LOGIC. WHAT ARE DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS? PART 2.

To Continue with this Article, I would like to make the following Perfectly Clear, so there is No Misunderstanding.

JUST BECAUSE AN ARGUMENT IS LOGICALLY VALID, DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.  IT JUST MEANS THAT IT IS CONSTRUCTED PROPERLY.

The example I used as a VALID DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT IS REPRINTED BELOW;

All Politicians are Deceitful People.-  PREMISE

All Deceitful People can't be Trusted.-  PREMISE.

Therefore, All Politicians can't Be Trusted.

                                           

CONCLUSION.

THE CONCLUSION, ALL POLITICIANS CAN'T BE TRUSTED, IS MEANINGLESS BY ITSELF.  USED ALONE, SUCH A STATEMENT IS CONSIDERED LOGICALLY VALUELESS, AND IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN ASSERTION.

THE TRUTH OR ACCURACY OF THE CONCLUSION RESTS WITH THE PREMISES THAT ARE USED TO SUPPORT IT.  AS I WROTE IN PART 1;

IF THE PREMISES ARE TRUE, THE CONCLUSION MUST BE TRUE.

So, when you hear an ARGUMENT BEING MADE ADVOCATING ONE SIDE

OF AN ISSUE YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH,  AVOID FOCUSING ON THE 

JUDGMENT OR CONCLUSION BEING MADE. THE PREMISES BEING 

USED TO SUPPORT THEM IS WHERE YOU WILL FIND THE REAL SUBSTANCE OR VALUE OF THE ARGUMENT.

Returning to the Example, in order for the CONCLUSION-  ALL POLITICIANS CAN'T BE TRUSTED, TO BE TRUE, THE PREMISES:

-  ALL POLITICIANS ARE DECEITFUL PEOPLE.

AND

-  ALL DECEITFUL PEOPLE CAN'T BE TRUSTED.

MUST BE  PROVEN TO BE TRUE, OR THE CONCLUSION CANNOT 

STAND UP AS ACCURATE.

To Further Clarify, Consider These Arguments, Different

Versions of Ones I've Heard over the Years.

                 # 1                                                                 #2

ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IN HUMAN                IF YOU ARE CHRISTIAN, THEN YOU

EVOLUTION IS AN ATHEIST.                               ARE ANTI-SCIENCE.         

                                                               

ALL ATHEISTS DO NOT BELIEVE                     IF YOU ARE ANTI- SCIENCE, 

IN GOD.                                                                 YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THE 

                                                                               SCIENTIFIC METHOD.                                                               

THEREFORE, IF YOU BELIEVE IN                      

HUMAN EVOLUTION,YOU DO NOT                    THEREFORE, IF YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN,

BELIEVE IN GOD.                                                 YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THE SCIENTIFIC

                                                                                 METHOD.

THESE ARE VALID DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS.  HOWEVER, ARE THEY TRUE?

WHAT ARE DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS? PART 3.

ARGUMENT #1.                                                 ARGUMENT #2.

PREMISE 1.                                                      PREMISE 1.

ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IN HUMAN                ALL CHRISTIANS ARE 

EVOLUTION IS AN ATHEIST.                             ANTI- SCIENCE.

ALL ATHEISTS DO NOT BELIEVE                      IF YOU ARE ANTI- SCIENCE 

IN GOD.                                                             YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THE 

                                                                          SCIENTIFIC METHOD.             

                                                  

CONCLUSION.                                                   CONCLUSION. 

THEREFORE, IF YOU BELIEVE IN                     THEREFORE, IF YOU ARE A

HUMAN EVOLUTION, YOU DO NOT                   CHRISTIAN, YOU DO NOT

BELIEVE IN GOD.                                              FOLLOW THE SCIENTIFIC

                                                                          METHOD.

                                     REPRINTED FROM PART 2.

In the First Argument, We have an Assertion in Premise #1 that if you believe in HUMAN EVOLUTION YOU ARE AN ATHEIST.

However, there are many examples of Devout Individuals being members of Different CHRISTIAN, JEWISH, AND MOSLEM DENOMINATIONS AND SECTS WHO ACCEPT HUMAN EVOLUTION AS FACT, AND SOME CAN BE FOUND TEACHING THE SUBJECT IN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.  

This Premise is easily shown to be Untrue, so while Example #1 may be a VALID DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT, THE POINT OF VIEW OR OPINION WHICH IS ARGUED is FALSE AND UNPROVEN.

Yes, the Second Premise, "ALL ATHEISTS DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD," CAN BE CONSIDERED TRUE AND ACCURATE, HOWEVER...

... ALL THE PREMISES MUST BE TRUE FOR THE CONCLUSION TO BE CONSIDERED CORRECT AND VERIFIED. PREMISE #1 DOES NOT PASS THIS CRITERIA.  SO THE CONCLUSION:

"THEREFORE, IF YOU BELIEVE IN HUMAN EVOLUTION, YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD."

CANNOT BE MAINTAINED AS PROVEN, GIVEN THIS PARTICULAR ARGUMENT.

SEE PART 4 FOR AN ANALYSIS OF THE SECOND ARGUMENT.

Date-  8/7/2015.

Scroll down for future posts.

POST # 28. WHAT MOTIVATES MOST PEOPLE? IS IT NOTORIETY AT ANY COST? PT 3.

You really have to wonder what goes on inside the mind

of someone who deliberately sets up Themselves, Family, and

Friends to be the Object of Scorn and Ridicule.  Is Fame so 

Important, that Attaining it in any Manner is a Worthwhile Life

Choice?

Well, in some cases, it seems so.  Why?  Because the Foolish,

Vain, Egotistical, Ill- Informed, Selfish, Irrational and Prejudiced are

Often Celebrated and Rewarded in our Society, with Financial Benefits

that encourage others to follow the same path.  In Fact, some of Them run

for Political Office, and Win.  

This is the State of much of the Programming we see in the Visual Medium, 

often Cloaked under the Guide as being News Worthy.

Time and Time again we Hear these "Media Darlings" Spew outright

Garbage into a Microphone, giving Their Opinions on Medicine, Politics,

Social Programs, Science and so on...

Guess What? This may be difficult for some to understand, but Media 

Exposure and Availability does NOT MAKE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY 

ANY MORE REASONABLE OR INTELLIGENT JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE

GIVES THEM AIR TIME.

However, the Biggest Tragedy is that the Message or Opinion is Allowed to 

Stand by the Hosts or Producers, without any Dissension from someone 

who Actually knows what Their Talking About.

(NO I AM NOT GOING TO LIST THE NAMES OF "CELEBRITIES,"

THEIR FAMILIES, PEOPLE FAMOUS FOR DUBIOUS OR NONSENSICAL

ACHIEVEMENTS, TALK SHOW DARLINGS etc. If you want to find Them,

I'm not going to help. Research Forces Me to View Samples of this Mindless

Drivel, which is Almost Painful to Watch.)

Date-  5/5/2015.

Scroll down for future posts.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT. ORGANIZED CRIME- WHAT IS IT, AND CAN IT BE STOPPED? PT 1.

When you hear the Words "ORGANIZED CRIME", what comes to Mind?  Is it;

-  Drug Dealers Ruling Neighborhood Streets?

-  Memories of the "GODFATHER" MOVIES?

-  Bank Robbers like John Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, and Baby Face Nelson?

-  Terrorists Targeting Innocent People, to Create Fear and Mistrust?

... OR MAYBE SOMETHING ELSE.

Why did I ask this Question at the Very Beginning?  Because,  it is something that has caused a great deal of Controversy over the Years.  Politicians, Police Officials, Attorneys and the Court Systems etc., have argued over the Proper Definition for Decades.  In Other Words:

-  Does "Organized" Mean a Structured Chain of Command, with a Given Set of Rules and Regulations that are Enforced by the Leadership?

-  Is it a "Members" only Club, where outsiders are just Tools that can be Discarded at any Time?

-  Must it have a Purpose for its Existence, with everything Directed Towards a Specific Goal?

-  Does Race and Ethnicity play any role in Designating a Particular Group as an Established Organization Brought Together for Illegal Purposes?

-  Generally Speaking, Terms that Denote a Collection of Individuals as a "Gang", are Differentiated from Others Tagged as "Organized Crime."  I will explain the Reasons in a Future Post.

Of Course, Fighting Organized Criminal Elements through the Criminal Justice System is a Much Different Task than it is with other Forms of Illegal Activity.  As we look at the History of Organized Crime, the Level of Sophistication that is often Achieved makes Arrests and Prosecution more difficult.  This is Especially True if we consider the Amount of Corruption that has been Introduced into Established Legal Authority.

So How are we to Define "Organized Crime." Look for Part 2.