# The Monkey argument: Valid? not valid?



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

Here is an argument. Please take all the time necessary to make up your mind about it...



> No monkey is a giraffe;
> No giraffe is an elephant;
> No elephant is a squid;
> No squid is a monkey;
> ...


Once you think you have it figured out, thank you to vote to say whether you accept this argument as valid or not (i.e. logically valid).

Please note I'm interested in whether you personally accept the argument as valid.

Thank you for your answers.

Please no comment without vote.
EB


----------



## 74893H (Dec 27, 2017)

Nope. You've said that squid =/= monkey, so by excluding elephant and giraffe you're still leaving in the possibility of it being either a monkey or a squid, and you've said he can't be both both. And there's no specification that being one means he's also the other, so you can't assume that if of the two he did happen to be a squid that also means he's definitely a monkey.
Also, even if there was a flaw in my logic there you've said he's either a squid OR a monkey. That means he isn't both.
Here a monkey can be an elephant and v/v and a giraffe can be a squid and v/v but the remainders are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Paulie (Jun 23, 2011)

He's a squidward/monkey, see?


----------



## Samari (Jul 12, 2019)

I vote not valid.

The conclusion might be true, but it's not the only possible truth based on the premises.
Joe might be a monkey as the conclusion states - but he might also be a squid. Nothing rules that out.
All we know (if we trust that each premise is valid) is that Joe must be a monkey or a squid.

So I'm saying not valid because the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises.


----------



## Pippi (Dec 24, 2016)

If I were to ask the monkey, "What will the squid tell me if I ask which of you's Joe," what would the money answer?


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

Samari said:


> I vote not valid.


No, you haven't voted yet.
EB


----------



## Samari (Jul 12, 2019)

Speakpigeon said:


> No, you haven't voted yet.
> EB


That's odd, I definitely clicked it on the poll before replying. But it doesn't show up. 
I tried again, is it logged, or does it look like I double-voted now?


----------



## Thunal33 (Oct 22, 2018)

No premise has ruled out the possibility of Joe being a squid, so the argument isn't valid.


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

Thunal33 said:


> No premise has ruled out the possibility of Joe being a squid, so the argument isn't valid.


Thanks!

How do you rate the difficulty of this argument compared to that of the Squid argument in the other thread?
EB


----------



## Thunal33 (Oct 22, 2018)

Speakpigeon said:


> Thanks!
> 
> How do you rate the difficulty of this argument compared to that of the Squid argument in the other thread?
> EB


I think the squid argument is harder because of the contradictory premises.


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

Thunal33 said:


> I think the squid argument is harder because of the contradictory premises.


And how confident are you of your answers, say on a 0 to 5 scale, for each of these two arguments?
EB


----------



## Thunal33 (Oct 22, 2018)

Speakpigeon said:


> And how confident are you of your answers, say on a 0 to 5 scale, for each of these two arguments?
> EB


I'd say a 5 for this one and a 4 for the squid one.


----------



## Turlowe (Aug 4, 2014)

Clearly obviously invalid, Joe could be either a monkey or a squid.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Joe could be a monkey or a squid. Argument not valid. 

However, there's something more to this that hurts my brain. I think it's the limitations on which Joe could or couldn't be. Clearly, the postulates do not cover every state of being. But then, the point of this exercise isn't to criticise the postulates, so just never even mind it. lol


----------

