Is the following logically sound?

  • Thread starter Thread starter roineust
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sound
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the logical soundness of an argument concerning the nature of space, specifically whether certain premises lead to a conclusion about space not being a mechanical entity. The scope includes logical reasoning and the validity of arguments.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that premise A implies conclusion C, questioning the validity of the actions B that are supposed to support C.
  • Another participant emphasizes that a sound argument requires true premises and a valid argument form, suggesting a focus on the validity of the argument.
  • A third participant argues that without a clear definition of "mechanical entity," the discussion lacks substance.
  • A later reply reiterates the need for clarity on the argument's validity, expressing confusion about the initial premises and conclusions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the clarity and validity of the argument, with no consensus reached on the soundness of the premises or the conclusion.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the dependence on the definition of "mechanical entity" and the validity of the argument structure, which remain unresolved.

roineust
Messages
341
Reaction score
9
Premise A: There is no future experiment that can be done at different constant speeds, that will give different results.
Premise A leads to set of actions B: Theories, experiments, formulas.
Set of actions B leads to conclusion C: Space is not a mechanical entity.

Doesn't premise A already contain conclusion C and thus makes set of actions B not supportive of conclusion C?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A sound argument relies on the premises being true and the argument form valid. Do you wish to know if your argument is valid instead?
 
Without a comprehensible definition of "mechanical entity" there is nothing to do with this thread except close it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Tom.G and Vanadium 50
StevieTNZ said:
A sound argument relies on the premises being true and the argument form valid. Do you wish to know if your argument is valid instead?
I don't understand
 

Similar threads

Is mathematics invented or discovered?
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
4K
Clarifying the Definition Total/Stagnation Pressure (p₀) in Bernoulli'
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Undergrad Arguments in sentential logic and contradictions/tautologies.
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
Graduate Post-Selection: Pre-existing Correlations or Action At A Distance?
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
6K
Measuring the Velocity of Sound in this Lab Exercise
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Graduate Quantum nonlocality and "spooky action at a distance"
  • · Replies 140 ·
5
Replies
140
Views
14K
Undergrad Identification of changes in internal energy with work (in Callen's Thermodynamics)
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Undergrad Is the Definition of an Argument in Logic by Paul Teller Solid?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Undergrad Can the "measurement problem" just be an "epistemological ambiguity"?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Logical proofs: Empirical evidence for constant gravity in the past and future
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K