All three of these arguments are valid (i.e. if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true on pain of contradiction).
Socrates is a man.
Therefore,
Socrates is a man or Socrates is immortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore,
If Socrates is immortal, then Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal.
Therefore,
If Socrates is immortal, then Socrates is mortal.
One of these arguments is actually an identity (i.e. A, therefore, A). Which one?
So if all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, then each of the conclusions above must be true, but they all seem intuitively wrong.
User Tag List
Thread: Weird Logic

12052012, 10:20 PM #1
Weird Logic
A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

12052012, 10:46 PM #2garbageGuest
Logic is just a funny beast sometimes. That first one reduces to identity; second is true because of a counterintuitive 'oddity' of logical implication.
Third is even more 'odd.' But, really, it's phrased essentially as (¬q → q) and (p → q) = ¬p ∨ q, therefore we have ¬(¬p) ∨ q, thus q ∨ q, thus q). q is pretty easy to understand!
The thing that people never, ever understand is the word "if"both in propositional logic and in real life. People also don't understand stats, but that's a subject for another day.

12052012, 10:48 PM #3
 Join Date
 Jun 2007
 MBTI
 INFP
 Enneagram
 5
 Posts
 1,676
They only seem intuitively wrong if you read them in English rather than formal logic. The English readings have ambiguity to them, and some of the meanings in the ambiguity would make the arguments logically invalid. "Or" in English has a variety of uses (such as "only one of these components is true" and "all these components must be possible", but in formal logic it's just "at least one of the components is true"), and conditionals do too (in English "if... then" is taken to imply a connection between the components, whereas in formal logic it never implies such).
The last one is a common start to a reductio ad absurdem, assuming immortal and mortal are contradictory (in English they often are not), as such it could end up as an identity (though it technically isn't, using the system I am familiar with).

12052012, 10:52 PM #4
Indeed.
That first one reduces to identity
second is true because of a counterintuitive 'oddity' of logical implication.
The thing that people never, ever understand is the word "if"both in propositional logic and in real life.A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

12052012, 10:58 PM #5
Even when translated into formulae, these arguments are not obviously valid.
P: Socrates is a man
Q: Socrates is mortal
P ⊨ P v ~Q
P ⊨ ~Q → P
P ⊨ ~P → P
I hope these logical symbols for material implication and semantic entailment appear correctly for everyone.
The last one is the start of a reductio ad absurdem, assuming immortal and mortal are contradictory (in English they often are not).A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

12052012, 11:11 PM #6garbageGuest
It's a pretty straightforward answer. I doubt that most people know or care about propositional logic and so they just want to hear the point"logic is odd and sometimes counterintuitive."
I'd go through the symbolic rigamaroo, but I'll just let people cheat and use truth tables.

12052012, 11:15 PM #7
 Join Date
 Jun 2007
 MBTI
 INFP
 Enneagram
 5
 Posts
 1,676
How are they not obviously valid now?
If established that P is true, then the statement "at least one of the following, P..., is true" is also true, no matter the other components included with P.
If established that P is true, then any conditional concluding P is also true, since in formal logic there is no implied connection between the antecedent and the consequent, only the consequent need be true for the conditional to be true (I exist, therefore if you exist then I exist).
As I said, the start of a reductio ad absurdum. The conclusion must be true for the reductio ad absurdum to follow.

12052012, 11:27 PM #8
Perhaps, but that's an explanation of why you gave an ambiguous answer, and not an explanation why it wasn't actually ambiguous.
I'd go through the symbolic rigamaroo, but I'll just let people cheat and use truth tables.
I just noticed you added the following to your original response:
Third is even more 'odd.' But, really, it's phrased essentially as (¬q → q) and (p → q) = ¬p ∨ q, therefore we have ¬(¬p) ∨ q, thus q ∨ q, thus q). q is pretty easy to understand!A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

12052012, 11:40 PM #9
Obviousness is relative.
If established that P is true, then the statement "at least one of the following, P..., is true" is also true, no matter the other components included with P.
If established that P is true, then any conditional concluding P is also true, since in formal logic there is no implied connection between the antecedent and the consequent, only the consequent need be true for the conditional to be true (I exist, therefore if you exist then I exist).
As I said, the start of a reductio ad absurdum. The conclusion must be true for the reductio ad absurdum to follow.A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

12052012, 11:45 PM #10garbageGuest
Ambiguity is relative.
Even with the truthtable, it's still counterintuitive and difficult to explain why it must be so.
I'd do it here but I forgot how to make a table in vBulletin
Right, but then why did you say the first argument was the identity?
Similar Threads

Weird Zodiac Sign: Aries? Me?
By Athenian200 in forum Philosophy and SpiritualityReplies: 16Last Post: 02212008, 08:55 PM 
Eight functions  weird test results
By Natrushka in forum Online Personality TestsReplies: 72Last Post: 02142008, 03:19 PM 
News of the Weird...
By sdalek in forum The Fluff ZoneReplies: 18Last Post: 06212007, 05:49 AM 
Commonly abused logical Fallacies..
By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and SpiritualityReplies: 12Last Post: 05272007, 05:54 PM