- Posts: 9
- Joined: May 14, 2021
- Fri May 14, 2021 12:46 am
#87080
okay, so obviously necessary assumptions are either a supporter or a defender. My main focus on here is defenders. So every argument is assuming that it has no weakness/flaw, and anything that does weaken it in negation would be a necessary assumption. My question though is to what extent does it have to weaken it. I have seen examples where you can say it makes the argument seem less likely to happen - although it doesnt completely destroy the argument.
I guess from my experience i have noticed two things - either the negation has to completely destroy the conclusion, or it has to weaken the logical force of the premise used.
Example, bob goes to stanford. Therefore, bob is smart.
NA = people who go to stanford are smart. The negation of this statement clearly destroys the conclusion. However, people who go to standord are smart is equal in meaning to "all people who go to stanford are smart." the negation of this statement "not all people who go to stanford are smart" doesnt destroy the conclusion, but it does weak the first premise that is used; I guess my question is when they say that the negation doesnt have to disproof the conclusion, but weaken the logical force of the premise, what do they mean by that? does the example i wrote out an example of such a thing?
I guess from my experience i have noticed two things - either the negation has to completely destroy the conclusion, or it has to weaken the logical force of the premise used.
Example, bob goes to stanford. Therefore, bob is smart.
NA = people who go to stanford are smart. The negation of this statement clearly destroys the conclusion. However, people who go to standord are smart is equal in meaning to "all people who go to stanford are smart." the negation of this statement "not all people who go to stanford are smart" doesnt destroy the conclusion, but it does weak the first premise that is used; I guess my question is when they say that the negation doesnt have to disproof the conclusion, but weaken the logical force of the premise, what do they mean by that? does the example i wrote out an example of such a thing?