Does this make logical sense?

[Diane_Windsor]

Viewpoint 1: Problems/difficulties are what makes marriage "hard".

Logically speaking if you hold this viewpoint then you will describe marriage as "hard" because in marriage a couple does face problems and difficulties in their marriage.

Viewpoint 2: Problems/difficulties are what make marriage interesting, and when a problem comes up you find the solution.

Logically speaking if you hold this viewpoint then one does not need to view marriage (or life in general) as "hard" or "easy".

I don't care whether you are in agreement with viewpoint 1 or 2. I am just curious to know if you believe that this is clear and logical thinking on my part, and that the conclusions are valid.

Thank You,
DIANE

 

[TeddyKGB]

I think an argument can be made that the respective premises are not mutually exclusive. A person can conceivably view marriage as both hard and interesting.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Teddy,

I understand your point, but can you take the statements separately? Are they both logical statments that one could make on their own?

DIANE

 

[TeddyKGB]

I don't see why not. But again, you offer two distinct "starting points" that have considerable overlap, which I still find confusing.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Logically speaking if you come from this starting point then you will describe marriage as "hard" because in marriage a couple does face problems and difficulties in their marriage.

Logically speaking if someone comes from this starting point then one does not need to view marriage (or life in general) as "hard" or "easy".

I think that both of your conclusions make logical sense, yes. They aren't necessarily right though. While I do not wish to overstep my experience as an unmarried man, I tend to think that our response to problems and difficulties are what make aspects of life seem hard, far more than the actual problems. Therefore, I would amend both starting points and alter the conclusions to this: Marriage could indeed be labeled "hard" or "easy", but it is not the problems that make it so.

 

[PapaLandShark]

Two editorial comments:

1) I would use the words "outlook" or "viewpoint" instead of "Starting point".

2) Your second "Starting point" needs to have the words "are what" included as in the first.

I'll try to explain why, if need be, later when I have more time.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

I tend to think that our response to problems and difficulties are what make aspects of life seem hard, far more than the actual problems.

I tend to think that way as well, therefore I believe that Viewpoint 1 is invalid because the premise is false.

Therefore, I would amend both starting points and alter the conclusions to this: Marriage could indeed be labeled "hard" or "easy", but it is not the problems that make it so.

I concur, but how would you amend the viewpoints?

Thanks bro,
Diane

 

[Orontes]

Viewpoint 1: Problems/difficulties are what makes marriage "hard".

Logically speaking if you hold this viewpoint then you will describe marriage as "hard" because in marriage a couple does face problems and difficulties in their marriage.

Viewpoint 2: Problems/difficulties are what make marriage interesting, and when a problem comes up you find the solution.

Logically speaking if you hold this viewpoint then one does not need to view marriage (or life in general) as "hard" or "easy".

I don't care whether you are in agreement with viewpoint 1 or 2. I am just curious to know if you believe that this is clear and logical thinking on my part, and that the conclusions are valid.

Hello,

There isn't any logical entailment with either position. With the first: it doesn't follow that an initial premise X then Y requires any deference to actual event X1. The assertion of any actual event X1 does not impact the form of the premise nor does it serve as a conclusion. With position two, the premises: P then Q and if P then R do not lead to any conclusion about a separate posit then S or T.

 

[LVdesigns]

Viewpoint 1: Problems/difficulties are what makes marriage "hard".

Logically speaking if you hold this viewpoint then you will describe marriage as "hard" because in marriage a couple does face problems and difficulties in their marriage.

Viewpoint 2: Problems/difficulties are what make marriage interesting, and when a problem comes up you find the solution.

Logically speaking if you hold this viewpoint then one does not need to view marriage (or life in general) as "hard" or "easy".

I don't care whether you are in agreement with viewpoint 1 or 2. I am just curious to know if you believe that this is clear and logical thinking on my part, and that the conclusions are valid.

Thank You,
DIANE

Well, the conclusions to your premises (viewpoints)are logical however the second is very vague. You would need to form a stronger basis for the second conclusion to be the only logical possibility. A person could think that problems make a marriage interesting and still come to the conclusion that marriage is hard.

​

​

 

[Cleany]

it sounds like you are saying that people only bother to describe things that they have a problem with - which is very interesting!

the problem that i see with it is that you have used if .. then statements but it is debatable whether or not the effect could actually come before the cause. it is not clear whether or not viewpoints cause problems or problems cause viewpoints.

wow now i have a headache - maybe i am getting confused?

Viewpoint 1: Problems/difficulties are what makes marriage "hard".

Logically speaking if you hold this viewpoint then you will describe marriage as "hard" because in marriage a couple does face problems and difficulties in their marriage.

Viewpoint 2: Problems/difficulties are what make marriage interesting, and when a problem comes up you find the solution.

Logically speaking if you hold this viewpoint then one does not need to view marriage (or life in general) as "hard" or "easy".

I don't care whether you are in agreement with viewpoint 1 or 2. I am just curious to know if you believe that this is clear and logical thinking on my part, and that the conclusions are valid.

Thank You,
DIANE

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Hello,

There isn't any logical entailment with either position. With the first: it doesn't follow that an initial premise X then Y requires any deference to actual event X1. The assertion of any actual event X1 does not impact the form of the premise nor does it serve as a conclusion. With position two, the premises: P then Q and if P then R do not lead to any conclusion about a separate posit then S or T.

 

[Orontes]

I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Logic is a formal method involving premises and conclusions. The content is not relevant. What is relevant is the entailment between the premises and conclusion. When these are correct the argument is valid meaning the conclusion necessarily follows given the premises and could not be otherwise. In your two cases, there is no entailment between the premises and the drawn conclusion. I tried to show this to you through a simple symbology.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Logic is a formal method involving premises and conclusions. The content is not relevant. What is relevant is the entailment between the premises and conclusion. When these are correct the argument is valid meaning the conclusion necessarily follows given the premises and could not be otherwise. In your two cases, there is no entailment between the premises and the drawn conclusion. I tried to show this to you through a simple symbology.

How is their no entailment? What is entailment? Can you tell that I have had no formal logic classes Are you taking the viepoints together or separately?

DIANE

 

[AirPo]

Another problem is that "hard," "interesting," "problems," and "difficulties" are not quantitative words, they're qualitative.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Another problem is that "hard," "interesting," "problems," and "difficulties" are not quantitative words, they're qualitative.

But the question is not whether the object has those qualitative quantities, but whether people percieve or describe them that way- that could easily be quantified.

 

[AirPo]

But the question is not whether the object has those qualitative quantities, but whether people percieve or describe them that way- that could easily be quantified.

But since the perception varies from person to person, it cannot be part of a classic logical argument.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Another problem is that "hard," "interesting," "problems," and "difficulties" are not quantitative words, they're qualitative.

In other words people can judge life as being "hard" or "easy" based on their own personal experiences. And since we all have different experiences one person can classify life as "hard", while another person can classify life as "easy".

Does that make sense?

DIANE

 

[Orontes]

How is their no entailment? What is entailment? Can you tell that I have had no formal logic classes Are you taking the viepoints together or separately?

DIANE

Hi Diane,

Entailment is a term indicating the conclusion is derived from the premises. Let me give a simple example.

Premise: Socrates is a Man (X is Y)
Premise: All men are mortal (Y then Z)
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal (X is Z)

This is a simple deductive example where the X and Z in the conclusion are derived from the prior premises. Your two viewpoints (I took them as separate) do not have this quality.

 

[AirPo]

In other words people can judge life as being "hard" or "easy" based on their own personal experiences. And since we all have different experiences one person can classify life as "hard", while another person can classify life as "easy".

Does that make sense?

DIANE

Yes.

 

[Mirelys]

These are not deductive arguments, as has been pointed out. They are inductive arguments, and I need a lot more coffee before I try to tackle whether they are valid or not. I do not like inductive arguments.