Evaluating Truth and Validity
Evaluating Truth and Validity
Evaluating Truth and Validity
Truth and validity are two different concepts which should not be confused, although they are usually taken as synonyms in common language. In logic, it is said that the argument is valid when the conclusion follows deductively from the premises. While of the premises and the conclusion is that they are true or false, the arguments are said to be valid or invalid. The validity or invalidity of the argument does not depend on its conclusion to be true. According to Moss (2007) “Understanding Truth aims to illuminate the notion of truth, and the role it plays in our ordinary thought, as well as in our logical, philosophical, and scientific theories. The argument is valid, when you have consistency and sense. It has coherence because the premises do not contradict each other and correspond to the conclusion” (para.12). Therefore, we must distinguish between the concept of truth and validity. Truth is something that is preached propositions or statements. Validity is predicated of the arguments. Truth makes reference to the content, and the validity to the shape or structure of the arguments. This reading will address three scenarios in which it will evaluate each argument, using the 4-step process regarding truth and validity.
The first scenario is “Power must be evil because it can corrupt people.” The first thing this paper will address is if the argument is stated fully and in a clear way. The statement has a hidden premise. The premise expressed of the statement can be view as Power is evil because it creates corruption. Therefore must powerful people are corrupt. The statement has errors affecting truth. From the statement we know that the statement is overgeneralizing its context because it is taking a valid point and it is extending it beyond the limits of reasonableness. Sometimes this statement can be true but we can’t assume all powerful people are evil. The fact that power
Evaluating Truth and Validity
Truth and validity are two different concepts which should not be confused, although they are usually taken as synonyms in common language. In logic, it is said that the argument is valid when the conclusion follows deductively from the premises. While of the premises and the conclusion is that they are true or false, the arguments are said to be valid or invalid. The validity or invalidity of the argument does not depend on its conclusion to be true. According to Moss (2007) “Understanding Truth aims to illuminate the notion of truth, and the role it plays in our ordinary thought, as well as in our logical, philosophical, and scientific theories. The argument is valid, when you have consistency and sense. It has coherence because the premises do not contradict each other and correspond to the conclusion” (para.12). Therefore, we must distinguish between the concept of truth and validity. Truth is something that is preached propositions or statements. Validity is predicated of the arguments. Truth makes reference to the content, and the validity to the shape or structure of the arguments. This reading will address three scenarios in which it will evaluate each argument, using the 4-step process regarding truth and validity.
The first scenario is “Power must be evil because it can corrupt people.” The first thing this paper will address is if the argument is stated fully and in a clear way. The statement has a hidden premise. The premise expressed of the statement can be view as Power is evil because it creates corruption. Therefore must powerful people are corrupt. The statement has errors affecting truth. From the statement we know that the statement is overgeneralizing its context because it is taking a valid point and it is extending it beyond the limits of reasonableness. Sometimes this statement can be true but we can’t assume all powerful people are evil. The fact that power
References: Moss, P. A. (2007). Reconstructing validity. Educational Researcher, 36(8), 470-476. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/216903729?accountid=458 Vallely, P. (2013, Dec 07). Nelson Mandela. The Independent Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1465444822?accountid=458 NAPOLEON AND HITLER. (2010). Kirkus Reviews, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/915700909?accountid=458 Kivisto, P. (2013). Evil. Choice, 50(5), 976. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312183109?accountid=458 Herman, G. (2008). Teenagers & credit cards. Retrieved from www.consalidatedcredit.org: http://www.consolidatedcredit.org/credit-card-debt/teenagers-and-cards/#back Belkin, D. (2013, Aug 25). Are you ready for the post-college SAT?; employers say they don 't trust grade-point averages. Wall Street Journal (Online) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1427661410?accountid=458 McNichol, P. (1999, Mar 11). Good grades for georgian: Most grads, employers happy with college courses. Sun Times Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/349164482?accountid=458