Academy Home | Student Dashboard

PHIL102: Venn Diagrams and Argument Validity

1)With a Venn diagram I may be able to show that some idiots are also cooks, and that some, but not all idiots are men.
2)A Venn diagram may also show that edibles are plants and that purple things are edible without necessarily being plants.

2 Likes

Agreed, but as pointed out in the lesson Venn diagrams could get complicated very fast if we add too many parameters.

2 Likes

See my post on why Venn would not work as it points about the invalidity of the arguments presented. I think you’re right and that they cannot be solved to a valid argument with a Venn diagram.

2 Likes

spot on

2 Likes
  1. venn diagrams help me with my argument at some point.
2 Likes

that’s right

2 Likes

With Venn Diagrams, they are to illustrate in diagram the messiness of premises and said arguments. Shading is supposed to depict these divergent parts of the argument. Diagrams are limited to what they show. So to indicate certain characteristics of the premises won’t actually provide the testing proof for validity or certain adjectival points of the argument. For me, logic and Venn diagrams are only to work in a small region of area for these points of human verbal and written expressions.

1 Like

Nice work. The first work being completely off for Venn diagram inclusion while the other is obviously correlative to this illustrative depiction for our premises.

1 Like

1.It is complicated to put such statements which are subjective descriptions into Venn diagrams. Their mostly opinionated words that don’t tell us of certain validity as to how to mark that or shade what area in the circles of these Venn diagrams. 2. I think these set of premises are to be correlated with the Venn diagram system of three entwined circles where a set of things are purple and needs to be shaded and how edibility is intersected.

1 Like

The above statement from Aristotle seems to propose that Aristotle himself realized that a few pieces of his work required further investigation. Anyway it was a few centuries before his thoughts were supplanted.

Custom rationale, once in a while called term rationale is the name for the kind of rationale which was affected by Aristotle’s work. This conventional rationale started to decrease in Europe at some point between the fourteenth and seventeenth hundreds of years. This was expected principally to the way that Rodolphus Agricola Phrisius (1444-1485) and Petrus Ramus (1515-1572) started to advance their own thoughts on rationale, affected by the stoics, called place rationales [5]. Be that as it may, customary rationale was as yet utilized in England until the nineteenth century.

During the nineteenth century, two mathematicians, George Boole and John Venn attempted to make rationale arithmetical utilizing numerous ideas of customary rationale [5]. Frege then presented first-request predicate rationale. Present day predicate rationale at that point turned into the most influencial type of rationale after Bertrand Russell and A. N. Whitehead, made Principia Mathematica (1910-1913), which is a thorough book on the establishments of arithmetic propelled by Frege’s previous work on predicate rationale. Predicate rationale had the option to conquer issue

1 Like

We can paraphrase the arguments to make arguments in standard form. Then we can apply Venn diagram test of validity to these statements.
We can use particular affirmations in place of ‘most’ and ‘very few’ phrases.
Then, We can see that both statements 1 and 2 are invalid.

1 Like

[quote=“theshardcrystal, post:27, topic:7363, full:true”]
With Venn Diagrams, they are to illustrate in diagram the messiness of premises and said arguments. Shading is supposed to depict these divergent parts of the argument. Diagrams are limited to what they show. So to indicate certain characteristics of the premises won’t actually provide the testing proof for validity or certain adjectival points of the argument. For me, logic and Venn diagrams are only to work in a small region of area for these points of human verbal and written expressions.

1 Like

Logic seems to work well for expressions like all, no or some, but doesn’t seem to work for other quantifiers like few, many or most. You might shade different parts of a Venn diagram differently to show these differences, but even so they wouldn’t be able to evaluate the validity of the arguments above with any degree of certainty.

for the first one we would have to circles men that are cooks and men that are idiots. the space that is overlapping would be the cooks that are idiots

this one we would want a little more complex venn diagram. we would have 2 circles one for purple plants and one for non edible purple things. then we would want to place a tick mark on the line for edible/purple plants to show that it is neither purple nor edible.

I disagree. We just need to formulate the proper venn diagram with the right symbols.

1.for the first one there would be a circle for being a man the second would be being a cook the third would be being a idiot those that would connect between the 3 would be the valid.

  1. the first circle would be things that are plants the second circle would be things that are edible the last would be things that are purple. the connection of those would create the validity of the argument.
  1. It would be extremely hard to show this in a Venn diagram, the quantity of men in the world is too large
  2. If very few plants are purple and purple things are hardly edible then most plants would be edible since very few plants are purple. This would also be hard to show in Venn diagram

I am not seeing how you could connect the 3 Venn diagrams for the second argument. Since it is saying very few plants are edible because of the color, when it states that there are very few purple plants

Yes, most men are cooks, but they fail in many things. Whoever said that cooking requires a lot of intelligence, I think that when we do something we love, we are very creative.

It’s hard to use a Venn diagram with the words “most” and “very few” quantifying the categories. “Most” is an opinionated word, especially in the context of calling someone an idiot, and “very few” is also too specific to work in a Venn diagram. It might work better if we substituted the word “some,” but the arguments I’m drawing out in the diagrams don’t seem valid.