Who Knows The Rules For Valid Forms Of Arguments?

Question

Insults & ridicule are just things bullies use to get what they think accross, stepping on as many toes as they can because is gives them a false sense of control, blah!

I was upset and misspelled a couple of words, euh.

Answer 1

You are right. If you want to know the rules for valid argumentation and a discussion of falacies then a book on Logic would give you that information. Or you can refer to the web. I have listed some sites you might find useful. One which lists many types of faliciuos arguments is at: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

All the best.

Answer 2

The rules for telling the valid forms of argument apply only to deductive arguments. There are two other main kinds of arguments - analogies and inductions.

Perhaps what you want to know are the kinds of fallacies - the ways in which an argument can be faulty. There are many many such ways, but they all come under three headings:

1. Informal fallacies of content. These are fallacies due to the actual words used in the argument. Usually these involve some sort of double meaning. An argument is fallacious if a word or phrase used in it is given more than one meaning. For example:

Arnold is very healthy,
Smoking is not very healthy,
So, Arnold is healthier than smoking.

In that argument the phrase 'very healthy' has two different meanings, and that is why the conclusion is nonsense.

2. Informal fallacies of context. These are fallacies due to the argument either lacking something it needs (being incomplete) or including something that is irrelevant to it. For example:

John tells us we shouldn't smoke because it is unhealthy.
John still smokes.
So why should we believe John's advice about smoking?

In this argument the fact that John still smokes is irrelevant to the question of whether John's advice about smoking is good advice.

3. Formal fallacies. The conclusion of an analogy or an induction can never be certain, even if their premises are true. However, the conclusion of a deduction having true premises will be true IF it also has a *valid* form. It is not easy to be sure that a deduction has a valid form. But there is one quick method you can use that might reveal when a form is not valid.

The method is that you remove the content from the argument to reveal its form, and then you give that form some different content. Here's an example:

If Tom likes Jane he might do her homework,
Tom does Jane's homework,
So Tom likes Jane.

The form if this deduction is:

If P then Q,
Q,
So P.

But this is an invalid form. You can see this by giving it some different content, such as:

If there is a power blackout the TV won't work,
The TV won't work,
So there is a power blackout.

Of course, it *does not* follow from the fact that the TV doesn't work that there is a power blackout. Just as it doesn't follow from the fact that Tom does Jane's homework that Tom likes Jane.

Answer 3

In logic, an argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion called a conclusion, based on the truth of a set of assertions,called premises. The rules of inferences make a sequence of valid inferences from original premise .It is a method much like our normal way of thinking thru to a conclusion.

If you already know some statements and you want to deduce another statement, , the rules of inference tell you if this is logically valid. In evaluating an argument we consider separately, the truth of the premises and the validity of the logical relationship between the premises, any intermediate assertions and the conclusion.

Using insults and ridicules in arguments is a sign of emotional inmaturity. Some people employ this method a lot when their sense of security is threatened. They even raise their voices in heated arguments;falsely thinking that by increasing the decibels, that they are winning.

Answer 4

Even the best speakers are less concerned with validity than with effect. Validity is for the logical people. And even among the ranks of non-bullies a valid argument is rare because most valid arguments are not effective except when read by the more mechanical minds. So becoming non-bully need not involve logic rather sensitivity.

Answer 5

I would just play by some basic rules as below:
1. Use and accept only facts and not feelings
2. Do not be personal
3. Focus on the issue of the discussion and not digress to irrelevant issues.
4. Listen to the opposing arguments carefully for weaknesses. This will give you an opportunity to strengthen yours.

Answer 6

I think you have gut enough dissent answers by now, I only want to ask you about the cat, do you know the power things story If so, is it because of sympathy or protest that you have this picture, as your logo, or you like the way that he is being treated, and the Idea of power cats having Gold teeth's , I am angry of this Doter you see and it seams everybody is angry for some reason.

Answer 7

If i were a bully and you pulled some formal argument rules on me, I would insult and ridicule you mercilessly. Luckily, I'm not a bully, you friggin dork.

Answer 8

http://www.cebuplus.com/arts/38/philosophy.html

Answer 9

the rules you seek can be found in any textbook of logic.