<p>
[quote]
I am looking for any type of evidence right now... You know that typically I trust your info big time... it's just that 79 is a nuber that nobody has mentioned before.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here is a great hint: call the admissions office and... ask.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but I think that it is for 2004...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is no basis for that belief. That two numbers are identical is not sufficient evidence for anything, or at least for anything you are trying to demonstrate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Here is a great hint: call the admissions office and... ask.
[/quote]
I was really thinking about it... All I have to ask tho is how many people didn't matriculate.</p>
<p>He is making a valid logical assertion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I was really thinking about it... All I have to ask tho is how many people didn't matriculate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That information is also obtainable from the admissions office.</p>
<p>You can ask nearly any admissions-related question to an admissions officer; if the answer to that question is not of the applicant's concern, the admissions officer will not provide a direct response. It is that simple.</p>
<p>nspeds is the light of common sense to the rest of you lot. Calling the admissions office and getting an answer from them should settle any issues.</p>
<p>
[quote]
He is making a valid logical assertion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I hope you mean sound logical assertion, for I never used a single syllogism in this thread. If you are referring to inductive reasoning, then the word would be cogent.</p>
<p>Yes it would but it is Saturday.</p>
<p>Look up the word 'valid,' nspeds. You will find that it is a synonym for the words 'sound' and 'cogent.' You have merely pointed out the ways in which logicians are accustomed to using each word; but they are actually interchangeable.</p>
<p><a href="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:BFOv5HjiAlYJ:www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs611/2003fa/lectures/lec16.ps+%22valid+assertion%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3&client=firefox-a%5B/url%5D">http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:BFOv5HjiAlYJ:www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs611/2003fa/lectures/lec16.ps+%22valid+assertion%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3&client=firefox-a</a>
I couldn't open the .ps extention but one can google "valid assertion" (with the quotation marks) and see that it is a **valid* expression even in logic. At least the PhDs at Cornell think so</p>
<p>
[quote]
Look up the word 'valid,' nspeds. You will find that it is a synonym for the words 'sound' and 'cogent.'
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Consult the first couple of chapters in an introductory textbook to logic.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You have merely pointed out the ways in which logicians are accustomed to using each word; but they are actually interchangeable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of all people, you should know this: synonyms are not exact word-replacements.</p>
<p>This reminds me of a student who did not want to repeat the word 'smile' too many times in his essay, so he used a thesaurus. In the essay, when his girlfriend finally saw him after exiting the jetway, she "smirked."</p>
<p>
[quote]
You have merely pointed out the ways in which logicians are accustomed
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, what I have made salient is that lack of perspicuity in thesauri.</p>
<p>But even if you reject what I have just argued, the Oxford American Dictionary actually draws a clear distinction between "valid," "sound," and "cogent."</p>
<p>
[quote]
I couldn't open the *.ps extention but one can google "valid assertion"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am referring to sentential and inductive logic, not completeness theorems.</p>
<p>Edit: As one should know, completeness theorems are necessarily sound since they presuppose a mathematical framework which is true a priori. Thus the claim for soundness is redundant; tests for validity, on the other hand, are applicable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"valid assertion" (with the quotation marks) and see that it is a valid expression even in logic.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That misses the point.</p>
<p>A syllogism that is valid is one in which the conclusion necessarily follows from the truth of its premises. A syllogism is sound if its premises are true. An inductive conclusion is cogent if it is not drawn from insufficient evidence.</p>
<p>Soundness does not imply validity, though validity does imply soundness.</p>
<p>nspeds loves to think he's playing the devil's advocate eh?
Listen kid, the prententiousness in your writing only got you as far as Georgetown, maybe it's time to change?</p>
<p>"Smirked" vs. "smile" is not analogous to "valid" and "sound." You have drawn a faulty comparison in that the semantic disparity of the former is much greater than the latter. I agree with your point, but it is not relevent to this case.</p>
<p>Secondly, as I already stated, I was not using the word in accordance with the jargon of logic. I was merely using it in its denotative sense, meaning you made a "correct logical assertion"; and far as I can tell, 'correct' and 'valid' carry practically the same meaning within this context. Also, I was making a reference to neither sentiential or inductive logic.</p>
<p>Johnstone is most centrally identified with the thesis that all philosophical argument relies on its capacity to make a valid assertion within the framework of ones interlocutor. Quite unlike his Belgian counterparts Ch. Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca,[1] who advocated that philosophical validity resided in appeals that could gain the adherence of a universal audience, Johnstone maintained that philosophical arguments were valid only insofar as they were deemed valid by those to whom they were addressed (1952b). For Johnstone, all arguments were bounded by the system of presuppositions in which they were situated. In his view, a proposition without an underlying system of presuppositions was open to the charge of being an arbitrary assertion. One justified ones claims, including alterations in ones assertions, with an eye to achieving consistency with the presuppositions on which the system rested. Six years before Stephen Toulmins The Uses of Argument[2] appeared, in which he advanced his much acclaimed theory of field dependent argument, Johnstones article on the argumentum ad hominem was advancing his own thesis, which cut across the grain of universality as the benchmark of validity.</p>
<p>nspeds, an argument can be sound without its premises being true. </p>
<p>Example:</p>
<p>All tigers are purple
nspeds is a tiger
nspeds is purple</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Smirked" vs. "smile" is not analogous to "valid" and "sound." You have drawn a faulty comparison in that the semantic disparity of the former is much greater than the latter.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course the discrepancy will be greater; it demonstrates that synonyms are not always exact correlates. My example demonstrated that point, and all I needed was an exception to refute your argument.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I was not using the word in accordance with the jargon of logic.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry, but you do not have that choice when you state:
[quote]
He is making a valid logical assertion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
I was merely using it in its denotative sense, meaning you made a "correct logical assertion";
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The more perspicuous 'denotative sense' does not correspond with your use of the phrase. In addition, the Oxford American Dictionary disagrees about the definition, and favors the perspicuous definition I offered. I am sure you value precision. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, I was making a reference to neither sentiential or inductive logic.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again, you made that implicit reference by using such terms; I made the explicit reference in trying to give your statement a plausible basis.</p>
<p>An argument, or syllogism, is VALID if both the structure of the argument is sound, and the premises are true. Your statement above is confused.</p>
<p>
[quote]
nspeds, an argument can be sound without its premises being true. </p>
<p>Example:</p>
<p>All tigers are purple
nspeds is a tiger
nspeds is purple
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is not sound.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Johnstone is most centrally identified with the thesis that all philosophical argument relies on its capacity to make a valid assertion within the framework of ones interlocutor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you even know what you are posting? That has no relevance to our discussion.</p>
<p>It is blatantly sound! Soundness, as I've just stated, is not contingent upon the validity of the premises; it is simply whether the conclusion which one makes logically follows from the premises.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If an argument is valid and the premises are also true, then the argument is said to be sound.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
An argument is logically valid if and only if the conclusion must be true on the assumption that the premises are true.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Barwise and Etchemendy, *Language, Proof, and Logic<a href="Stanford:%20Center%20for%20the%20Study%20of%20Language%20and%20Information,%202003">/i</a> pp. 43-44.</p>