Post a substantive response to one of the prompts below and be clear about which one you are referring to:

PROMPT #1: ARGUMENT PROMPT. Consider the following argument:

Validity is of no importance. An argument can have false premises and still be valid. In fact, it can have false premises and a false conclusion, yet still be valid. Therefore, there is no connection between truth and validity. Thus, validity is irrelevant to truth and therefore to philosophical inquiry.

How would you reply to this argument? Which statements of the argument are correct and which incorrect?

PROMPT #2: ZENO PROMPT. Zeno’s paradox reveals a mismatch between the way we think about the world and the way the world actually is. The challenge then becomes how to identify what precisely is wrong with our thinking. Motion is possible, of course, and a fast human runner can beat a tortoise in a race. The problem seems to have something to do with our conception of infinity. How would you solve Zeno’s problem? In your mind, is space continuous or discrete? Explain your answer.

And please also provide critical feedback to these two people’s posts.(I’ll post another later)

PERSON 1: (yingshan)

PROMPT #1: ARGUMENT PROMPT:

The correct statements are “an argument can have false premises and still be valid” and “it can have false premises and a false conclusion, yet still be valid.” The in correct statements are “validity is of no importance,” “there is no connection between truth and validity” and “validity is irrelevant to truth and therefore to philosophical inquiry.” 

In the lecture, professor uses the example of “women are tiger” to prove the above arguments. Moreover, there is no counterexample in the deductive argument when it is valid. However, one thing cannot happen is that the premises are all true, but the conclusion is false and the argument is deductively valid. On the contrary, a deductive argument is invalid if its preemies are all true but the conclusion is false. Also, even if the premises and the conclusion are all true, the argument may still be invalid, such as the example of “Alvin lives in California.” 

For the incorrect statement, truth is based on proposition; however, validity is based on the argument. The proposition is either true or false, and the deductive argument is either valid or invalid. In other words, if the conclusion follows from premises, the argument is valid. Logically, truth is the property of statements, such as premises and conclusions; however, validity is the property of the argument itself.

Validity is important in deductive arguments. The only way to judge whether the argument is soundness is whether the argument is valid and whether the premises are in fact true. If validity is of no importance in deductive arguments, we can never estimate whether a deductive argument is soundness.

PERSON 2:

Prompt #1

I do not agree with the statement that validity is of no importance. Validity can always be used no matter the situation you are in. Most of the time it can help your argument because it gives proof or enhances your argument.  I do agree that there can be false premises and false conclusions yet the argument still be valid because there can be many other reasons for it to be valid. However I do think there is a connection between truth and validity because they need to go hand in hand. Sometimes situations put you in places that do not seem to make sense or does not seem true but does it make it incorrect if it does happen. There are a bunch of situations that can unravel and sometimes things do not go as simple as true or false and valid or invalid. There are many variables that go into these arguments. Both validity and truth can increase the strength of your argument and even if they sometimes may not have a connection that does not mean it is irrelevant in all situations.

A substantive post is generally >180 words and introduces a new idea or is a meaningful response toanother person’s post. When responding to another person’s post, please either expand the thought, addadditional insights, or respectfully disagree and explain why.