[FRIAM] AI and argument

[Nick Thompson]

Well, as a Peircean, I am certainly NOT allowed to believe that all valid logic is deductive, so Got Me There!

But to the extent that we were talking about logic, is not logic the formalization of good thought?  So, then, it behooves one who would claim that an argument is logic to formalize it. So, in which logical world (if not deductive logic) does the statement that Einstein is usually right lead directly, without an intervening premise, to the conclusion that I should provisionally believe him.  I think the argument IS deductive (in this case) and that the suppressed premise is that I should treat all people who are usually right provisionally as authorities.  (i.e., as people to be believed until contrary evidence teaches us otherwise. )

n

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 6:30 PM
To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] AI and argument

Hm.  My example is simply an argument that I do NOT think succumbs to that fallacy.  Einstein is a reliable, but not completely unchallengeable, authority.  And if he is challenged, we can dig into the theory to find our own reasoning.

I'm curious if you believe all argument/reasoning can be *accurately* formalized?  Worse yet, do you believe that all argument can be reduced to deduction?


On 10/03/2017 05:13 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Aren't you missing a premise, if you are seeking a valid deductive argument?
> 
> What connects Albert's thought with your conclusion?

--
☣ gⅼеɳ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove