Brian:
> No, in this matter Patrick is correct. Validity is
> not a property of statements (= propositions), but
> rather of arguments (= chains of inference);
> similarly, truth is not a property of arguments,
> but rather of statements.
Alright, but I think this is now an issue of semantics
and the manner in which I'm using the word 'truth'.
I was clear before that I use it to mean _relative_
truth because in the end, in the absence of absolute
knowledge, all statements are nothing more than
arguments of relative truths. While we choose to
pursue absolute truth, we must also know that we can
never attain this infinity. To say that something is
"true" is to imply that it is known absolutely and
yet nothing really is... is it? :)
You say that validity is a property of arguments and
not statements while truth is a property of statements
but not arguments. Yet, you're basically saying that
validity and truth show a complementary distribution
between argument and statement. Do you wish to prove
the distinction between statement and argument?
Is not Logic for the pursuit of Truth? I never heard
of someone pursuing Logic simply to be valid but
I suppose this is not beyond possibility for some :P
So in all, I would say that the distinction between
statement and argument, or that between truth and
validity, is unnecessary. It is implicit that logical
validity is based on the degree of truth and ergo
synonymous with relative truth. Absolute truth, should
anyone possess such a thing, is merely a subset of
this relative truth.
= gLeN
______________________________________________________
Yahoo! for Good
Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/