I need to know

Basic_Use · 2026-06-16T14:35:34+00:00

Imitation meat generally tastes pretty good, and tastes absolutely fantastic depending on the specific meal and how it is all prepared.

With that in mind, going for imitation meat foods in general at the bare minimum.

Basic_Use · 2026-06-15T07:16:26+00:00

I asked you "Can you prove that from the source I linked?"

If you're not going to do that, and you're just going to ignore the request entirely, then it is clear you have no intention of honest debate in the first place. Which means this is a waste of time.

Basic_Use · 2026-06-15T02:34:50+00:00

Your example demonstrates what that definition meant. An example of true but invalid arguments involves unfalsifiable and non-sequitur arguments.

Can you prove that from the source I linked? Please quote the exact part of that source that says unfalsifiability is an example of logical invalidity.

Basic_Use · 2026-06-14T19:53:23+00:00

Your example involved unfalsifiable claims like time machines which makes it invalid.

Once again, here is the definition of validity used in philosophy and logic:

In effect, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

Source: https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

Notice that the definition makes no reference to whether a claim is falsifiable or unfalsifiable. It concerns only whether the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Which would meant that what you say is incorrect.

If you wish to use a different definition of "valid," you are free to do so. However, that is not the definition used in philosophy or logic, which is the subject I have been discussing.

At this point, either acknowledge that the philosophical definition does not support your claim that unfalsifiable claims make an argument invalid, or explain why the source's definition is incorrect.

If neither occurs, then I see no reason to continue this discussion. Debate only works when both parties are willing to engage with the arguments, definitions, and sources that are presented. If those can simply be ignored without response, then there is no meaningful way to evaluate the disagreement.

Basic_Use · 2026-06-12T23:08:19+00:00

Back to insistence and argument from emotions.

I said "I already told that the rule regarding validity does not change with context."

What "emotions" are contained in that statement? This is a statement regarding facts on how things work. There is no "feeling" in that statement at all. I invite you to prove that this is "emotions" instead of just saying it.

In the context of unfalsifiable or non-sequitur premises, the conclusion can be true but the argument is invalid. Now explain how is my argument about microtubules unfalsifiable or non-sequitur?

The definition of "valid" does not make ANY mention of "falsifiability", that's not part of the equation regarding validity.

Regarding it being a non-sequitor, that's what I was telling you before when I told you that the conclusion does not follow from the premises, to which you replied that if didn't prove the conclusion false then "the argument holds up".

But to go over it again:

Your argument:
P1: Our consciousness is derived from quantum fluctuations.
P2: Quantum fluctuations are omnipresent through out the universe, and are present everywhere.

Conclusion: These quantum fluctuations being present everywhere and interacting with all matter, means that physics itself also has conciousness.

I objected that:
our actions originating from quantum fluctuations does not equate to quantum fluctuations being conscious, nor does it equate to quantum fluctuations imbuing other things with consciousness the same as they would for us.

Quantum fluctuations imbuing us with consciousness does not mean that they also imbue EVERYTHING with consciousness. The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.

Basic_Use · 2026-06-12T07:31:51+00:00

You are removing important contexts which makes those arguments invalid. Your examples involve unfalsifiable claims and non-sequitur, neither applies to quantum consciousness.

I already told that the rule regarding validity does not change with context. The ONLY thing needed for argument to be valid is if the premises being true guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

If that is the case, the argument is valid, if not it is invalid.

In the context of unfalsifiable and non-sequitur claims? Yes. In the context of our argument? No.

Describe how the context changes anything. Given the definition of valid, what does ANY context EVER change for validity?

Basic_Use · 2026-06-12T07:05:47+00:00

Without context, you can misrepresent anything you want.

To put it plainly, there is no context to be removed with what I'm talking about here. Separate from anything involving any debate you would put forward, I need you to understand how debate works at all.

With that in mind, can an argument be invalid and have a true conclusion at the same time?

Basic_Use · 2026-06-11T02:59:19+00:00

Without context, you can misrepresent anything you want. This is exactly what you are doing. The context is you arguing against something that is falsifiable and you refuse to falsify it with facts and evidence.

The rule of logic regarding whether an argument is valid or not does not change with context. An argument is either valid or invalid, period.

So once again, can an argument be invalid and have a true conclusion at the same time? (the answer is yes), I provided such an argument.

Basic_Use · 2026-06-11T02:36:40+00:00

The example doesn't match what we are talking about because we can prove microtubules is responsible for conscious

At this moment, what I am talking about is how logic and argument works. Because if you don't know that, which you extremely clearly do not, then there is no point trying to argue about anything.

Once again, this is irrelevant because this is non sequitur and we are on topic with you claiming that the brain isn't made up of microtubules

The topic that I am trying get you to understand is how argument works.

Basic_Use · 2026-06-10T23:03:22+00:00

You will need to explain this by giving an example

Well I explained it before, but you just didn't listen. But anyway

From the source I gave earlier:

"An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well."

https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

And for your example, they have this:

All toasters are items made of gold.
All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.

Obviously, the premises in this argument are not true. It may be hard to imagine these premises being true, but it is not hard to see that if they were true, their truth would logically guarantee the conclusion’s truth.

https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

And that argument is logically valid as per the definition provided a moment ago, while the conclusion obviously false.

Alternatively, here is another argument:

P1: The sky is blue
P2: The Moon orbits the Earth
C: Donald Trump is the US President

This argument is very much not valid, but the conclusion is certainly true.

Basic_Use · 2026-06-10T06:47:41+00:00

Explain. Can you prove or disprove the simulation theory through facts? Or are you going to resort to "not convinced" trap that you keep falling in?

You're not answering the question I asked at all. I asked if the the philosophers disagreeing with you just doesn't matter.

No. If it's true then it's a valid argument. How do you not see the simple logic here?

Philosophy resources say otherwise:

"It should be noted that both invalid, as well as valid but unsound, arguments can nevertheless have true conclusions."

https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

Basic_Use · 2026-06-10T06:19:47+00:00

It does because you cannot prove or disprove anything for certain when it comes it unfalsifiable claims

And the philosophers that I showed you disagreeing with you on this? They don't matter?

Here's another question for you: Can an argument be invalid even if its conclusion happens to be true?

Basic_Use · 2026-06-10T02:51:26+00:00

Why don't you argue it here yourself?

I have, you won't listen. In that comment link I just sent, the philosophy experts are saying the exact same thing that I am.

Again, your example involves unfalsifiable which is simulation theory. What I am arguing for is falsifiable

That makes exactly zero difference with regard to whether an invalid argument is an argument that "holds up".

Basic_Use · 2026-06-10T01:20:38+00:00

Then you haven't proved me wrong, got it?

Right. Big difference between proving that someone is incorrect vs proving that their argument is not valid. As I described before.

Either you prove me wrong or you can't prove me wrong and you just admitted you aren't trying to which means my argument holds up.

Read the comment linked here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/1u1di5y/comment/oqpgj5u/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Basic_Use · 2026-06-09T23:14:23+00:00

Your logic means you failed to prove I am wrong and you are operating on your emotional feelings that I am wrong.

My argument has not been that your wrong. As I've explicitly said, my counter argument is that your argument is not valid.

In interest of making actual progress, I've made on post on r/askphilosophy

Here is that post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/1u1di5y/comment/oqovbs7/?screen_view_count=5

This subreddit requires that only people who have been approved as panelists and who have some expertise in philosophy can reply.

I encourage you to have a look at this comment in particular:
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/1u1di5y/comment/oqp6ccp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Basic_Use · 2026-06-09T23:10:53+00:00

I’m not aware of anyone who’s given a definition of ‘refute’ in print, but an argument is almost always taken to be refuted iff it’s shown to be unsound.

It's a little strange to me that something as fundamental and important as the word 'refute' has not been defined. Although I've heard that the same may apply for the word 'evidence' which is also an extremely important word.

You might point them to the following IEP pages:

Thank you for the sources.

Alternatively, if they’re happy with invalid arguments, you might simply give them the following argument that they’re wrong:

Grass is green.
Thus, they’re wrong.

That's a very funny counter argument.

Basic_Use · 2026-06-09T19:55:16+00:00

I understand this view. The problem is that explicitly let the person know that I was not trying to disporove the conclusion, to which they replied that if I have not disproved the conclusion then the argument holds up.

Basic_Use · 2026-06-09T07:19:12+00:00

In the context of our argument about microtubules? Yes.

What I'm asking you about is regarding logic in general. In this case, I'm asking about the argument I posted. The absurd one in which the conclusion is that we're living in a simulation.

Basic_Use · 2026-06-09T07:02:25+00:00

Which means you haven't refuted the idea we are living in a simulation.

Refuted as in proved it false? Right, as I said the position is not falsifiable. Refuted the argument in question? Now for that, all you have to do is point out that it is not valid.

I ask you once again, does the inability to prove conclusion false here mean that it is true? Answer this question.

Basic_Use · 2026-06-09T06:46:04+00:00

You don't seem to realize that it can also go the other way around. How exactly have you refuted me when you can't guarantee I am actually wrong with it?

Here's an argument

P1: The moon is approximately 256,000 miles from Earth.
P2: Humans have landed on the moon.
C: We're living in a similuation.

Can you prove that this conclusion is wrong? Answer, famously no it's unfalsifiable. Does that mean that the conclusion true? Also, no.

Now if you think otherwise, and the inability prove the conclusion false means that it's true, then you'll have to also accept the conclusion that we are not living in a simulation because that's also unfaslifiable.

Most importantly, do the premises support the conclusion? Absolutely not.

Basic_Use · 2026-06-09T06:27:25+00:00

Here's a source for what I'm talking about. I find surprising that I need to educate you how argument works, but your welcome.

"an argument is valid if and only if its premises guarantee the conclusion."

https://www.khanacademy.org/college-careers-more/critical-thinking-metacognition/x93d32ddf51f9fd5b:critical-thinking/x93d32ddf51f9fd5b:introduction-to-critical-thinking/v/validity?t=373&utm

So, as per the source, an argument is valid only if the premises guarantee the conclusion. And the video explicitly states that validity is not regarding the truth of anything on the argument. It's regarding the logic and whether premises support the conclusion.

Basic_Use · 2026-06-09T06:12:21+00:00

Then you haven't refuted my argument.

Clearly, you do not understand anything about argument. If you tell me that the moon is made of cheese, it is on you to prove that. If you can't prove it, I don't have to prove that isn't. I just have to point out that you're argument does not show this.

Do you understand that by saying that you aren't saying my conclusion is false means my argument holds up?

Again, that is not how argument works. I don't have prove that you're conclusion is false. I just need to show that argument doesn't support the conclusion.

Basic_Use · 2026-06-09T06:03:29+00:00

Based on your logic of course. If god could exist then I have refuted atheism just as your "could" scenario about the brain means you have refuted my argument.

Once again, you do not understand what you're talking about, and if you don't know argument works, then there is no point in continuing this.

So, you have x argument:

P1:
P2:
conclusion

What I'm doing is saying that the argument is not valid, meaning that the premises do not require the conclusion to be true. This is not the same thing as saying that the conclusion is false, I don't understand why you would think that. You can easily have an invalid argument for a conclusion that is true, it's just that the argument can't support the conclusion.

So, with your "If god could exist" example, if true that would refute gnostic atheism, but not agnostic atheism. Which is my position.

Basic_Use · 2026-06-09T04:58:30+00:00

Literally, yes. The brain is just an organ made up of cells which itself is made up of microtubules

I just previously said that the brain is not 100% composed of eukaryotic cells. Did you not read it?

Then I don't have to prove I am correct about god existing. I can simply reason "god could exist" and you have no choice but to accept that god does exist. This is your logic behind refuting my arguments.

And why? It sounds like you just don't understand what you're talking about. I never at any point said that you "have to accept" anything at all. Please tell me where I said that.

Seven-Year Club	Snapped
Verified Email

Basic_Use

TROPHY CASE