For the love of all that is random.

Prolific Member
A) All Unicorns are Purple.
B) I am a Unicorn.
C) I am Purple.

C cannot be concluded, unless the validity of A and B has been addressed in order to justify C. So:

A) All Unicorns are Purple.
B) I am a Unicorn.
C) If A and B are valid, X is valid.
X) I am Purple.

X cannot be concluded without C being included in the relationship.

A) All Unicorns are Purple.
B) I am a Unicorn.
C) If A and B are valid, X is valid.
D) If A, B, and C are valid, X is valid.
X) I am Purple.

...regressus in infinitum.

Logic is a construct used to make sense of the world we live in, but it is chimerical to think this world is constrained by logic, or as we have made sense of it.
This isn't false however, the point is that validity and logic are not the same. Something can be logical and not valid or valid but not logical. They are not necessarily the same things.

Here is one case.

1)All Cats Purrs
2)My pet purrs
3)Therefore my Pet is a Cat.

These are all valid statements even the conclusion could be valid. However, it is not logical because Just because all cats purr and my pet purr doesn't mean my pet is a cat because other animals besides cats may indeed purr and the statement doesn't exclude these other animals.

Therefore Validity doesn't imply Logic and the conclusion before proves that logic doesn't imply validity.

Both are needed to show rational thought however sometimes the validity of something isn't provable.

In these cases the best we can do is to make sure our conclusions actually fallow the evidence as best we can. If later we find out that one piece of evidence is invalid or valid we can then change and morph the conclusion to best fit our personal understanding of truth "Validity". This is logical and rational. Just because you disagree on truth doesn't mean the process someone is using is any less rational or logical. Unless of course you can prove that there evidence is invalid or false.

This is what I mean when I say personal logic.

Like you said what is a logical conclusion is related directly to what is valid. Therefore if I have a different understand of truth then you do. Which is natural (I.E. everyone has a different opinion of what is truth and false depending on there level of understanding on any given subjects are all of them as a whole) It would then fallow that are conclusions on subjects would be different. It doesn't mean that one of us is logical and the other is illogical. What it means is we have a different perspective on truth and therefore looking at our evidence (which will also be different with every different point of view). Therefore your opinion on a subject coming from a completely logical understanding of the world around you. Will be much different then my logical understand of the world around me.

This is one of the reason I find it useful to talk with as many people as possible. I understand that my point of view is limited myself. Therefore to gain greater wisdom and understand I must try and embrace different ideas then the one that I have understood form examining my experiences logically.

Prolific Member
Okay so here I my random outburst of today.

I just realized I got a call from my temp agency today.

They said I don't have to go into work tomorrow. Now there could be two possible reasons for this.

1)My temp work may have let me go. There are a few reason for this.
i)I have missed a few day one last week because of automobile problems (Granted this job is about 35 miles from my apartment)
ii)My performance has been up and down (Basically, I hate my job and the repetitive nature of it. Its a factory job. Therefore somedays I do okay and other days I can't bring up enough effort to care)
2)The temp agency may be placing me in another job. This is also possible
i)I asked to be placed in a different non-factory related jobs because I realized that they were not a good fit for me.
ii)I also asked them last Thursday to find a job closer to home because I would have been able go into work by cab or bus if it was in the Metro area.

I will find out tomorrow but it eating at me right now.

The good new is I am most likely not working the same job I hate. However, it will suck to not have a pay check so I am hoping they found me a new job.

Cherry Cola

Banned
This isn't false however, the point is that validity and logic are not the same. Something can be logical and not valid or valid but not logical. They are not necessarily the same things.

Here is one case.

1)All Cats Purrs
2)My pet purrs
3)Therefore my Pet is a Cat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_four_terms

Fallacies aren't logical. You're creating your own definition of logic to allow your argument to hold.

Prolific Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_four_terms

Fallacies aren't logical. You're creating your own definition of logic to allow your argument to hold.
Okay, I am not normally this blunt but your a dumb ass.

My argument is that this isn't logical argument even though it is indeed a valid.

The point is a valid argument is not necessarily logical and a logical argument isn't necessarily valid.

I am saying that Valid and Logic two distinct and different concepts that need to be in place for a rational argument.

I understand that fallacies are not logical, I've both taken and Aced formal logic at the university level.

However, many people on this forum seem to misunderstand and interchange logic and validity. Therefore they argue that someone is being illogical just because they question the validity of there statements. However, this is not the case. Even if it is true that the argument is indeed invalid.

I was trying to show the opposite with this example. A completelly valid statment (meaning both the promises and the conclusion were actually truthful) however, the logic was faulty.

This is how one way I was shown to discern the difference between the validity of a statement and logical framework of a statement.

However, it seems that this is far too advanced for you.

And Yes, I am insulting you because you have a way of misinterpreting and competelly missing the point of even the most simplest concepts.

I will admit that my statements are over exaggerated but I want to make a point and now that I have made it I can completely ignore you B.S.

Cherry Cola

Banned
What you're basically saying is that formal logic is a closed system like mathematics. Yes I agree, but its old news.

Also you used one formally valid example and one invalid to prove the same point, I don't see how I am being confused here.

Look:

All Unicorns are Purple. I am a Unicorn. Therefore, I am Purple.

This holds up because what it says is:

All A's (unicorns) have the property of B (being purple). I am an A. Therefore I have the property of A.

But this on the other hand:

1)All Cats Purrs
2)My pet purrs
3)Therefore my Pet is a Cat.

Takes the form of:

1. For all A's (cats) there is B (purring).
2. For C (pet) there is B.
3. Therefore C equals B.

Which is the fallacy I linked you to.

Prolific Member
What you're basically saying is that formal logic is a closed system like mathematics. Yes I agree, but its old news.

Also you used one formally valid example and one invalid to prove the same point, I don't see how I am being confused here.

Look:

All Unicorns are Purple. I am a Unicorn. Therefore, I am Purple.

This holds up because what it says is:

All A's (unicorns) have the property of B (being purple). I am an A. Therefore I have the property of A.

But this on the other hand:

1)All Cats Purrs
2)My pet purrs
3)Therefore my Pet is a Cat.

Takes the form of:

1. For all A's (cats) there is B (purring).
2. For C (pet) there is B.
3. Therefore C equals B.

Which is the fallacy I linked you to.
The first is an example of using invalid information to make a logical conclusion.

The second is an example of using valid information to make an illogical conclusion.

They are the opposite.

You are misreading my post because you seem to think that I was trying to make a valid logical argument the second time.

You are right about the first statement it is an invalid logical argument.

The second statement is and valid illogical argument. Which I stated it as such.

"These are all valid statements even the conclusion could be valid. However, it is not logical because Just because all cats purr and my pet purr doesn't mean my pet is a cat because other animals besides cats may indeed purr and the statement doesn't exclude these other animals. "

No need to try to pull up fallacy arguments on me when I express the logical flaws in the argument myself.

This is totally because you are misunderstanding what I posted.

The second argument was not meant to be a valid logical argument.

The Second Argument was meant to be an valid illogical argument to show that even illogical arguments can be valid.

Do you understand now?

Cherry Cola

Banned
Oh ok. I don't think that was very clear especially since the first example was about unicorns but whatever.

Here then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

quoting:

This is due to a flaw in the logical structure of the argument which renders the argument invalid.

You can't distinguish between logic and validity the way you are trying to do. Because when you've done that were talking Chad-logic and not logic as per the meaning of the term.

You really should spend more time studying and less time just supposing you know it all. Why do I know this? Because I took a course.

Prolific Member
Validity simply means a truthful statement.

Validity: having some foundation; based on truth

You therefore you can have a logical argument that isn't valid and a valid argument that isn't logical.

This isn't chad-logic it the actual definition out of my logic text book.

However, like I said before this isn't logic chad-logic or even formal logic. This is simply understanding the difference between logic and validity.

They are both important to rational thought however, they are distinct.

The reason this is important is that several people have argued that something is illogical because they didn't believe that the premises were factual. My point is that even if this is the case (I.E. someone is using an invalid premise in there) this doesn't mean that there illogical.

I went farther to explain that just because you believe something to be invalid doesn't mean that it is indeed invalid. Therefore the important part of thinking logically is fallowing your own premises the a logical conclusion. Validity is important however, sometimes validity isn't as obvious as we would like. In which case the most important thing is fallowing the logical conclusion form the given premises you except as valid at the time. Later, hopefully you could find more information to help validate or invalidate your current primises. In which case you should adjust your conclusion accordingly.

Basically, know one is always right, including both of us.

We both except are current understanding "Premises" to be valid. (This is intuitive because if you didn't except your premises you would change them). However, we disagree on a great many things. Partly because we have different personalities however, even if our personality were identical we would still have different points of views. However, we have different points of view, therefore even if we are both completely logical individuals we will have different conclusions on reality.

This isn't because either of us are illogical. Its because we are drawing are conclusions form a different set of premises some of which are valid and some are not.

The best we can do is trying to improve the validity of our arguments threw constant research and greater understanding.

Therefore if you wish to argue rather I am logical are illogical you can't argue base on rather you believe my premises are valid or invalid. You can say that my argument is invalid but this is a completely different argument. Especially, when it normally comes down to our understanding of truth.

Prolific Member
You know someone is an ass hole if they will both criticize you for admitting your own fault and also for standing up for yourself when you don't believe your wrong.

However it is possible to be both humble in your faults and strong in your strengths. This is the sign of a mature person.

Cherry Cola

Banned
Okay, I get it now. I misunderstood you before, and have been arguing against a strawman.

Got confused by wordings and the usage of formal logical examples. But it's still old news, and the main reason why arguments need to be carried out on some sort of common ground. It also feels like your purpose with stating this is basically to claim yourself logical and that you're thus to be taken seriously, when you refer to solipsistic precepts in discussions.

Prolific Member
Okay, I get it now. I misunderstood you before, and have been arguing against a strawman.

Got confused by wordings and the usage of formal logical examples. But it's still old news, and the main reason why arguments need to be carried out on some sort of common ground. It also feels like your purpose with stating this is basically to claim yourself logical and that you're thus to be taken seriously, when you refer to solipsistic precepts in discussions.

Now I refuse to insult your intelligence any farther.

Misunderstandings happen but that just the nature of our discussions I come to expect this form you.

You are on a witch hunt to prove that there is something illogical or emotional about me therefore you read all of my post with this leaning. Therefore even when I am presenting a easy strait forward argument you still feel the need to prove my illogical.

You are even try to critique me here by saying that I am not sharing any new information "or old news". (Which of course is true but irrelevant, I wasn't trying to reinvent logic is only explain it).

This obvious bias is why I can't take you serious as a person. You can always find evidence of you hypothesis if you look hard enough. However, I have done my do diligence with your argument (I.E that I am the least common personality type INFJ). After reading and researching this personality type threw every method I currently know. As well as asking my wife for help and a unbiased eye on my temperament. I have concluded that it is even more unlikely then I first thought that I am indeed INFJ.

From all my research I have concluded that both you and Own8ge are likely INFJ's I am glad for yourself awareness. Also you like to project yourself onto others and give advice even if it isn't wanted or asked for.

I may give advise but only when asked and my reason isn't actually to help but to share my knowledge which is a driving force for me.

Cherry Cola

Banned
The only reason I was confused was because you tried to word something basic as if though it were profound. You oughta stick to making threads, that you are one of, if not the best at.

Brontosaurie

Banned
it's not a valid argument chad you despicable fucking idiot

if the statements are true, yes they are valid. but the logical form of the argument isn't valid and the argument as such isn't valid - which you stated it was. you're a time sink and a borderline retarded sophist.

Brontosaurie

Banned
and no he's not good at making threads. he's a worthless failure and an impenetrable thickhead with which gentle diplomacy makes no sense. i can't contain this anymore.

fuck you chad and get out. that's the only contribution you have to make.

Absurdity

Prolific Member
Don't make me put you kids in a time out.

Brontosaurie

Banned
making truth illegal is risky bsns, sad to see you're a mod

warning heed'd though

Jennywocky

Prolific Member
Don't make me put you kids in a time out.
It's cool he's just trying to back his friend.

I am not the least pit offended by his comments.

Brontosaurie

Banned
It's cool he's just trying to back his friend.

I am not the least pit offended by his comments.
no. i readily admit that cherry cola was wrong in his accusations. you didn't make a four terms fallacy. you made this:

all x are y
z is y
therefore z is x

which is simply an implication erroneously reversed. of course you already know it's logically invalid. what you don't realize is that this also makes it an invalid argument, though of course - depending on content - the conclusion may be a true statement in itself; you've then made an empirically valid claim, albeit deductively unsupported.

you needn't feel offended. i stated facts. you called an invalid logical argument a valid argument and then you produced a heckload of drivel that's too jumbled to even be called apologetic.

claiming that my incentive is to protect a friend is no reasonable response to my criticism.

also that's bit not pit. you're thirty fucking something years old and you have a beard. step it up.

Prolific Member
no. i readily admit that cherry cola was wrong in his accusations. you didn't make a four terms fallacy. you made this:

all x are y
z is y
therefore z is x

which is simply an implication erroneously reversed. of course you already know it's logically invalid. what you don't realize is that this also makes it an invalid argument, though of course - depending on content - the conclusion may be a valid statement in itself. you've then made a valid claim, albeit supported by an invalid argument.

you needn't feel offended. i stated facts. you called an invalid logical argument a valid argument and then you produced a heckload of drivel.

claiming that my incentive is to protect a friend is no reasonable response to my criticism.

I was referring to your "fucking idiot" Comment.

The rest is simply misunderstanding the term Validity which I quoted in my post. I've taken this form my own study of formal logic. You can assume that validity has more a of meaning then Truth. But that would be adding to the definition. And it is exactly why I wrote my post in the first place to help clear up this misunderstanding that is rampant on this site.

Brontosaurie

Banned

I was referring to your "fucking idiot" Comment.

The rest is simply misunderstanding the term Validity which I quoted in my post. I've taken this form my own study of formal logic. You can assume that validity has more a of meaning then Truth. But that would be adding to the definition. And it is exactly why I wrote my post in the first place to help clear up this misunderstanding that is rampant on this site.
no you don't.

yeah. you were referring to the only thing that was in your power to try and refute. i sometimes throw in loose invectives and if the opponent chooses to disregard everything but those, i know for a fact the opponent is being something of a... well i already said it, no need to repeat. anyway, that's what just happened. you performatively proved the invective in question.

so how do you solve the glaring discrepancy between valid argument and valid statement from which your drivel suffers? you haven't addressed this. you've merely accused everyone of being ridden by some ill-defined "misunderstanding". inf Ni?

Prolific Member

I am simply trying to defend your insult as justifiable and understandable. As I did start it by calling you friend a dumb ass even though we both know that was an overstatement.

Cherry Cola

Banned
Yes you did but your argument was refuted.

But if you're ok with just coming up with arguments without caring about if they are correct or not, couldn't you do that somewhere else where it didn't waste the time of people who actually care about you know... making sense and truth?

You're squirming in a strait-jacket of fail atm and I'm sorry but there's no getting out of it.

Brontosaurie

Banned

I am simply trying to defend your insult as justifiable and understandable. As I did start it by calling you friend a dumb ass even though we both know that was an overstatement.
you haven't. you've called an invalid deductive argument a valid argument and you've done so out of the blue with no semblance of support. no one here thinks that makes you speshul and deep and gifted with glorious yet unkempt visionary powers, as you seem to assume.

okay go ahead. my accurate factual claims don't need your justification though.

overstatement? more like flat-out lie.

Prolific Member
Well you see I defined the term used by formal logic. You have yet to refute my definition of the word therefore I have nothing to argue with.

Simply saying I am wrong without refuting my argument doesn't make you right.

Brontosaurie

Banned
Well you see I defined the term used by formal logic. You have yet to refute my definition of the word therefore I have nothing to argue with.
ok so you're now saying a logically invalid conclusion is logically valid? i thought your very purpose was to distinguish between two types of validity, namely logical validity and factual validity. the problem arised when you said your faulty logical conclusion was a valid argument.

your definition of validity refutes itself since it allows for a logically invalid argument to be called a valid argument - which is contradictory seeing as the argument consists of logic.

sorry if i've misinterpreted something. you're a shit writer and you make no sense.

Simply saying I am wrong without refuting my argument doesn't make you right.
so? that's not what i did.

Prolific Member
Oh no, Look it up in an actual book.
wikiedia is not a valid source of information on a argument.

That not to say that its not useful and fun to research on Wikipedia however, do to the nature of the site that can be edited by any Joe Smoe you isn't a great source of a valid argument tool.

I.E. Wikiedia isn't by definition factual.

Brontosaurie

Banned
i'd like to see a joe that surpasses you in terms of smoe.

Prolific Member
There are not two different types of Validity.

Validity is concerning statements or premises and there factualness or truthfulness.

In context of an argument a valid argument is an argument in which all the premises in the argument are factual. They may or may not be logically connected.

This is why many illogical arguments are may seem logical. However, truth/validity doesn't necessarily mean something is logical.

That is the point. You can try to twist it into something else if you want but I have no need to argue with that.

Prolific Member
i'd like to see a joe that surpasses you in terms of smoe.
Well even if this is true even I can edit wikepidia and I have.

So, this argument only adds to mine thanks.

Cherry Cola

Banned
Oh no, Look it up in an actual book.
wikiedia is not a valid source of information on a argument.

That not to say that its not useful and fun to research on Wikipedia however, do to the nature of the site that can be edited by any Joe Smoe you isn't a great source of a valid argument tool.

I.E. Wikiedia isn't by definition factual.
You can lead a horse to the water. You can kick the horse into the water. You can hold the horses head under water for an extended period of time. You can use intravenous feeding to attempt to pump water into the horse only to have it come flying out again as if by magic. You can seal the horse in a pressure chamber with nothing but water and pull all the levers to make the pressure go up way above whats even safe, eventually causing the whole thing to explode with only the horse emerging in one piece; albeit in dire need of water.

You can do all that, yet it wont drink. By then its no longer a matter of can, it's a matter of should. Yes, the poor creature should be put out of its misery. Ban this mofo.

Edit: Oh and btw, both me and Bronto took a course in formal logic at Stockholm university, we both have a book on it. There's no difference. But hey I guess the book must have been misswritten, I guess the universe teacher must be a fraud. I guess anything except Chad wrong.

Brontosaurie

Banned
There are not two different types of Validity.

Validity is concerning statements or premises and there factualness or truthfulness.

In context of an argument a valid argument is an argument in which all the premises in the argument are factual. They may or may not be logically connected.

This is why many illogical arguments are may seem logical. However, truth/validity doesn't necessarily mean something is logical.

That is the point. You can try to twist it into something else if you want but I have no need to argue with that.
a valid argument is one in which the conclusion follows from the premises.

an argumentatively unsupported statement may or may not be valid in the simple factual sense - i.e. true.

there are many types of validity. this is a psychology forum so you should at least be acquainted with that...

Brontosaurie

Banned
Well even if this is true even I can edit wikepidia and I have.

So, this argument only adds to mine thanks.
that was mockery, not argument.

redbaron

ok
And it is exactly why I wrote my post in the first place to help clear up this misunderstanding that is rampant on this site.
Oh jeez...

Ha. Tu Shae!

Montresor

Banned
This thread is a really interesting case study.

On one hand, Br was like, way out of line ...
Chad, though, is almost like, purposefully impossible to negotiate or argue with.

Calling for bans? whaaa? How could you ever justify banning one without banning the other?

You guys should just have a slap-fight.

Edit: ...no, a tickle fight

Brontosaurie

Banned
On one hand, Br was like, way out of line ...
so was chad, the difference being that i was honest about it.

Cherry Cola

Banned
Oh come on who cares if Bronto is out of line, Chad is wrong 90% of the time, admits it 0% of the time, and still self boasts 100% of the time; all the while wasting the time of anyone who tries to engage him.

I'm not quite sure about his RL behavior, but on here he IS a pathological narcissist. What's so unreasonable about banning the guy? I find it annoying that consistently acting like an ass is okay, but you risk a temporary ban for a few invectives. I guess it's understandable from a practical point of view, but nah not here in this case.

Montresor

Banned
Chad is a pure N type if there ever was one... that's as far as I'm going with this.

He adds layers to literally everything he perceives. He takes nothing for what it is. You can't fault him for it any more or less.

Both personae are rare and authentic and it would be better if an understanding could be reached between the two?

Cherry Cola

Banned
What layers?

He takes nothing for what it is? As opposed to who?

Montresor

Banned
As opposed to ... nearly everybody, who at least has some ability to converse on the direct "eye-to eye" level that you two require of him.

When you say something to him, he reads it, but his mind sees something else. It's a losing battle. This is what I mean by adding layers. It's like he thinks he's two steps ahead of you.

redbaron

ok
It's like he thinks he's two steps ahead of you.
More like two steps behind if you ask me.

Although you didn't, so here's a picture of a cat:

loveofreason

echoes through time
This being Chad's own blog thread to express his thoughts as he wishes; anyone who comes here to argue and bludgeons themself senseless, has done so of his or her own free will. We assume you enjoy it. Chad seems happy enough to oblige.

That said:

Prolific Member
This being Chad's own blog thread to express his thoughts as he wishes; anyone who comes here to argue and bludgeons themself senseless, has done so of his or her own free will. We assume you enjoy it. Chad seems happy enough to oblige.

That said:

Exactly, I have have no problem obliging.

Prolific Member
This thread is a really interesting case study.

On one hand, Br was like, way out of line ...
Chad, though, is almost like, purposefully impossible to negotiate or argue with.

Calling for bans? whaaa? How could you ever justify banning one without banning the other?

You guys should just have a slap-fight.

Edit: ...no, a tickle fight
Two, things.

One I don't believe Br is out of line. It is perfectly rational to get upset when someone insults your friend especially when you don't agree with that person conclusions.

On the other hand we are having two different arguments and I am being bull headed and not entering Br and Cherry's argument because even though they may have a point it doesn't really effect my conclusion.

Which has been clearly stated that Truthful/valid of premises (I.E not the argument its self but the premises in the argument) do not all ways lead to logical conclusions (I.E. my cat argument). and Logical arguments don't always lead to truthful/valid conclusions. (I.E. My unicorn argument).

Rather they wish to criticize my use of the word validity is pointless to my argument.

I do understand what they are trying to imply that lacking logical correctness is invalid in it's self. Which could be argued if you are arguing that Logical correctness is a not a truth statement (I.E value or validity statement). However, this is not even close to the argument I am making so I don't really care.

Charry originally attacked my argument because he misread my post and thought I was calling an illogical argument logical. This is what I thought was dumb.

When Charry couldn't win his argument his friend came in to help him and changed his argument. To an argument about the word validity. However, I didn't misuse the word validity anywhere on my post I was using the direct literal meaning of the word.

I could just as easily have said just because you have some factual evidence and you make a conclusion form this evidence that is also factual doesn't mean that your argument is logical.

This argument they acutally seem to agree with they just want to nit pick my words to make it look like I don't know what I am talking about. Basically because I called Cherry a dumb ass and they have no better way of discrediting me.

Cherry Cola

Banned
Loveofreason: He is no different in other threads, don't see the point.

Chad: You calling me a dumbass is not upsetting at all, what's upsetting is your textbook narcissism and ignorance; what they signify. Ultimately you'd rather embarrass yourself than admit to being wrong, probably because you don't realize the obviousness of your faulty reasoning.

Prolific Member
Loveofreason: He is no different in other threads, don't see the point.

Chad: You calling me a dumbass is not upsetting at all, what's upsetting is your textbook narcissism and ignorance; what they signify. Ultimately you'd rather embarrass yourself than admit to being wrong, probably because you don't realize the obviousness of your faulty reasoning.
You have still yet to prove faulty reasoning to anyone.

My argument is.

You can make a logical argument that with invalid premises.

You can make a Illogical argument even if all your premises and conclusion are valid statements. (I.E. Factual)

That is my argument and you actually agreed with it at one point.

I believe said this is true but it is not new information.

How is this ignorant.

I am not saying I am not narcissistic I can at least appear as so most of the time.

However, you are the one that agree with my argument and then when you friend came into defend you started to pick at some point that wasn't even relevant to my argument.

With this evidence who is unable to admit when they are wrong.

Also I have proven on other threads that I am perfectly willing to accept my faults when someone points them out correctly.

I believe you said this makes me an Se.

Now you are saying I am incapable of admitting when I am wrong. Therefore you inconsistent with your argument at least.

Cherry Cola

Banned
Yeah I was totally confused, admittedly. Didn't get what you meant completely the first or second time, that's because you're quite loose in your usage of words. For example you typically speak of "the truth" not the "validity" of them.

Furthermore, as I said before: your goal with this is escaping criticism and evening out the ground between you and the other users without having to make sense. And you're doing it by

What this means is that you can basically have Santa Claus and Flying Saucers for premises, but so long as your reasoning is logical then no one may blame you. This is a weak resort to skepticism, if premises are incompatible then you work on those as well, alas you'd rather not work on your premises, but you want to be taken seriously anyway; however, you want to be even ground with those who do which just ain't gonna happen. And I'm not making this shit up, it's all there:

I went farther to explain that just because you believe something to be invalid doesn't mean that it is indeed invalid. Therefore the important part of thinking logically is fallowing your own premises the a logical conclusion. Validity is important however, sometimes validity isn't as obvious as we would like. In which case the most important thing is fallowing the logical conclusion form the given premises you except as valid at the time. Later, hopefully you could find more information to help validate or invalidate your current primises. In which case you should adjust your conclusion accordingly.

Basically, know one is always right, including both of us.

Cherry Cola

Banned
This isn't false however, the point is that validity and logic are not the same. Something can be logical and not valid or valid but not logical. They are not necessarily the same things.

Here is one case.

1)All Cats Purrs
2)My pet purrs
3)Therefore my Pet is a Cat.

These are all valid statements even the conclusion could be valid. However, it is not logical because Just because all cats purr and my pet purr doesn't mean my pet is a cat because other animals besides cats may indeed purr and the statement doesn't exclude these other animals.

Therefore Validity doesn't imply Logic and the conclusion before proves that logic doesn't imply validity.

Both are needed to show rational thought however sometimes the validity of something isn't provable.

In these cases the best we can do is to make sure our conclusions actually fallow the evidence as best we can. If later we find out that one piece of evidence is invalid or valid we can then change and morph the conclusion to best fit our personal understanding of truth "Validity". This is logical and rational. Just because you disagree on truth doesn't mean the process someone is using is any less rational or logical. Unless of course you can prove that there evidence is invalid or false.

This is what I mean when I say personal logic.

Like you said what is a logical conclusion is related directly to what is valid. Therefore if I have a different understand of truth then you do. Which is natural (I.E. everyone has a different opinion of what is truth and false depending on there level of understanding on any given subjects are all of them as a whole) It would then fallow that are conclusions on subjects would be different. It doesn't mean that one of us is logical and the other is illogical. What it means is we have a different perspective on truth and therefore looking at our evidence (which will also be different with every different point of view). Therefore your opinion on a subject coming from a completely logical understanding of the world around you. Will be much different then my logical understand of the world around me.

This is one of the reason I find it useful to talk with as many people as possible. I understand that my point of view is limited myself. Therefore to gain greater wisdom and understand I must try and embrace different ideas then the one that I have understood form examining my experiences logically.
The bolded part is what is wrong. Validity can't be categorically excluded from implying logic. It depends on what is specified as valid. If the logical structure of an argument is valid then how does validity not imply logic?

You've used an example that supports your case, but validity as a term sees a much wider use.

And finally, friggin everyone can distinguish between logical reasoning and logical conclusions. Everyone knows it depends on the premises. You're trying to teach us something we don't need to learn.