|General validity: within a calculus a formula that is satisfied by any interpretation (variable assignment with expressions for objects) is valid. See also satisfaction, satisfiability, interpretation._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. |
|Salmon I 41
Validity / W.Salmon: affects arguments (= groups of statements), not individual statements.
- - -
Menne I 25
Menne: We become aware of laws through experience, but that does not mean that their validity is based on experience.
- - -
Hoyningen-Huene II 100
Validity of conclusions of propositional logic: conditions:
1. The validity of the conclusion depends on the multiple occurrence of certain (partial) statements.
2. The validity is dependent on certain junction points occurring in it.
3. The validity is independent of the sense of the (partial) statements.
Def Truth transfer/HH: positive: the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion.
4. The validity of the conclusion requires truth transfer, i.e. that a true premise conjunction never occurs together with a false conclusion.
1. The validity of the conclusion depends on the multiple occurrence of predicates (which refer to the same range of individuals) and possibly Iogical Constants (from the same range of individuals)
2. The validity depends on the quantifiers and possibly junctionors that occur.
3. The validity is independent of the sense.
4. validity requires truth transfer.
- - -
Read III 71
VsClassical logic: Classical logic does not succeed in including as valid those inferences whose correctness is based on the connections between non-logical expressions. If an object is round, then it follows that it is not square. But this conclusion is not valid thanks to its form, but thanks to its content.
Logical Universe: Problem: one can find inferences whose invalidity can only be seen by looking at a larger universal range of definitions. ((s) See also Problems with the Introduction of new conjunctions: >tonk._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. The note [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition.
Me I Albert Menne Folgerichtig Denken Darmstadt 1988
HH II Hoyningen-Huene Formale Logik, Stuttgart 1998
Re III Stephen Read Philosophie der Logik Hamburg 1997
Sal IV Wesley C. Salmon Logic, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 1973 - German: Logik Stuttgart 1983
Sai V R.M.Sainsbury Paradoxes, Cambridge/New York/Melbourne 1995 - German: Paradoxien Stuttgart 2001
Wesley C. Salmon
Logic, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 1973
Logik Stuttgart 1983
The Foundations Of Scientific Inference 1967
Content, Cognition, and Communication: Philosophical Papers II 2007
Folgerichtig Denken Darmstadt 1997
Thinking About Logic: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Logic. 1995 Oxford University Press
Philosophie der Logik Hamburg 1997