Truth and Validity

3 Conversations

Undoubtably you've had an argument with someone at some point in your life- parents, spouse, law enforcement... Would you believe there is a method to this? Hopefully, this article will help you the next time you have an argument with your sister over whose turn it is at the computer.

Part One: Valid Arguments

In logic, an argument is comprised of a few statements. The first statements are called the premises, while the last statement is called a conclusion.
Here's an example of an argument:

If a bird can fly, then it has wings. A sparrow can fly. Therefore, a sparrow has wings.

As you can see, this argument has premises ("If the bird can fly, then it has wings. A sparrow can fly.") and a conclusion ("Therefore, a sparrow has wings"). In this argument, the conclusion follows the premise. As you can see, the premise forces the conclusion. This is called a valid argument. A valid argument is said to have a valid conclusion. A valid argument contains a universal truth: If the premises are all true, then the conclusion is true as well. In the example argument, both premises are true, so the conclusion must be true as well.

Valid Argument Form Number One: Modus Ponens

You can tell whether an argument is valid or not without even knowing if the premises (or its conclusion) is true. All you have to do is analyze the argument. As you will see, all logical arguments (sparring husbands and wives excepted) adhere to a strict formula. It’s all in the form. For example, the sparrow argument has the following argument:

Modus Ponens
If x, then y.
X
Therefore, y.

This argument form is called Modus Ponens, or, “Proposing Mode”. Any argument with this form is valid, regardless of what the statements are for x and y. The following argument is true, because it has a valid form:
If a Barghest yowls, then Lascadua sells out. A Barghest yowls. Therefore, Lascadua sells out.

This form makes certain the fact that if the first two statements are true, then the conclusion is also true as well. Remember, your premises must always be true for any argument to be valid.

Valid Argument Form Number Two: Modus Tollens

Observe:
If a car has the word FORD on it, then it is a Ford. This car does not have the word Ford on it. Therefore, it is not a Ford!

Is this valid? Absolutely. It is called Modus Tollens, or “removing mode” in Latin. It is more commonly called the Law of Indirect Reasoning.

Part Two: Invalid Arguments

Now, take a look at a different argument:

Some vertebrates are warm-blooded. Frogs are vertebrates. Therefore, frogs are warm-blooded.

This argument is invalid. Both of the premises are true, but the conclusion is false. In a valid argument, the conclusion is never false.

False Premises

If an argument contains false premises, then there is no guarantee that the conclusion will be true, even if the argument has a valid form. Read on:

If a kiwi is a fruit, then it can walk. A kiwi is a fruit. Therefore, a kiwi can walk.

As you can see, there is an obviously false conclusion, even though the argument form is valid. Remember the conclusion is true only if the premises are true.

Part Two: Invalid Arguments

Invalid arguments, sadly, seem to occur much more often than valid arguments, and as such you should be able to recognize them more easily.

Invalid Argument Form Number 1: Affirming the Consequent

If x, then y.
x.
Therefore, y.

This form of argument is often a common logical mistake. It seems to make sense, doesn’t it? It is invalid because the conclusion does not follow in order after the premises, even if it is a true statement. It is very easy to mix this form up with the Modus Ponens form. Here’s an example:

If I am happy, then I am with the one I love. I am happy. Therefore, I am with the one I love.

Obviously, this argument doesn’t work, because unless you have severe separation anxiety, you can be happy for other reasons as well.

Invalid Argument Form Number 2: Denying the Antecedent

If x, then y.
Not x.
Therefore, not y.

This is similar to Affirming the Consequent, except that it takes on a negative form. Look at this:

If children run, then pigs can wallow. Children cannot run. Therefore, pigs cannot wallow.

Even though both of the premises are true, the conclusion is false, because pigs might not be wallowing for any number of reasons.

Conclusion

Hopefully, you’ve learned something new about arguing, and the next time you get in an argument, put this to good use. Just don’t tell them that I told you how.

Bookmark on your Personal Space


Entry

A763779

Infinite Improbability Drive

Infinite Improbability Drive

Read a random Edited Entry


Written and Edited by

Disclaimer

h2g2 is created by h2g2's users, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the Not Panicking Ltd. Unlike Edited Entries, Entries have not been checked by an Editor. If you consider any Entry to be in breach of the site's House Rules, please register a complaint. For any other comments, please visit the Feedback page.

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more