nonpartisan research: tax cuts won't fix economy

[Boo Radley]

There are no truths about human action that we just know?



Umm, that's not a valid claim, so your conclusion doesn't logically follow. This is an example of poor logic, not a fault with deduction.

I never said there were no truths in the world, I said: deductive reasoning can never be used to show something is true or false.

And yes, it is poor reasoning, but that's the point. the conclusion has top be tested, show to be true before the reasoning can be accepted as valid. This requires we look at the animal and see if it actually is a cat. In our case, we ahve to look and see if the economy is actually effected by taxes. We can't assume the reasoning is sound without evidence.

 

[phattonez]

I never said there were no truths in the world, I said: deductive reasoning can never be used to show something is true or false.

And yes, it is poor reasoning, but that's the point. the conclusion has top be tested, show to be true before the reasoning can be accepted as valid. This requires we look at the animal and see if it actually is a cat. In our case, we ahve to look and see if the economy is actually effected by taxes. We can't assume the reasoning is sound without evidence.

Then your point is a poor one. Your conclusion doesn't hold any water because it's an invalid conclusion. Deductive reasoning wouldn't rule out the possibility, but it's like saying it may be windy outside today. It may be true, and it might not be, but it's not anythin useful. Valid conclusions from deductive reasoning are useful. For instance:

A1eople generally like to spend the least amount of money on a product as possible, all other things being equal.
A2:One company offers something at a lower price than the other company.
Ceople will generally buy the product from the company that offers the lower price and not buy from the company that offers the higher price.

That is a valid conclusion, and you don't need data to know that it is true. A1 is self-evident, and A2 is a description of the current situation, so C must be true. The only way to reject the conclusion is to reject A1 and/or A2.

 

[Boo Radley]

Then your point is a poor one. Your conclusion doesn't hold any water because it's an invalid conclusion. Deductive reasoning wouldn't rule out the possibility, but it's like saying it may be windy outside today. It may be true, and it might not be, but it's not anythin useful. Valid conclusions from deductive reasoning are useful. For instance:

A1eople generally like to spend the least amount of money on a product as possible, all other things being equal.
A2:One company offers something at a lower price than the other company.
Ceople will generally buy the product from the company that offers the lower price and not buy from the company that offers the higher price.

That is a valid conclusion, and you don't need data to know that it is true. A1 is self-evident, and A2 is a description of the current situation, so C must be true. The only way to reject the conclusion is to reject A1 and/or A2.

it's a valid conclusion only if they actually do that. It's reasonable to think they will, but to prove if they actually will or not, we have to look, just as you have to look at fluffy and see if fluffy really is a cat. That is how you confirm. It is not a matter of only being able to reject one of the premises. Cats do have four legs. Fluffy does have four legs. Both are true, but the conclusion was false.

 

[phattonez]

it's a valid conclusion only if they actually do that. It's reasonable to think they will, but to prove if they actually will or not, we have to look, just as you have to look at fluffy and see if fluffy really is a cat. That is how you confirm. It is not a matter of only being able to reject one of the premises. Cats do have four legs. Fluffy does have four legs. Both are true, but the conclusion was false.

Like I said, you have to disprove either A1 or A2. You don't need data to prove the concept of competition.

 

[Boo Radley]

Like I said, you have to disprove either A1 or A2. You don't need data to prove the concept of competition.

And I just proved you don't. You are wrong about that.

 

[phattonez]

And I just proved you don't. You are wrong about that.

What? If you can't disprove the validity or soundness of an argument then you have to accept it.

 

[Boo Radley]

What? If you can't disprove the validity or soundness of an argument then you have to accept it.

????????

Ok, that was confusing. I disproved your claim that one of the premises have to be incorrect for the argument to be false. Cats do have four legs. Fluffy does have four legs. both are correct. the conclusion that fluffy must be a cat was false. So, both of the premises you base your conclsuion on can be true, and still cme up with a false conclusion.

I used a simple example to show the flaw in your thinking. But it works the same way with more complex efforts. both of your premises can be true and you can still reach the wrong conclusion. That's why you still need support.

 

[phattonez]

????????

Ok, that was confusing. I disproved your claim that one of the premises have to be incorrect for the argument to be false. Cats do have four legs. Fluffy does have four legs. both are correct. the conclusion that fluffy must be a cat was false. So, both of the premises you base your conclsuion on can be true, and still cme up with a false conclusion.

Because it wasn't valid reasoning!

A has B.
C has B.

From those two statements you cannot claim that A is the same as C. If cats are white and mice are white, it doesn't mean that cats are mice. I'm trying to say that you did not show the flaw in deductive reasoning, you used a logical fallacy!

I used a simple example to show the flaw in your thinking. But it works the same way with more complex efforts. both of your premises can be true and you can still reach the wrong conclusion. That's why you still need support.

Because the conclusion was invalid! Do I need to spell out the definition of validity for you? Here, this is what Wikipedia shows as an invalid argument.

The above arguments may be contrasted with the following invalid one:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is mortal.
Therefore, Socrates is a man.

In this case, the conclusion does not follow inescapably from the premises. A universe is easily imagined in which Socrates is not a man, but a woman, so that in fact the above premises would be true but the conclusion false. This possibility makes the argument invalid. (Although, whether or not an argument is valid does not depend on what anyone could actually imagine to be the case, this approach helps evaluate some arguments.)

Validity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Boo Radley]

The flaw is in the fact you can't prove the outcome is correct. Again, I used something simple to show the flaw. No matter how reasonable it may sound, you still have to show that your premises actually add up to the conclusion. Both claims can be true, but the conclusion false.

Let's look at your premise

A1eople generally like to spend the least amount of money on a product as possible, all other things being equal.

Maybe. But we'd be hard pressed to show they actually do, as best sellers like tide detergent and such sell quite well despite being equal but more expensive. This may actually be more of an overgeneralization.

A2:One company offers something at a lower price than the other company.

And one company will.

Ceople will generally buy the product from the company that offers the lower price and not buy from the company that offers the higher price.

And yet high price companies actually do quite well, so there is a flaw somewhere.

Again, even with deduction you have to check your findings. There are seldom only two elements to a problem and as such we have to check to see if our conclusions actually add up. You're actually trying to argue that no checking is needed, and that is false.

A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion).

Fallacies

Premises

When assessing the quality of the premises, the question to ask is: are the premises true (or at least plausible)? While the testing of premises can be a rather extensive matter, it is reasonable to accept a premise as plausible if it meets three conditions. First, the premise is consistent with your own observations. Second, the premise is consistent with your background beliefs and experience. Third, the premise is consistent with credible sources, such as experts, standard references and text books. It should be noted that thoroughly and rigorously examining premises can involve going far beyond the three basic standards presented here.

Deductive Argument « Reasoning Resources

 

[phattonez]

The flaw is in the fact you can't prove the outcome is correct. Again, I used something simple to show the flaw. No matter how reasonable it may sound, you still have to show that your premises actually add up to the conclusion. Both claims can be true, but the conclusion false.

Let's look at your premise

A1eople generally like to spend the least amount of money on a product as possible, all other things being equal.

Maybe. But we'd be hard pressed to show they actually do, as best sellers like tide detergent and such sell quite well despite being equal but more expensive. This may actually be more of an overgeneralization.

A2:One company offers something at a lower price than the other company.

And one company will.

Ceople will generally buy the product from the company that offers the lower price and not buy from the company that offers the higher price.

And yet high price companies actually do quite well, so there is a flaw somewhere.

You're not accounting for quality of goods and subjective value. Notice that I said in the first premise ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.

Again, even with deduction you have to check your findings. There are seldom only two elements to a problem and as such we have to check to see if our conclusions actually add up. You're actually trying to argue that no checking is needed, and that is false.

A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion).

Fallacies

Premises

When assessing the quality of the premises, the question to ask is: are the premises true (or at least plausible)? While the testing of premises can be a rather extensive matter, it is reasonable to accept a premise as plausible if it meets three conditions. First, the premise is consistent with your own observations. Second, the premise is consistent with your background beliefs and experience. Third, the premise is consistent with credible sources, such as experts, standard references and text books. It should be noted that thoroughly and rigorously examining premises can involve going far beyond the three basic standards presented here.

Deductive Argument « Reasoning Resources

The problem with your example was an obvious logical fallacy. The premises did not necessarily lead to the conclusion, so your logic was flawed. If you'd like though, let's keep examining my deductive reasoning example since I think all of your qualms can be answered through our discussion of it.