- Jan 24, 2008
- 9,566
- 2,493
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I recommend you look at that requote in the context of the original quote, offered here for your convenience. You can then address what I was actually saying rather than the necessarily obfuscated interpretation based on partial data. I shall be happy to respond to that.
You may wish to go back to the original post as you may find earlier material in that post is relevant to your understanding.
I do not need re-examine the “context” of the original quote.
After all, you said, “For this possibility to be true, then the following must also be true.” That statement is a reference to “Sanders is correct, there’s good reason to believe Voght would act prejudicially.” You then proceeded to list some lousy premises, and then said, “If the foregoing were true, then Sanders would necessarily be correct.” That conditional claim is a reference back to the possibility mentioned above.
You supported that conditional conclusion with three premises.
P1: Voght would be in a position to act prejudicially (he would be in a position of power of government.)
P2: There would be good reason to believe he might act prejudicially
P3:The good reason would be the existence of evidence from prior statements or actions of Voght.
So, it isn’t neccesary to review the “context” to address whether, even if true, those true premises support “Sanders is correct.” As I said previously, the premises do not!
P1 is hardly supportive, unless we accept as true the tenuous assumption that being in a position of power is a “good reason to believe.” But that isn’t right, as we know from experience people in power do not act prejudicially. Yes, some do, be that is balanced by the fact some don’t, and as a result, being in power isn’t probative at all of what Voght would do.
P2 is a hardly supportive of the claim as it begs the question of is there a good reason?
P3 the existence of evidence from prior statements or actions of Voght, is de minimis for reasons noted in the prior post.
But that’s an analysis of how strongly the premsies support the conclusion of Bernie being “necessarily” correct.
You are asserting Sanders is “necessarily” correct. But your argument, as constructed, doesn’t satisfy the philosophical meaning of validity of if all the premises are true, then the conclusion cannot be false. Consider the example below in contrast to your own argument.
All dogs are vegetarians. All vegetarians are humans. Ergo, all dogs are humans. All D are V. All V are H. Therefore, all D are H.
That’s a valid argument. If the premises are true, then the conclusion cannot be false, the conclusion must be true. Contrast that with your argument. As articulated, your premsies can all be true as stated but the conclusion false. Of course, your view could be made valid, “necessarily” true by adding some additional unstated premises to your argument.
Those are points I was seeking to make previously, and your “context” you reference isn’t needed.
Last edited:
Upvote
0