By logical analogy, seeing that the
second argument has the same form as that of the first argument, which is the
premises are true but the conclusion is false, we can say that the second argument is
invalid.

First argument is invalid.
Second argument has the same form as that of the First argument.
Therefore, Second argument is also invalid.

Such is a method of Refutation by Logical Analogy. Refutation by Logical Analogy
exhibits the fault of an argument by presenting another argument with the same form
whose premises are known to be true and whose conclusion is known to be false.

In Refutation by Logical Analogy, to prove the invalidity of an argument, it suffices
to formulate another argument that:
1. Has exactly the same form as the first, and
2. Has true premises and a false conclusion.

The method of Refutation by Logical Analogy is based upon the fact that validity
and invalidity are purely formal characteristics of arguments, which is to say that any
two arguments having exactly the same form are either both valid or both invalid,
regardless of any differences in the subject matter with which they are concerned.

A given argument exhibits its form very clearly when the simple statements that
appear in it are abbreviated by capital letters. Thus we may abbreviate the arguments
as:

First Argument:

If Bacon wrote the plays
attributed to Shakespeare,
then Bacon was a great writer
B G
Bacon is a great writer.
G
Therefore
Bacon wrote the plays
attributed to Shakespeare

B

Second Argument:

If Washington was
assassinated,
then Washington is dead
A D
Washington is dead.
D
Therefore
Washington was
assassinated

A

Thus the forms,
First Argument Second Argument
BG
G
B
AD
D
A

So written, their common form is easily seen.

Statement variable is simply a letter for which, or in place of which, a statement
may be substituted. In the preceding section we used capital letters to symbolize
particular simple statements, to avoid confusion, we will use lowercase letters from the
middle part of the alphabet p,q,r,s, as statement variables.

Argument form refers to an array of symbols containing statement variables but
no statements; such that when statements are substituted for the statement variables
the same statement being substituted for the same statement variable throughout
the result is an argument. For definiteness, the convention that in any argument form
p shall be the first statement variable that occurs in it, q shall be the second, r the
third, and so on. Thus the expression:
p q
q
p
is an argument form, for when the statements B and G are substituted for variables p
and q respectively, the result is the first argument and when the statements A and D
are substituted for the same variables, the result will be the second argument.

Any argument that results from the substitution of statements for statement
variables in an argument form is called a substitution instance of that argument form.
It is clear that any substitution instance of an argument form may be said to have that
form, and that any argument that has a certain form is a substitution instance of that
form.

For any argument there are usually several argument forms that have the given
argument as a substitution instance. For example, using the first argument:

BG
G
B

is a substitution instance of each of the four argument forms
Argument 1 Argument 2 Argument 3 Argument 4
p q
q
p
p q
r
p
p q
r
s
p
q
r

Thus we obtain the given arguments by substituting:
Argument 1 Argument 2 Argument 3 Argument 4
B p p p and s p and r
G q q and r q and r q

In the four argument forms, Argument 1 corresponds more closely to the
structure of the given argument than do the others. It does so because the given
argument results from the first argument form by substituting a different simple
statement for each different statement variable in it. We call the first argument form
the specific form of the given argument. Specific form of that argument refers to that
argument form from which the given argument results when a different simple
statement is substituted for each different statement variable.

THE PRECISE MEANING OF INVALID AND VALID

Merriam Webster Dictionary defines validity as having such force as to
compel serious attention and usually acceptance. It implies being supported by
objective truth or generally accepted authority. Words synonymous to valid are sound,
which implies a basis of flawless reasoning or of solid grounds, cogent, which stress
either weight of sound argument and evidence of lucidity of presentation, and
convincing, which suggests a power to overcome doubt, opposition, or reluctance to
accept.

Saying that an argument is valid is equivalent to saying that it is logically
impossible that the premises of the argument are true and the conclusion false. A less
precise but intuitively clear way of putting this is to say that in a valid argument IF the
premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

Arguments of a valid FORM are valid even if they are completely absurd. For
example, the following argument is valid:
All women are cats.
All cats are men.
Therefore,
All women are men.

This argument has false premises and a false conclusion. This brings out the
hypothetical character of validity. What the validity of these arguments amounts to is
that it assures us the conclusion must be true IF the premises are true.

Valid argument is truth preserving. Truth in the premises of a valid argument is
preserved in the conclusion. Of course, if the premises are not true to begin with, then
even a valid argument cannot ensure that the conclusion is true. But ONLY valid
arguments are truth preserving.

Relying upon the technique of refutation by logical analogy, the specific form of
a given argument has any substitution instance whose premises are true and whose
conclusion is false, then the given argument is invalid.

By refutation by logical analogy, an invalid argument form is an invalid
argument. Any argument form that is not invalid must be valid. Hence, an argument
for is valid if and only if it has no substitution instances with true premises and false
conclusion. Since validity is a formal notion, an argument is valid if and only if the
specific form of that argument is a valid argument form.


REFERENCES:

Logic: Language, Deduction and Induction. Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen

Merriam Websters Dictionary

http://www.theology.edu/logic/logic22.htm

ARGUMENT FORMS AND REFUTATION BY LOGICAL ANALOGY

The central task of deductive logic is discriminating valid arguments from invalid ones. If the premises of a
valid argument are true, its conclusion must be true. If the conclusion of a valid argument is false, at least one of
the premises must be false. In short, the premises of a valid argument give incontrovertible proof of the conclusion
drawn.

This informal account of validity must be made more precise, thus, the introduction of the concept of an
argument form. Suppose we are presented with these arguments:

First argument:
If Bacon wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare, then Bacon was a great writer
Bacon is a great writer.
Therefore, Bacon wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare.

Second argument:
If Washington was assassinated, then Washington is dead.
Washington is dead.
Therefore, Washington was assassinated.

In the first argument, we may agree with the premises but disagree with the conclusion, judging the
argument to be invalid. By logical analogy, seeing that the second argument has the same form as that of the first
argument, which is the premises are true but the conclusion is false, we can say that the second argument is
invalid.

First argument is invalid.
Second argument has the same form as that of the First argument.
Therefore, Second argument is also invalid.

Such is a method of Refutation by Logical Analogy. Refutation by Logical Analogy exhibits the fault of an argument
by presenting another argument with the same form whose premises are known to be true and whose conclusion is
known to be false.

In Refutation by Logical Analogy, to prove the invalidity of an argument, it suffices to formulate another
argument that:
3. Has exactly the same form as the first, and
4. Has true premises and a false conclusion.

The method of Refutation by Logical Analogy is based upon the fact that validity and invalidity are purely formal
characteristics of arguments, which is to say that any two arguments having exactly the same form are either both
valid or both invalid, regardless of any differences in the subject matter with which they are concerned.

A given argument exhibits its form very clearly when the simple statements that appear in it are abbreviated by
capital letters. Thus we may abbreviate the arguments as:

First Argument:
If Bacon wrote the plays attributed
to Shakespeare,
then Bacon was a great writer
B G
Bacon is a great writer.
G
Therefore
Bacon wrote the plays attributed to
Shakespeare

B

Second Argument:
If Washington was assassinated, then Washington is dead
A D
Washington is dead.
D
Therefore Washington was assassinated
A

Thus the forms,
First Argument Second Argument
BG
G
B
AD
D
A

So written, their common form is easily seen.

Statement variable is simply a letter for which, or in place of which, a statement may be substituted. In the
preceding section we used capital letters to symbolize particular simple statements, to avoid confusion, we will use
lowercase letters from the middle part of the alphabet p,q,r,s, as statement variables.

Argument form refers to an array of symbols containing statement variables but no statements; such that
when statements are substituted for the statement variables the same statement being substituted for the same
statement variable throughout the result is an argument. For definiteness, the convention that in any argument
form p shall be the first statement variable that occurs in it, q shall be the second, r the third, and so on. Thus the
expression:
p q
q
p
is an argument form, for when the statements B and G are substituted for variables p and q respectively, the result
is the first argument and when the statements A and D are substituted for the same variables, the result will be the
second argument.

Any argument that results from the substitution of statements for statement variables in an argument form
is called a substitution instance of that argument form. It is clear that any substitution instance of an argument
form may be said to have that form, and that any argument that has a certain form is a substitution instance of
that form.

For any argument there are usually several argument forms that have the given argument as a substitution
instance. For example, using the first argument:

BG
G
B

is a substitution instance of each of the four argument forms
Argument 1 Argument 2 Argument 3 Argument 4
p q
q
p
p q
r
p
p q
r
s
p
q
r

Thus we obtain the given arguments by substituting:
Argument 1 Argument 2 Argument 3 Argument 4
B p p p and s p and r
G q q and r q and r q

In the four argument forms, Argument 1 corresponds more closely to the structure of the given argument
than do the others. It does so because the given argument results from the first argument form by substituting a
different simple statement for each different statement variable in it. We call the first argument form the specific
form of the given argument. Specific form of that argument refers to that argument form from which the given
argument results when a different simple statement is substituted for each different statement variable.

THE PRECISE MEANING OF INVALID AND VALID

Relying upon the technique of refutation by logical analogy, the specific form of a given argument has any
substitution instance whose premises are true and whose conclusion is false, then the given argument is invalid.

By refutation by logical analogy, an invalid argument form is an invalid argument. Any argument form that
is not invalid must be valid. Hence, an argument for is valid if and only if it has no substitution instances with true
premises and false conclusion. Since validity is a formal notion, an argument is valid if and only if the specific form
of that argument is a valid argument form.