Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: From Copi's 11th edition: the long-awaited quotes!!!

Expand Messages
  • w_w_c_l
    ... While it is possible I suppose, at least in theory, that Belle, Missouri, has been sucked into one of those time dilation regions, out here in the rest
    Message 1 of 18 , Dec 31, 2007
      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "w_w_c_l"
      <w_w_c_l@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > While we're sitting around twiddling our thumbs waiting for
      > Jerry McDonald to come up with his "scientific explanation"
      > for how, if the Universe is only a few thousand years old, we
      > see light from objects and events that are hundreds of thousands
      > of light-years away and hundreds of thousands of years in the
      > past, there are a couple of other issues associated with Jerry
      > McDonald that we can revisit.
      >
      > After all, since there *is no* scientific explanation for
      > distant starlight, or events such as SN 1987A, that will fit
      > into a young-earth timeframe, we may be in for a long wait.
      >
      > One of these issues, I'm sure everyone will recall, had to do
      > with the formal logical validity of Robert Baty's syllogism,
      > dubbed the "Goliath of GRAS"....<snip>

      While it is possible I suppose, at least in theory, that Belle,
      Missouri, has been sucked into one of those "time dilation"
      regions, out here in the rest of the Universe it is beginning
      to seem like a pretty long while since Jerry McDonald promised
      us his "scientific explanation" for how, if the Universe is
      only a few thousand years old, we can see events like SN 1987A,
      a supernova that occurred 168,000 light-years away and therefore,
      according to standard astronomy, 168,000 years in the past.

      That's OK. While we're waiting, there are a couple of other
      loose ends having to do with the 11th edition of Copi's
      *Introduction to Logic* we can tie down.

      You may remember that I had quoted from the 4th edition,
      trying to impress upon McDonald that the form of the argument,
      not its content, determines its logical validity:

      | The form of a syllogism is, from the point of view
      | of logic, its most important aspect. The validity
      | or invalidity of a syllogism depends exclusively upon
      | its form and is completely independent of its content
      | or subject matter.
      (p.185)

      To which McDonald replied:

      > What you left out what the parenthetical phrase
      >
      >| "whose constituent propositions
      >| are all contingent."
      >
      > In other words, if the two premises and the conclusion are
      > constituent (in other words so locked together that if the
      > premises are true, the conclusion will also be true) then
      > the form of the argument makes it valid. If you are going
      > to quote from Copi, quote all that he said I highly doubt
      > that the parentheical phrase is not in the fourth edition,
      > but if it is not, it is in the fifth and eleventh.
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/12947
      ------------------------------------------------

      In other words, Jerry McDonald was trying to make the claim
      that if an argument is valid, then the argument is valid.

      Did you catch that?

      But in *other* other words, Jerry McDonald was claiming that
      only valid arguments have "constituent" premises.

      Did you catch that part, too?

      Just in case you didn't, McDonald "more clearly spells it out
      for us" in message #12987:

      > The word "constituent" means that the two premises must be
      > so related if they are both true the conclusion must
      > necessarily be true.
      >
      > The validity of the argument is contingent upon the constituency
      > of the premises and conclusion.

      But that isn't what "constituent" means, and we have already
      covered that. In other words, Jerry McDonald's "in other words"
      are other words, all right, but they are wrong other words.

      As I said (back in October) after I provided the quote and
      Jerry McDonald tried to make an issue of my leaving out the
      parenthetical clarification, that phrase in parentheses is not
      in the 4th edition. But as we have most recently learned, much
      of what I did quote from the 4th edition remains unchanged in
      the 11th edition, and McDonald was *deliberately ignoring those
      very words* which explained logical validity in general and
      modus ponens arguments in particular.

      In other words, when McDonald told me, "If you are going
      to quote from Copi, quote all that he said," he was being
      quite the hypocrite!

      HE KNEW THEN, as we *all* know now, that his 11th edition was
      saying exactly the same thing about the validity of all modus
      ponens arguments -- word-for-word -- that the old 4th edition
      I borrowed from the library was saying, and he obstinately and
      pigheadedly CONTINUED trying to deceive us!

      While the previous message in this thread (#13460) was thoroughly
      sufficient to show Jerry McDonald's deliberate dishonesty and
      his refusal to stand correction in a simple matter, our friend
      who found the copy of the 11th edition of Copi's *Introduction
      to Logic* has provided additional material which I am passing
      along here for our archived resources and for possible future
      reference.

      This first quote is the one with the parenthetical material
      referred to above, and is from Chapter 6, in which categorical
      syllogisms are discussed; however, the same rules of logical
      validity described here apply to other syllogistic forms, such
      as the mixed hypothetical syllogism, which is introduced in
      Chapter 7.

      As I told McDonald back then, he would first have to understand
      why validity is strictly a matter of form to understand concepts
      which are introduced later, such as "substitution instances" and
      formal proofs.

      ---------------------------------

      Introduction to Logic
      Eleventh Edition
      Irving M. Copi
      Carl Cohen
      2002

      (excerpts)

      The mood and figure of a syllogism uniquely determine its form --
      and the form of a syllogism is, from the point of view of logic,
      its most important aspect.

      The validity or invalidity of a syllogism (whose constituent
      propositions are all contingent) depends exclusively on its form
      and is completely independent of its specific content or subject
      matter.

      A valid syllogism is a formally valid argument, valid by virtue
      of its form alone. This implies that if a given syllogism is
      valid, any other syllogism of the same form will also be valid.
      And if a syllogism is invalid, any other syllogism of the same
      form will also be invalid.(2)

      ...the validity or invalidity of such arguments as the
      categorical syllogism is a purely formal matter. Any fallacious
      argument can be proved invalid by finding a second argument that
      has exactly the same form and is known to be invalid by the fact
      that its premisses are known to be true while its conclusion is
      known to be false. (It should be remembered that an invalid
      argument may very well have a true conclusion -- that an argument
      is invalid simply means that its conclusion is not logically
      implied or necessitated by its premisses.)

      page 221, 222, 223

      (2) Here we assume that the constituent propositions are themselves
      contingent, that is, neither logically true (e.g., "All easy chairs
      are chairs") nor logically false (e.g., "Some easy chairs are not
      chairs"). For if it contained either a logically false premiss or
      a logically true conclusion, then the argument would be valid
      regardless of its syllogistic form--valid in that it would be
      logically impossible for its premisses to be true and its
      conclusion false. We also assume that the only logical relations
      among the terms of the syllogism are those asserted or entailed by
      its premisses. The point of these restrictions is to limit our
      consideration in this chapter and the next to syllogistic arguments
      alone and to exclude other kinds of arguments whose validity turns
      on more complex logical considerations not appropriately introduced
      at this place.

      ------------------------------

      From page 322:

      8.4 Argument forms and Arguments

      ...any two arguments having exactly the same form are either
      both valid or invalid, regardless of any differences in the
      subject matter with which they are concerned. (11)

      (11) Here we assume that the simple statements involved are
      neither logically true (e.g., "All chairs are chairs") nor
      logically false (e.g., "Some chairs are nonchairs"). We also
      assume that the only logical relations among the simple
      statements involved are those asserted or entailed by the
      premisses. The point of these restrictions is to limit our
      considerations, in this chapter and the next, to truth-
      functional arguments alone, and to exclude other kinds of
      arguments whose validity turns on more complex logical
      considerations not appropriately introduced at this place.

      ------------------------------


      8.4 Argument Forms and Arguments
      (E) Substitution Instances & Specific Forms (excerpts)

      Therefore, in determining whether any given argument is valid,
      we must look to the specific form of the argument in question.

      Only the specific form of the argument accurately reveals the
      full logical structure of that argument, and because it does,
      we can know that if the specific form of an argument is valid,
      the argument itself must be valid.

      This point should be emphasized: An argument form that is
      valid can have only valid arguments as substitution instances.
      That is, all of the substitution instances of a valid form
      must be valid.

      This is proved by the truth-table proof of validity for the
      valid argument form, which shows that there is no possible
      substitution instance of a valid form that has true premisses
      and a false conclusion.

      page 331

      ---------------------------------


      8.5(B) ...Contingent Statement Forms (excerpts)

      Statement forms that have both true and false statements among
      their substitution instances are called contingent statement
      forms.

      Any statement whose specific form is contingent is called a
      "contingent statement" (15). Thus p, ~p, p * q, p v q, and
      p > q are all contingent statement forms. And such statements
      as L, ~L, L * W, L v W, and L > W are contingent statements,
      since their truth values are dependent or contingent on their
      contents rather than on their forms alone.

      (15) It will be recalled that we are assuming here that no
      simple statements are either logically true or logically false.
      Only contingent simple statements are admitted here.
      See footnote 11 in this chapter, on page 322
      [quoted above -- Rick]

      page 336


      ---------------------------------

      The above material, coupled with the previously posted material
      from the 11th edition of *Introduction to Logic*, along with
      the numerous other references and resources that have been
      archived over the last several months, should put to rest once
      and for all any question about the formal logical validity of
      Robert's syllogism, reproduced below.

      There's just one more thing... ;-)



      Rick Hartzog
      Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism



      -------------------------------
      -------------------------------

      Here's the "Goliath of GRAS":

      > Major premise:

      > If God's word (the text) says
      > everything began over a period
      > of six days, is interpreted by
      > some to mean it was six 24-hour
      > days occurring a few thousand
      > years ago, and there is empirical
      > evidence that some thing is
      > actually much older than a few
      > thousand years, then the
      > interpretation of the text by
      > some is wrong.

      > Minor premise:

      > God's word (the text) says
      > everything began over a period
      > of six days, is interpreted by
      > some to mean it was six 24-hour
      > days occurring a few thousand
      > years ago, and there is empirical
      > evidence that some thing is
      > actually much older than a few
      > thousand years.

      > Conclusion:

      > The interpretation of the text
      > by some is wrong.

      --------------------------
      --------------------------
    • w_w_c_l
      ... Let s see... There is one more relevant quote from the 11th edition of *Introduction to Logic*, by Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen, that was not in the older
      Message 2 of 18 , Jan 1, 2008
        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "w_w_c_l"
        <w_w_c_l@...> wrote (in conclusion):
        >
        > The above material, coupled with the previously posted material
        > from the 11th edition of *Introduction to Logic*, along with
        > the numerous other references and resources that have been
        > archived over the last several months, should put to rest once
        > and for all any question about the formal logical validity of
        > Robert's syllogism, reproduced below.
        >
        > There's just one more thing... ;-)

        Let's see...

        There is one more relevant quote from the 11th edition of
        *Introduction to Logic*, by Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen,
        that was not in the older edition we have been referencing.

        Jerry McDonald neglected to mention it to us, but our friend
        who has been providing us with the previously posted material
        from the 11th edition (which we had asked McDonald for, and
        were unable to get him to produce) found the following quote,
        and acted upon it:

        -----------------------------

        | Acknowledgements
        |
        | The loyal support of instructors and students of logic
        | has been a major factor in the steady improvement of
        | "Introduction to Logic" over the years. This widespread
        | (and sometimes critical!) participation of our readers
        | has proved to be a mighty strength. To all of those who
        | have had some role, large or small, in molding this
        | eleventh edition, we convey our hearty thanks.
        |
        | Readers who offer their suggestions (email: ccohen[at]umich.edu)
        | receive our direct response, of course; but we also take
        | satisfaction in listing here the names of some of those to
        | whom we are indebted.

        (snip, snip)

        | Irving M. Copi
        | University of Hawaii
        |
        | Carl Cohen
        | University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

        Introduction to Logic
        pages xix-xxi

        -----------------------------


        Did somebody say e-mail? I think they did!

        Well, why didn't Jerry McDonald say so, knowing, as he
        does, our interest in contacting the logic experts at
        various colleges and universities and asking them for
        their professional opinion on the formal logical validity
        of "Goliath"!

        Anyway, no harm done!:

        -----------------------------


        From: Robert Baty
        Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 10:25 PM
        To: Carl Cohen
        Subject: Introduction to Logic query!

        Dear Professor Cohen,

        I have been involved in recent, quite heated discussions
        with some who have sought to use your and Copi's text in
        support of the proposition that the following is not a
        simple, logically valid, modus ponens argument:

        > Major premise:

        > If God's word (the text) says
        > everything began over a period
        > of six days, is interpreted by
        > some to mean it was six 24-hour
        > days occurring a few thousand
        > years ago, and there is empirical
        > evidence that some thing is
        > actually much older than a few
        > thousand years, then the
        > interpretation of the text by
        > some is wrong.

        > Minor premise:

        > God's word (the text) says
        > everything began over a period
        > of six days, is interpreted by
        > some to mean it was six 24-hour
        > days occurring a few thousand
        > years ago, and there is empirical
        > evidence that some thing is
        > actually much older than a few
        > thousand years.

        > Conclusion:

        > The interpretation of the text
        > by some is wrong.

        By my way of thinking and interpreting your text, they are
        simply wrong in their use of various statements from your
        text.

        It would be helpful if you could give me your opinion, for
        the record, as to the simple, logical validity of the above
        stated argument.

        Do you consider the above argument valid?

        Any exposition regarding your answer will be welcomed and
        helpful.

        A speedy reply would also be much appreciated.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty
        Ft. Collins, CO


        -----------------------------

        After receiving an automated response saying that
        Professor Cohen would be vacationing in Dominica until
        after Christmas, and posting a follow-up query, Robert
        received the following reply:

        -----------------------------


        To: Robert Baty
        From: Carl Cohen
        Subject: Re: Introduction to Logic query!
        Date: Monday, December 31, 2007 3:20 PM

        Carl Cohen
        Philosophy
        The University of Michigan

        31 December 2007

        To Whom It May Concern:

        I don't know the persons I am here addressing, but I do
        hope that I may be helpful:

        An argument in the form of ~modus ponens~ is indubitably
        valid, and can be proved valid on a truth table, as we do
        in *Introduction to Logic*.

        Its logical form is:

        p > q,
        p,
        therefore q.

        In English this might be stated as:

        "If some hypothetical proposition asserting that 'if p then q'
        is true, and a second proposition asserting 'p' is true, then
        we may certainly conclude that 'q' is true."

        The content of 'p' and the content of 'q' is of no consequence
        whatever; the argument is valid in virtue of its form alone.

        Thus, for example, if it is true that

        > "If there is a green fairy on
        > my desk then I will be in
        > Timbuktu tomorrow,"

        and if it is also true that

        > "There is a green fairy on
        > my desk"

        then it follows irrefutably that

        > "I will be in Timbuktu tomorrow."

        The compelling logical force of ~modus ponens~ arises from
        the formal relations between 'if p then q', 'p', and 'q'.

        The statement variables 'p' and 'q' may be replaced by
        any propositions whatever.

        Turning then to the argument that has been sent to me
        for comment:

        Let us suppose that the variable 'p' is replaced by
        the following proposition:

        > "God's word (the text) says
        > everything began over a period
        > of six days, is interpreted by some
        > to mean it was six 24-hour days
        > occurring a few thousand years
        > ago, and there is empirical evidence
        > that some thing is actually much
        > older than a few thousand years."

        Let us suppose that the variable 'q' is replaced by
        the following proposition:

        > "The interpretation of the text
        > by some is wrong."

        IF it is true that the proposition 'p' just above
        entails the proposition 'q' just above, [p > q]
        AND if it is true that 'p', [p]
        then 'q' is most certainly true. [q]

        The truth of the conclusion [q] is here established only if
        we know the hypothetical proposition [p > q] to be a true premise,
        and know also that the antecedent within the hypothetical [p]
        to be a true premise.

        ~Modus ponens~ tells us absolutely nothing about the truth of
        these premises; it is a valid argument FORM. It states only that
        IF p > q, AND p, THEN q.

        I hope this is helpful.

        Have a satisfying new year.

        Be well.
        Carl Cohen


        -----------Robert Baty wrote:------------
        >
        > Dear Professor Cohen,
        >
        > I hope that you have now been able to return as planned
        > from Dominica and will be making responses to your
        > backlogged e-mail as anticipated.
        >
        > Pending your hoped-for attention to my inquiry, I have
        > again thought it might be helpful to give you yet another
        > example of how Jerry McDonald has attempted to use your
        > "Introduction to Logic" to support his false claim regarding
        > the simple, logical validity of my argument which I presented
        > for your consideration in my two earlier e-mails; copies of
        > which follow my name below.
        >
        > Here is a link to a message posted by Jerry McDonald regarding
        > this matter, with relevant excerpts therefrom:
        >
        > -----------------------------
        >
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/12987
        >
        > Maury_and_Baty YAHOO! discussion list
        > Message #12987
        >
        > From: Jerry McDonald
        > Date: October 27, 2007
        >
        > Subject: Re: Response To Todd Greene
        >
        > (excerpts)
        >
        >| If "P" then "Q"
        >| "P"
        >| Therefore "Q".
        >|
        >| "Q" must irrefutably follow from "P."
        >|
        >| If it doesn't then regardless of the form it isn't valid.
        >|
        >| If makes absolutely no difference what form you use, if
        >| the conclusion is not irrefutably drawn by the premise,
        >| the argument is invalid.
        >|
        >| You said, earlier, that I was not looking at everything
        >| else that Copi said, but I was.
        >|
        >| It was you who were not looking at everything.
        >|
        >| You left out that parenthetical phrase about constituent
        >| and contingent. You said it wasn't in the fourth edition.
        >|
        >| I don't have that edition so I cannot say for sure. However,
        >| it was in the fifth through the 11th.
        >|
        >| The word "constituent" means that the two premises must be
        >| so related if they are both true the conclusion must
        >| necessarily be true.
        >|
        >| The validity of the argument is contingent upon the
        >| constituency of the premises and conclusion.
        >|
        >| Again my argument:
        >|
        >| Major Premise:
        >|
        >| If the cow jumps over the moon, then the moon is
        >| made of cream cheese.
        >|
        >| Minor Premise:
        >|
        >| The cow jumped over the moon.
        >|
        >| Conclusion:
        >|
        >| The moon is made of cream cheese.
        >|
        >| Now it is in the proper form "If P then Q", "P",
        >| "therefore Q."
        >|
        >| However, there is no relation between the conclusion
        >| and the premise.
        >|
        >| Just because the cow jumps over the moon this does not
        >| necessarily and irrefutably mean that the moon is made
        >| of cream cheese.
        >|
        >| There has to be such a relation between the premise and
        >| the conclusion that if the premise is true it is axiomatic
        >| that the conclusion be true as well.
        >|
        >| Baty's argument doesn't do this, there are too many holes
        >| in it to keep the conclusion from being irrefutably true
        >| if the premises are true.
        >|
        >| In Christ Jesus,
        >| Jerry McDonald

        -----------------------------
        -----------------------------


        So there you have it, folks!

        Carl Cohen "indubitably" illustrates for us why Robert's
        syllogism is formally valid. He irrefutably refutes
        McDonald's misguided notions that 'q' must follow from 'p'
        for an argument to be formally valid and that validity is
        dependent on any other thing besides form alone.

        As Robert Baty might say (and did!):

        > "We win!"
        >
        > "We win!"


        Great work there, Robert! And thanks for looking up those
        quotes for us -- the ones that Jerry McDonald is claiming he
        gave us, knowing full well he never did!

        Let's see -- that makes it 15-0 for "Goliath" against the
        unsuccessful attempts of Jerry McDonald, and Terry Hightower
        and the rest of David (not "David") P. Brown's "boys"!

        Undefeated! I'll be posting the season statistics shortly,
        as a follow-up to this message.



        Rick Hartzog
        Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
      • Todd S. Greene
        Yes, Jerry, we know you re incapable of comprehension (this is the aspect of incompetence that you yourself told me I was neglecting to mention about young
        Message 3 of 18 , Jan 4, 2008
          Yes, Jerry, we know you're incapable of comprehension (this is the
          aspect of incompetence that you yourself told me I was neglecting to
          mention about young earth creationists), and of acknowledging even
          obvious errors and then making the necessary corrections to your
          thinking and then changing your statements as necessary to take
          account of the necessary corrections.

          Cohen told you you were wrong. He even took the time to explain why
          you were wrong. (Robert, Rick, and I had also already previously told
          you exactly what Cohen told you. Geeze, even with the moon and cream
          cheese argument example you posed, all of us told you exactly the same
          thing, even Cohen has now told you explicitly exactly what Robert,
          Rick, and I had *already* told you and explained in detail to you
          several times. But you continue to show yourself absolutely incapable
          of acknowledging and correcting your error.)

          Yet there is something about your personal attitudes (mixed in with a
          bunch of religious dogma) that you are so mired in your rhetoric and
          lack of comprehension, and your many errors, that you refuse to clean
          up your act. You behaved in this same manner with all of the other
          errors pointed out to you, including your erroneous claim that Capaldi
          is an atheist.

          What your behavior, the deliberate nature of it, proves by example is
          that you are a man who is apparently unable to comprehend what he
          preaches about and who has also dedicated himself to lying to people
          on these subjects, showing that you do not engage in such discussions
          due to any interest in the truth of the matter.

          The only time I waste on you is when I feel that the public record of
          your behavior is beneficial to showing everyone the incompetent and
          deceitful nature of your rhetoric, incompetence and deceitfulness that
          is endemic to young earth creationist rhetoric.

          - Todd Greene


          --- Jerry McDonald wrote:
          > Then since I am so incapable, why do you waste your time
          > with me Todd? I am incapable of change, so don't bother
          > me.
          >
          > jdm
          >
          >
          > Todd Greene wrote:
          >> Poor Jerry, I do feel sorry for you sometimes. Your
          >> thinking is so hopelessly confused and muddled it's a
          >> wonder you waste your time attempting to engage in
          >> rational discussions like these.
          >>
          >> Robert stated the FACT that you were misusing Cohen's
          >> (and Copi's) words, because you were. You did. This is a
          >> fact, and it's a matter of public record. So your
          >> attempt to claim otherwise is simply more of the typical
          >> deceitful rhetoric we've come to expect from you.
          >>
          >> You wrote, "However, as you [Cohen] have stated in order
          >> for me to question the validity of Robert's argument
          >> then I must show that one of the premises is not true."
          >>
          >> No, that's not what he said. This is like when Robert
          >> and Rick and I would point out something to you, and
          >> explain it to you in detail, three, four, five, six or
          >> more times, and you'd come right back with comments
          >> proving that you were utterly incapable of comprehending
          >> what you were being told.
          >>
          >> If you show that one of the premises is not true, then
          >> you are showing that the argument is UNSOUND, not
          >> invalid. In such a case, you would not be questioning
          >> the *validity* of the argument, you would be questioning
          >> the *soundness* of the argument. I have zero doubt that
          >> you are not capable of comprehending the distinction
          >> between logical validity and soundness, but I have to
          >> reiterate your error on this point.
          >>
          >> You also wrote, "Therefore, if something has been found
          >> to be, say 3 billion years old, then either the dating
          >> process is wrong, or the Bible is wrong; not the
          >> interpretation of the Bible. That is where Baty's
          >> argument becomes invalid."
          >>
          >> Jerry, you are simply wrong. Yet again. It has become
          >> absolutely obvious that you are incapable of
          >> understanding this. You need to cease making such false
          >> statements. Your error has been pointed out and
          >> explained to you several times by different people.
          >> Regardless of the fact that you are simply not capable
          >> of understanding this, that you continue to promote your
          >> error is how you show us your attitude of deceitfulness,
          >> that you will continue to promote error regardless of
          >> the facts (whether you understand the facts or not; now
          >> even a specific logician you falsely represented has
          >> written and told you that you are wrong).
          >>
          >> If the first premise of GRAS is incorrect, then the
          >> argument is UNSOUND, but not invalid. Where you write
          >> "That is where Baty's argument becomes invalid" is where
          >> you show - yet again - that you simply don't know what
          >> you're talking about.
          >>
          >> And that's about par for the McDonald course.
          >>
          >> - Todd Greene

          ================================================================

          --- Jerry McDonald wrote:

          Dr. Cohen

          I will certainly take your advice under consideration.

          However, as you have stated in order for me to question the
          validity of Robert's argument then I must show that one of the
          premises is not true. I do question the major premise because
          the conclusion does not irrefutably follow from the premises. I
          realize that you are new to this discussion, but all that you
          just told me has already been discussed in much detail on
          Robert's forum and my own. I had a written debate with Robert on
          this months ago showing why his argument was not valid. I
          claimed it was not valid because the conclusion did not
          irrefutably follow from the premise. You can find that debate at
          http://www.challenge2.org and go to current debates and click on
          the McDonald-Baty Debate on the age of the earth.

          I have agreed a number of times that the argument is in the
          correct format, and Robert knows this. He knew this when he
          wrote you. However, he didn't tell you this because he didn't
          want you to know what was really taking place on both forums. I
          was not trying to bother you, but he contacted you and named me
          as someone who was trying to misuse your work. I wanted you to
          know that I was not trying to misuse your work, nor was I
          misreading it. I have been studying out of Copi's Introduction
          to Logic since 1980 (fifth edition) and have a very high respect
          for it. I don't think that Robert even knew what it was until he
          and I started quoting from it. I can understand why you don't
          want to get drawn into a long and drawn out discussion on this,
          and I am truly sorry that you did, but the fact is your book says
          that if the premises are true the conclusion MUST be true in
          order for the argument to be valid. That is what I was going by.
          I am sorry that you got caught up
          in this, and I am sorry that Robert dropped my name to you as
          someone who was misusing your work. But the fact remains that as
          long as Robert's conclusion does not logically and irrefutably
          follow from the premises, his argument is not valid.

          My argument on the Constitutent Elements is an argument that
          Robert says is invalid and even says he doesn't understand it.
          However, it is axiomatic. If all the parts of my proposition are
          factual, then my proposition is true. It is valid and if I can
          prove my minor premise, then my argument is true, thus it is a
          sound argument.

          Robert cannot make that claim for his Goliath of GRAS argument.

          1. Baty admits, in the debate, that the Bible does teach that
          everything was created a few thousand years ago in six literal 24
          hour days.

          2. Baty admits that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word
          of God.

          3. Therefore, if something has been found to be, say 3 billion
          years old, then either the dating process is wrong, or the Bible
          is wrong; not the interpretation of the Bible. That is where
          Baty's argument becomes invalid.

          He will not say that the Bible is wrong, but he will say that
          there are things that are billions of years old, so he says that
          some people's interpretation of the Bible is wrong. The Bible is
          very plain in its teaching on how many literal days it took to
          create everything (Exo. 20:9-11; Mt. 19:4-6: Mk. 10:6).
          Therefore, either the Bible is wrong, or the dating results are
          wrong. He wants to hang on to the Bible and join hands with
          atheistic evolutionists at the same time; and it can't be done.

          In Christ Jesus
          Jerry D. McDonald

          ================================================================

          --- Carl Cohen wrote:

          Mr McDonald --

          One more comment, and this will be my last.

          An argument is valid when, if its premises are true, its
          conclusion must be true.

          Given those premises, the conclusion follows irrefutably, in any
          valid argument.

          Of course the fact that an argument is valid does not assure one
          that the conclusion is true, because the premises may be false,
          even if the argument is valid.

          An argument is valid if it has a valid argument FORM -- that's
          what validity is, a formal concept.

          To say that an argument is valid in form IS to say that, IF its
          premises are true, its conclusion follows indubitably and
          irrefutably.

          Modus ponens is one of a great many valid argument forms.
          The argument Mr. Baty presented to me is in modus ponens form,
          and therefore must be valid.

          If you wish to contend that the conclusion of his argument is
          false (which of course it may be) you must contend that at least
          one of the premises of that argument are false. If both premises
          are true, then the argument (in modus ponens form) does establish
          the truth of the conclusion.

          Got it?

          Please study Introduction to Logic more carefully.

          Be well.
          Carl Cohen

          ================================================================

          --- Jerry McDonald wrote:

          Dr. Cohen,
          Thank you for clarifying this for me. It is as much as I have
          already said. I informed Mr. Baty that his argument was in a
          valid format, but his argument is not valid in the sense that the
          conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise. I fully
          understand what you are saying about the form, but it is one
          thing to say that an argument is in a valid form and another
          thing to say that the conclusion of the argument irrefutably
          follows from the premise.

          Mr. Baty's argument (what he calls Goliath of GRAS) is in the
          modus ponens format, but his conclusion does not necessarily
          follow from the premise. This is what I have been trying to get
          him to see for the last several months and I have been taking
          what I have argued for from your book on Introduction to Logic,
          the relationship between truth and validity.

          There is no question that the argument is in valid form, which
          what I have already stated. However, just because it is in a
          valid format this will not guarentee that the argument is
          logically valid because the conclusion does not necessarily
          follow from the premise. There is no relationship between the
          truth of his conclusion and the truth of the premise. That being
          the case, as your book has stated "the argument is invalid." Mr.
          Baty wants to take one part of what you have said and make it
          sound as if his argument is a valid argument. He wrote me asking
          me if I thought his argument was valid and I told him that I
          didn't because the conclusion did not logically follow from the
          premises.

          Thank you for your cooperation
          Jerry McDonald

          ================================================================

          --- Carl Cohen wrote:

          2 January 2008

          Dear Jerry McDonald –

          Thank you for writing. I reply to your questions:

          What we call "modus ponens" is an argument form, a valid,
          elementary, argument form. Arguments – actual arguments in
          English or German or any language – may, or may not, have that
          form. Since modus ponens is an absolutely valid argument form,
          any argument that really does have that form must also be valid.

          So the answer to your question is Yes.
          You ask: "Just because an argument is in a modus ponens format
          [which is: "if p then q, p, therefore q] does this make the
          argument valid? The answer is, yes, it does, absolutely.

          You give the example: "If the cow jumped over the moon then the
          moon is made of cream cheese. The cow jumped over the moon.
          Therefore the moon is made of cream cheese" Is this argument
          valid? Yes, absolutely it is. But why should this trouble you?
          It does not follow from the fact that this argument is valid that
          the moon really is made of cream cheese. All that we are saying
          is that

          IF it is true that

          If the cow jumped over the moon the moon is made or cream cheese,

          And IF it is true that

          The cow did jump over the moon,

          THEN

          the moon is made of cream cheese.

          But of course it is absurd to assert that if the cow jumped over
          the moon the moon is made of cream cheese, (that premise is
          wildly false)

          And it is equally absurd to contend that the cow did jump over
          the moon (that premise also is wildly false.)
          Therefore the argument you give as an example supports the truth
          of the conclusion – that the moon is made of cream cheese – ONLY
          if we could know two things which are in fact totally absurd and
          false. No problem here. Your sample argument is VALID – which
          is to say that IF its premises are true its conclusion must be
          true. That does not make its conclusion true, of course.

          Read, in that same edition of Introduction to Logic, the passages
          in the very early chapters about the relations between truth and
          validity. A valid argument is one in which the conclusion is
          related to the premises in a specified way. Whether the
          conclusion of a valid argument is true is an entirely different
          matter.

          I hope this is helpful. I send a copy of this note to Mr. Baty.

          Be well.

          Carl

          ================================================================

          --- Jerry McDonald wrote:

          Dr. Cohen, I would like to ask you a question.

          On page 46 of the 11th edition of Introduction to Logic the
          following is written:

          "As noted earlier, a successful deductive argument is valid.
          Validity refers to a relation between propositions--between the
          set of propositions that serve as the premisses of a deductive
          argument, and the one propositions that serves as the conclusion
          of the argument. If the latters follows with logical necessity
          from the former, we say that the argument is valid. Since
          logical necessity is never achieved by iinductive arguments,
          validity never applies to them. Nor can validity ever apply to
          any single proposition by itself, since the needed relation
          cannot possibly be found within any one proposition."

          Also on page 43 it is written:

          "When an argument makes the claim that its premisses (if true)
          provide irrefutable gounds for the truth of its conclusion, that
          claim will either be correct or not correct. If it is correct,
          that argument is VALID. If it is not correct (that is, if the
          premisses when true fail to establish the conclusion
          irrefutably), that argument is INVALID.

          For logicians, therefore, the term validity is applicable only
          to deductive arguments. To say that a deductive argument is
          valid is to say that it is no possible for its conclusion to be
          false if its premisses are true. Thus we defind 'validity' as
          follows: A DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT IS VALID WHEN, IF ITS PREMISSES
          ARE TRUE, ITS CONCLUSION MUST BE TRUE."

          Now my question is "Just because an argument is in a modus
          ponens format 'if p, then q,' does this make the argument valid?"
          If I say:

          Major Premise: If the cow jumped over the moon, then the moon
          is made of cream cheese.
          Minor Premise: The cow jumped over the moon.
          Conclusion: Therefore the moon is made of cream cheese.

          Is that a valid argument just because if is in the format of
          "if p, then q"? Are you saying that the argument is a valid
          argument or that it is simply in a valid form? I can put
          anything into a valid form, but would that make the argument
          itself valid?

          Major Premise: If I am a white man, then I am a black man.
          Minor Premise: I am a white man.
          Conclusion: Therefore I am a black man.

          Is the argument valid, or just in a valid "if p, then q" form?

          My reason for asking this is because I have been in a long time
          running written discussion with three men; Robert Baty, Rick
          Hartzog and Todd Greene over this. Baty has an argument which
          states:

          Major Premise: If God's word (the text) says everything began
          over a period of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was
          six 24-hour days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is
          empirical evidence that some thing is actually much older than a
          few thousand years. The interpretation of the text by some is
          wrong.

          Minor Premise: God's word (the text) says everything began over
          a period of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six
          24-hour days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is
          empirical evidence that some thing is actually much older than a
          few thousand years.

          Conclusion: Therefore the interpretation of the text by some
          is wrong."

          Mr. Baty wrote you and responded with the following:

          "IF it is true that the proposition 'p' just above
          entails the proposition 'q' just above, [p > q]
          AND if it is true that 'p', [p]
          then 'q' is most certainly true. [q]

          The truth of the conclusion [q] is here established only if
          we know the hypothetical proposition [p > q] to be a true
          premise,
          and know also that the antecedent within the hypothetical [p]
          to be a true premise.

          ~Modus ponens~ tells us absolutely nothing about the truth of
          these premises; it is a valid argument FORM. It states only
          that
          IF p > q, AND p, THEN q."

          I understand you to say that the argument is in a valid FORM
          (something I have never denied), but to say it is in a valid form
          does not mean that the argument is a valid argument. If so, then
          why does the conclusion have to irrefutably follow from the
          premises as you state on pages 43,46 of your book Introduction to
          Logic?

          I would like for you to respond to this email. I realize that
          this gets you caught up in a discussion (that has gone on for
          several months now) even though you have little time for it, but
          I feel that Mr. Baty, Mr. Hartzog and Mr. Greene (if you have
          heard from Hartzog and/or Greene) have not given you all the
          information you needed to answer the question.

          If I can be of assistance to you in any further way to clarify
          the position on this please let me know.

          Respectfully,
          Jerry D. McDonald
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.