Given examples of (a) valid arguments with true premises
THEREFORE, NO SUPPORTER OF THE SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE LIVED BEFORE THE NINETEENTH CENTURYĪs we shall see later in this book, both of the premises are true, but the conclusion is false.ġ. NO AUSTRIAN ECONOMIST LIVED BEFORE THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. ALL AUSTRIAN ECONOMISTS SUPPORT THE SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE. (If you do remember LBJ, what are you doing still in school?) Even though premises and conclusions are both true, the premises do not transmit their truth to the conclusion, since the argument is invalid.Ĭan true premises in an invalid argument lead to a false conclusion? Certainly. Lyndon Baines Johnson, whom most of you won’t recall, was both. In fact, of course, both of the premises are true and so, is the conclusion. The tall people who are Texans are different tall people from those who are Democrats. But, in this state of affairs, no Texans are Democrats. The diagram shows that some Texans are tall, and also that some tall people are Democrats. Here, both of our premises are represented. Can you see how this is possible? Once again, use of a diagram will help. This is also consistent with our premises:īoth premises will be true, and the conclusion turns out to be false. Our premises allow this to be true, but they don’t require it. This example does not meet our requirement: Notice that the rule requires both true premises and a valid argument. One false premise prevents the rule from applying. Just to make things absolutely clear, all the premises must be true for truth to be transmitted. These premises do not transmit truth, since they are false. The conclusion is true, but the premises don’t make it true. (Perhaps the falsity of the second premise is arguable!) But the conclusion is true: Hillary Clinton is a Democrat! How can this be?īy now, you should know the answer. THEREFORE, HILLARY CLINTON IS A DEMOCRATīoth the premises are false. But this pattern by no means always holds true. 
The conclusion is also false: Marx was not a two-headed monster. It’s not the case that all communists are two-headed monsters.
In the example already used, the major premise is false. All our rule says is that true premises transmit truth: it says nothing about how premises and conclusion are related with a false premise. What happens if one of the premises is false? Does this make the conclusion false? Not necessarily. A valid argument transmits truth from the premises to the conclusion. We now know that if you start with true premises, you will arrive at a true conclusion. The Problem of Indirect Exchange CompoundedĬhapter 1: The Method of Economics 5 VALIDITY CONTINUED.Have We Painted Ourselves into a Corner?.The Tautology Objection Considered Further.
0 kommentar(er)
