![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed the section on the "validity of statements." I have never seen a logic textbook that referred to statements of any kind as "valid," and to do so in an encyclopedia article seems confusing. There were no sources cited. The section wrongfully conflated validity with "logical truth" (whatever that is). And the example that it gave was just a tautology ("if no god is mortal, then no mortal is god"). Brijohn6882 ( talk) 20:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
This article was originally entitled Validity (disambiguation), whcih is surley a better name for it. Any objections or reason against moving it back to Validity (disambiguation)? -- Philogo ( talk) 13:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone object to adding a link to Test_validity? Jmbrowne ( talk) 03:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I reverted a statement to the effect that only arguments can be valid, statements being only true or false. This is subject to definition and convention. I do not claim that the claim is unacceptable in principle, but if it is to earn its place in the article, the underlying principles and conventions need to be made explicit together with proper citation. It could be argued for example that a statement that is necessarily true/false/meaningless/contingent, is correspondingly valid/invalid. If this argument is rejected, it first must be made clear what conventions from which authorities forbid them. It also must be made clear which restatements of such a statement would be acceptable in asserting its (in)validity.
Eg: X= not(X) cannot be true for any relevant, meaningful and meaningfully compatible classes of values for X, "=" and "not (X)". Conversely for X=X. X=Y would be contingent, and =X= would be meaningless in most conventions. To call some of those forms of statements valid according to some conventions would be sufficiently defensible, for denial of its permissibility to require appropriate explanation and supporting citation. To argue that such a statement amounts to a 1-statement argument, which is why it is (in)valid, might be defensible, but then we need a far less natural definition of "statement" and "argument" to accommodate the argument, still together with adequate relevant citation. JonRichfield ( talk) 15:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
i can't find an example of an invalid syllogism on this page. I would appreciate an example of one where the premises are true but it is still invalid. 69.125.59.43 ( talk) 21:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Please see discussion at WT:WPM#Ω-validity. -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
At present the page Validity (disambiguation) lists sixteen uses of the word "validity". Of those, the technical meaning in logic is given the article title Validity. It does not seem to me that that one meaning is in any sense a primary meaning of the word, and so I was considering moving Validity to Validity (logic) and Validity (disambiguation) to Validity. However, rather than just rush into doing so I first checked the history of the pages, to see whether there was anything there indicating a reason not to do so. I found that until the arrangement I had in mind was in fact exactly what had existed until February 2009. At that time not only did one editor unilaterally change the situation without either discussing the matter or even explaining his reason, but more importantly he did so by improperly copying content from pages and pasting them into others, losing the editing history and failing to give attribution. I am therefore intending to do a history swap and merge, restoring the history and titles of the pages involved. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 10:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed the section on the "validity of statements." I have never seen a logic textbook that referred to statements of any kind as "valid," and to do so in an encyclopedia article seems confusing. There were no sources cited. The section wrongfully conflated validity with "logical truth" (whatever that is). And the example that it gave was just a tautology ("if no god is mortal, then no mortal is god"). Brijohn6882 ( talk) 20:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
This article was originally entitled Validity (disambiguation), whcih is surley a better name for it. Any objections or reason against moving it back to Validity (disambiguation)? -- Philogo ( talk) 13:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone object to adding a link to Test_validity? Jmbrowne ( talk) 03:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I reverted a statement to the effect that only arguments can be valid, statements being only true or false. This is subject to definition and convention. I do not claim that the claim is unacceptable in principle, but if it is to earn its place in the article, the underlying principles and conventions need to be made explicit together with proper citation. It could be argued for example that a statement that is necessarily true/false/meaningless/contingent, is correspondingly valid/invalid. If this argument is rejected, it first must be made clear what conventions from which authorities forbid them. It also must be made clear which restatements of such a statement would be acceptable in asserting its (in)validity.
Eg: X= not(X) cannot be true for any relevant, meaningful and meaningfully compatible classes of values for X, "=" and "not (X)". Conversely for X=X. X=Y would be contingent, and =X= would be meaningless in most conventions. To call some of those forms of statements valid according to some conventions would be sufficiently defensible, for denial of its permissibility to require appropriate explanation and supporting citation. To argue that such a statement amounts to a 1-statement argument, which is why it is (in)valid, might be defensible, but then we need a far less natural definition of "statement" and "argument" to accommodate the argument, still together with adequate relevant citation. JonRichfield ( talk) 15:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
i can't find an example of an invalid syllogism on this page. I would appreciate an example of one where the premises are true but it is still invalid. 69.125.59.43 ( talk) 21:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Please see discussion at WT:WPM#Ω-validity. -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
At present the page Validity (disambiguation) lists sixteen uses of the word "validity". Of those, the technical meaning in logic is given the article title Validity. It does not seem to me that that one meaning is in any sense a primary meaning of the word, and so I was considering moving Validity to Validity (logic) and Validity (disambiguation) to Validity. However, rather than just rush into doing so I first checked the history of the pages, to see whether there was anything there indicating a reason not to do so. I found that until the arrangement I had in mind was in fact exactly what had existed until February 2009. At that time not only did one editor unilaterally change the situation without either discussing the matter or even explaining his reason, but more importantly he did so by improperly copying content from pages and pasting them into others, losing the editing history and failing to give attribution. I am therefore intending to do a history swap and merge, restoring the history and titles of the pages involved. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 10:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)