Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Strong vs. Valid
My understanding of a strong versus a valid argument comes down a one simple thing: can it have no other possible conclusion. A strong argument is something that has a premise that seems true, and the conclusion is very plausible. In this way the argument is most likely correct. However, for an argument to be valid it must have a premise that is true, and the conclusion must be beyond any doubt. The example in this chapter would be valid if Manuel had a video of himself in front of a easily identifiable monument in Mexico, and the video was time stamped. While it is possible to Photoshop the video, it would be hard to assume that he is lying, or went to the effort of doing so simply to prove he was in Mexico. I understand there is a difference, but I fail to see the true relevance to such a seemingly slight variation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It seems you have an idea of what strong and valid arguments are, but I feel your post lacks examples and explanation for me as a reader. Personally, I know what strong and valid arguments are, but considering the other readers who may not understand, they may not understand what they are from your post. Just a suggestion, I think your post should be proofread before being submitted, I have caught some grammar errors and words that could be replaced with better words, so the flow of reading was not as smooth as I anticipated. Another thing, I think you should have provided your own examples instead of the book's example to really show credibility on if you really know the material. I apologize, I am not saying you do not know what strong and valid arguments are, but at least pretend you are a teacher trying to clarify and simplify a lesson so that others can understand without questioning. Overall, the post can use some development, but at least (I think) you know what strong and valid arguments are.
ReplyDelete