# The Squid 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 squid is a giraffe;
> No giraffe is an elephant;
> No elephant is a squid;
> Joe is either a squid or a giraffe;
> ...


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


----------



## Foxyfox (Oct 21, 2016)

Joe could be a giraffe (its not ruled out), but not a squid. I just changed my vote from "it doesn't make sense" to "no, I don't think its valid".


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

I don't think it is valid.

Joe cannot be a squid if he is an elephant because 'no elephant is a squid.'

As long as that piece of logic exists in the argument then Joe can't possibly be a squid, otherwise the argument is contradictory in at least one line of reasoning.

But I'd be interested to see where I might have gone wrong?


----------



## 74893H (Dec 27, 2017)

That makes no sense to me. If Joe is either a squid or a giraffe, then he isn't an elephant, since elephant =/= squid and giraffe =/= elephant. And he can't be both an elephant and a squid, because elephant =/= squid. I'm not following the logic.


----------



## Samari (Jul 12, 2019)

I vote not valid because it contradicts itself.



> No elephant is a squid;
> ...
> Joe is an elephant;
> Therefore, Joe is a squid


Does not follow.


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

Thanks to all those who cast a vote. 
I will wait a little to have a few more votes before replying because I don't want to introduce a possible bias in the poll.
Please note there's a second poll coming with a different argument and you're welcome to try it as well.
Thanks again. 
EB


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

General said:


> I don't think it is valid.
> 
> Joe cannot be a squid if he is an elephant because 'no elephant is a squid.'
> 
> ...


How likely would you say you went wrong?

Also, what could possibly be the reason for that? For example, would you say it's possible you misunderstand some element of the language? Words like "either" for example?

How bad would it be do you think if I told you the argument is valid after all?

What about the other argument?
EB


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

Pizzafari said:


> That makes no sense to me. If Joe is either a squid or a giraffe, then he isn't an elephant, since elephant =/= squid and giraffe =/= elephant. And he can't be both an elephant and a squid, because elephant =/= squid. I'm not following the logic.


Can you tell me why you've voted "doesn't make sense" rather than "not valid". You seem to understand the language of it and you are able to articulate your reasons, yet you say "makes no sense". Any reason not to vote "not valid"? What kind of argument would you say is not valid?
EB


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

Samari said:


> I vote not valid because it contradicts itself.
> 
> Does not follow.


What do you say if I tell you I can prove to you the argument is in fact valid?

What about the other argument?
EB


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

Foxyfox said:


> Joe could be a giraffe (its not ruled out), but not a squid. I just changed my vote from "it doesn't make sense" to "no, I don't think its valid".


Why could Joe be a giraffe but not a squid?
EB


----------



## Samari (Jul 12, 2019)

> What do you say if I tell you I can prove to you the argument is in fact valid?


Make an attempt. Perhaps you'll change my mind.



Speakpigeon said:


> What about the other argument?
> EB


What other argument?


----------



## Foxyfox (Oct 21, 2016)

Speakpigeon said:


> Why could Joe be a giraffe but not a squid?
> EB


Because Joe is either a squid or a giraffe- and Joe is an elephant but "no elephant is a squid"


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

Samari said:


> Make an attempt. Perhaps you'll change my mind.


No, I won't.



Samari said:


> What other argument?


The Monkey argument, in a separate poll.
EB


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

Speakpigeon said:


> How likely would you say you went wrong?
> 
> Also, what could possibly be the reason for that? For example, would you say it's possible you misunderstand some element of the language? Words like "either" for example?
> 
> ...


How likely? Somewhere around 50/50.

I know that there are a lot of intelligent users here, and everyone seems to have come to the same conclusion. I also don't think that I am much of a slouch in the area of understanding logical arguments. So that is where I am 50% sure that I also have the correct answer. 
However, you are framing your questions to people in ways which make it seem as though this is a kind of 'trick' question, I am also not an incredibly detail oriented person, so there could be a word in the arguments or a rule surrounding these kinds of arguments which I am misunderstanding which is the 50% of doubt I have.

Yes, it's possible that I am misunderstanding some of the words involved. 
I was also thinking along the lines of there being some obscure rule in this kind of argumentation where if an earlier statement contradicts a later one then you should prioritise the later one as the truth and discard the earlier one.

I don't think it would be bad. Depending on the reason why the argument is valid that I missed. If it turns out that I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of the word 'or' then I might be in trouble, but I can only learn from my mistakes.

Is this something where Ne doms are more likely to accept that there is no valid answer, where a Te/Ti dom might insist that this makes sense in some way and concede/interpret things slightly differently in order to make the argument fit into a logical framework and have *an* answer, right or wrong, rather than it just not making sense at all?

After a quick look at the other one it seems like Joe could be either a monkey or a squid. So the conclusion is not valid, but again I couldn't be sure there isn't some wordy trickery involved.


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

Foxyfox said:


> Because Joe is either a squid or a giraffe- and Joe is an elephant but "no elephant is a squid"


And also"no giraffe is an elephant"...

Premise No. 2...



> No squid is a giraffe;
> *No giraffe is an elephant*;
> No elephant is a squid;
> Joe is either a squid or a giraffe;
> ...


Yes?
EB


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

General said:


> How likely? Somewhere around 50/50.


50/50?! It is the sort of probability you get when you reply at random!



General said:


> I know that there are a lot of intelligent users here, and everyone seems to have come to the same conclusion. I also don't think that I am much of a slouch in the area of understanding logical arguments. So that is where I am 50% sure that I also have the correct answer.
> However, you are framing your questions to people in ways which make it seem as though this is a kind of 'trick' question, I am also not an incredibly detail oriented person, so there could be a word in the arguments or a rule surrounding these kinds of arguments which I am misunderstanding which is the 50% of doubt I have.


I tried to frame the argument to show there was no "trick". 



General said:


> Yes, it's possible that I am misunderstanding some of the words involved.
> I was also thinking along the lines of there being some obscure rule in this kind of argumentation where if an earlier statement contradicts a later one then you should prioritise the later one as the truth and discard the earlier one.


I asked you specifically _what you personally think_. I didn't ask whether you knew the 'correct' answer.



General said:


> I don't think it would be bad. Depending on the reason why the argument is valid that I missed. If it turns out that I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of the word 'or' then I might be in trouble, but I can only learn from my mistakes.


As far as I can tell, you seem to have the vocabulary of correct. 

I'm interested in whether most people find that kind of argument valid or not. As far as I am concerned, there's no trick.



General said:


> Is this something where Ne doms are more likely to accept that there is no valid answer, where a Te/Ti dom might insist that this makes sense in some way and concede/interpret things slightly differently in order to make the argument fit into a logical framework and have *an* answer, right or wrong, rather than it just not making sense at all?


I guess I should have a look at what "Ne doms" means but I'm a bit to busy at the moment. But I get the idea. 



General said:


> After a quick look at the other one it seems like Joe could be either a monkey or a squid. So the conclusion is not valid, but again I couldn't be sure there isn't some wordy trickery involved.


No trickery, no. Straight question.
EB


----------



## Foxyfox (Oct 21, 2016)

Speakpigeon said:


> Foxyfox said:
> 
> 
> > Because Joe is either a squid or a giraffe- and Joe is an elephant but "no elephant is a squid"
> ...


That doesn’t mean that an “no elephant can be a giraffe”


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

Speakpigeon said:


> 50/50?! It is the sort of probability you get when you reply at random!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


50/50 for good reason. If you asked me to only consider how likely I thought it would be if I only had my response and my reasoning I would be more confident and say 80/20. 
But I had to take into account the factors surrounding the posing of the question and responses from others.

I don't think that the argument is really correct or incorrect, it's nonsensical because it is contradictory. 
If the premises logically followed and the conclusion was incorrect then it would be invalid, if the premises all logically followed and the conclusion was correct then it would be valid.

But the premises contradict one another without resolving those contradictions before reaching the conclusion, so I would say that it is nonsensical.

The conclusion could be either correct or incorrect because we can't determine if Joe is a squid or not from the arguments.
Joe could very well be a squid, but we can't determine that to be true solely through the argument provided. Joe could also be a giraffe or an elephant. The argument has proven its unreliability, so we can't determine that anything it says is either true or false. 

Joe could be a rock or not exist at all, for all we know.

We know as much about Joe's corporeal form at the end of the argument as we did before we even encountered the argument.


----------



## VoicesofSpring (Mar 31, 2019)

No squid is a giraffe;
No giraffe is an elephant;
No elephant is a squid;

The "rules" to solve the "problem"

Joe is either a squid or a giraffe;

The 2 possible "answers" still waiting for confirmation/opposite.

Joe is an elephant;

The "key" to pick which "answer" is valid.

Therefore, Joe is a squid

Answer validated.



------
I am bad at these sorts of mind games, but if the answer is truly something along these lines, I would consider it valid because it has a self sustainable validity.


----------



## Samari (Jul 12, 2019)

> No, I won't.


I see. You would like my viewpoint but are reserving yours so as not to influence opinions until the end?



> The Monkey argument, in a separate poll.


Found and voted.


----------



## Pippi (Dec 24, 2016)

Foxyfox said:


> Joe could be a giraffe (its not ruled out), but not a squid. I just changed my vote from "it doesn't make sense" to "no, I don't think its valid".


Joe can't be a giraffe. He's an elephant. "No giraffe is an elephant," as they say in the casting agencies.
#nogiraffeisanelephant


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

Foxyfox said:


> That doesn’t mean that an “no elephant can be a giraffe”


That's true, but if an elephant was a giraffe, then this giraffe would be this elephant, and so a giraffe would be an elephant, which is not possible since line 2 says no giraffe is an elephant.

Yes?
EB


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

General said:


> 50/50 for good reason. If you asked me to only consider how likely I thought it would be if I only had my response and my reasoning I would be more confident and say 80/20.
> But I had to take into account the factors surrounding the posing of the question and responses from others.


???
At the time I asked you how confident you are, six other posters had voted like you had, and only one differently.
And the "factors" are only my first post, and I asked you what you personally think, not whether you _know_ the argument is valid.



General said:


> I don't think that the argument is really correct or incorrect, it's nonsensical because it is contradictory.


Sure, so, how could an argument which is nonsensical be at all valid? 



General said:


> If the premises logically followed and the conclusion was incorrect then it would be invalid, if the premises all logically followed and the conclusion was correct then it would be valid.


After Aristotle, we don't talk of premises that "follow", logically or not. 
Premises may be assumed true or false, and the conclusion is said to follow, or not to follow, from the premises.
That is, again according to Aristotle, the conclusion follows from the premises if, assuming the premises true, the conclusion is necessarily true. In this case and only in this case, the argument is said to be valid.



General said:


> But the premises contradict one another without resolving those contradictions before reaching the conclusion, so I would say that it is nonsensical.


Sure, so, how could it be at valid?



General said:


> The conclusion could be either correct or incorrect because we can't determine if Joe is a squid or not from the arguments.


It depends what you mean by "correct": True? Valid? Not the same thing. The conclusion is possibly true of false. However, it can be true and yet not follow from the premises. In this case the argument would not be valid. 
If you can't determine that the conclusion is necessarily true, then the argument is not valid.



General said:


> Joe could very well be a squid, but we can't determine that to be true solely through the argument provided. Joe could also be a giraffe or an elephant. The argument has proven its unreliability, so we can't determine that anything it says is either true or false.


It is an argument. But I only asked whether you thought it was valid, not whether the premises or the conclusion were really true.
The question is only whether the conclusion follows from the premises.



General said:


> Joe could be a rock or not exist at all, for all we know. We know as much about Joe's corporeal form at the end of the argument as we did before we even encountered the argument.


Yep, so, how could it be valid to conclude that he is a squid? Maybe he is, but we can't conclude that from the premises given.
EB


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

Noyau Obscur said:


> No squid is a giraffe;
> No giraffe is an elephant;
> No elephant is a squid;
> The "rules" to solve the "problem"
> ...


And how saying that Joe is an elephant could pick the possibility that Joe is a squid given that no elephant is a squid?
EB


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

Samari said:


> I see. You would like my viewpoint but are reserving yours so as not to influence opinions until the end?
> Found and voted.


Thanks.
I'll explain the situation later.
EB


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

Pippi said:


> Joe can't be a giraffe. He's an elephant.


Would you say therefore that the following argument is valid?


> No squid is a giraffe;
> No giraffe is an elephant;
> No elephant is a squid;
> Joe is either a squid or a giraffe;
> ...


EB


----------



## VoicesofSpring (Mar 31, 2019)

Speakpigeon said:


> And how saying that Joe is an elephant could pick the possibility that Joe is a squid given that no elephant is a squid?
> EB


Because it has no importance in the "step-cross" method I used here, I simply brute forced the reply to fit the premisce by arbitrary putting an hierarchy to the "rules" presented.

Obviously that not how to "properly" reply to the "argument question" (I discovered argument question thanks to your threads) you presented, but since you seemed to be interested into the thinking process of each poster, I shared it. 

I will now wait for your reply, I will learn something new again.

Good day !


----------



## Pippi (Dec 24, 2016)

Speakpigeon said:


> Would you say therefore that the following argument is valid?
> 
> EB





> No squid is a giraffe;
> No giraffe is an elephant;
> No elephant is a squid;
> Joe is either a squid or a giraffe;
> ...


No. I think you're having one of those dreams in which the circumstances of reality keep changing from moment to moment, young man.


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

Speakpigeon said:


> ???
> At the time I asked you how confident you are, six other posters had voted like you had, and only one differently.
> And the "factors" are only my first post, and I asked you what you personally think, not whether you _know_ the argument is valid.
> 
> ...


So what is the correct answer?


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

Noyau Obscur said:


> Because it has no importance in the "step-cross" method I used here, I simply brute forced the reply to fit the premisce by arbitrary putting an hierarchy to the "rules" presented.
> 
> Obviously that not how to "properly" reply to the "argument question" (I discovered argument question thanks to your threads) you presented, but since you seemed to be interested into the thinking process of each poster, I shared it.
> 
> ...


LOL. Maybe you don't know, but arguments are used to convince other people that the conclusion is true. The "method" you use will not likely convince anybody. You might as well assert the conclusion all by itself: Joe is a squid. No argument, why bother?
EB


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

Pippi said:


> No. I think you're having one of those dreams in which the circumstances of reality keep changing from moment to moment, young man.


LOL, I made clear we're only discussing the validity of the arguments, not whether their premises or conclusion is true. Aristotle himself used a formal notation without any relation to the "circumstances of reality" outside validity itself. I thought it would be more intuitive to use "squid" rather than "x".
EB


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

General said:


> So what is the correct answer?


I thought I had made clear there's no "correct" answer outside whatever reply you will give according to how you feel about the argument.

Aren't you more convinced of the non-validity of the argument now?

What about the following argument:



> The wallet and the drawer are not in the basement;
> The key is either in the wallet or in the drawer;
> The key is in the safe which is in the basement;
> Therefore, the key is in the drawer.


How certain are you about it?
EB


----------



## VoicesofSpring (Mar 31, 2019)

Speakpigeon said:


> LOL. Maybe you don't know, but arguments are used to convince other people that the conclusion is true. The "method" you use will not likely convince anybody. You might as well assert the conclusion all by itself: Joe is a squid. No argument, why bother?
> EB





Noyau Obscur said:


> Obviously that not how to "properly" reply to the "argument question" (I discovered argument question thanks to your threads) you presented, but since you seemed to be interested into the thinking process of each poster, I shared it.


You're welcome !
Edit : I take my leave here, there is nothing more for me to add since I detract from the thread purpose. Good exchange to everyone !


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

Speakpigeon said:


> I thought I had made clear there's no "correct" answer outside whatever reply you will give according to how you feel about the argument.
> 
> Aren't you more convinced of the non-validity of the argument now?
> 
> ...


Ok. I am certain that the first argument is nonsensical.


----------



## 74893H (Dec 27, 2017)

Speakpigeon said:


> Can you tell me why you've voted "doesn't make sense" rather than "not valid". You seem to understand the language of it and you are able to articulate your reasons, yet you say "makes no sense". Any reason not to vote "not valid"? What kind of argument would you say is not valid?
> EB


You can see that? I meant it doesn't make sense as in the logic doesn't make sense, rather than the question doesn't make sense. Didn't realise it meant the question grammatically doesn't make sense. I'll change my vote.


----------



## TeamPB (Aug 10, 2017)

*Joe is either a squid or a giraffe;
Joe is an elephant;
Therefore, Joe is a squid*


----------



## TeamPB (Aug 10, 2017)

Speakpigeon said:


> I thought I had made clear there's no "correct" answer outside whatever reply you will give according to how you feel about the argument.
> 
> Aren't you more convinced of the non-validity of the argument now?
> 
> ...


*I thought I had made clear there's no "correct" answer outside whatever reply you will give according to how you feel about the argument.*

This argument makes me feel sad


----------



## Pippi (Dec 24, 2016)

Speakpigeon said:


> LOL, I made clear we're only discussing the validity of the arguments, not whether their premises or conclusion is true. Aristotle himself used a formal notation without any relation to the "circumstances of reality" outside validity itself. I thought it would be more intuitive to use "squid" rather than "x".
> EB


I have experience with this, though: https://www.personalitycafe.com/intro/1297363-new.html

Is this friend of yours running for president of a nation? One must question the reason behind this creature's attempts to represent all things to all people. 

_No squid is a giraffe;
No giraffe is an elephant;
No elephant is a squid;_
*I am either a squid or a giraffe;
I am an elephant;*
*No Voter Left Behind! Therefore, vote for me!*


----------



## Pippi (Dec 24, 2016)

No awake crew member is sleeping;
No sleeping crew member is dead;
No dead crew member is awake;
Bob is either awake or sleeping;
Bob is dead.


----------



## Pippi (Dec 24, 2016)

"To be or not to be..." Fuck, I can't decide; let's just do both!


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

Pizzafari said:


> You can see that? I meant it doesn't make sense as in the logic doesn't make sense, rather than the question doesn't make sense. Didn't realise it meant the question grammatically doesn't make sense. I'll change my vote.


No, no, your initial interpretation was correct, option 4 does mean the argument doesn't make sense. But, OK, I think your explanation that "_the logic doesn't make sense_" is a very good reason to say the argument doesn't make sense. And, if it doesn't make sense, it can't possibly be valid anyway.

The reason I asked is that people may choose to vote "doesn't make sense" for any number of rather subtle reasons that they can even explain themselves. So, thanks. 

And you had already explained, in fact!
EB


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

TeamPB said:


> *Joe is either a squid or a giraffe;
> Joe is an elephant;
> Therefore, Joe is a squid*
> 
> View attachment 827847


Yes, I sure wouldn't walk in any rural bar in Wisconsin or Texas and ask the same question of the assembly there. 

But, I wouldn't ask the same question to a 483 lb gorilla I wouldn't know by name either.

Nothing to do with the question itself as far as I can tell.
EB


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

Pippi said:


> Speakpigeon said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, I made clear we're only discussing the validity of the arguments, not whether their premises or conclusion is true. Aristotle himself used a formal notation without any relation to the "circumstances of reality" outside validity itself. I thought it would be more intuitive to use "squid" rather than "x".
> ...





Speakpigeon said:


> LOL, I made clear we're only discussing the validity of the arguments, not whether their premises or conclusion is true. Aristotle himself used a formal notation without any relation to the "circumstances of reality" outside validity itself. I thought it would be more intuitive to use "squid" rather than "x".


EB


----------



## Pippi (Dec 24, 2016)

speakpigeon said:


> eb


obgyn


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

Could people who voted both Squid and Monkey arguments not valid tell here which of the two they feel is the most clearly not valid?

You can use a scale of 0 to 5: 0 (_not at all sure it's not valid_) to 5 (_absolutely confident it's not valid_)? 

Like this for example: Squid 3 / Monkey 2.

I'll give later one reason to think again and I'll ask you to rate how convincing you think it is.

Thanks again to all.
EB


----------



## Ziegel (Feb 11, 2019)

Joe is an elephant. It's written right there. So not a squid.


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

> The wallet and the drawer are not in the basement;
> The key is either in the wallet or in the drawer;
> The key is in the safe which is in the basement;
> Therefore, the key is in the drawer.


Well the key could be in the in the safe, that's in the drawer, that's not in the basement....but is in the basement? 0.o

not valid. 

Unless the definition of key changes throughout the argument. The first and third use of the word key could mean "of paramount or crucial importance."

and the second use could mean a physical door key.

Than it would be valid.


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

Lord Pixel said:


> Well the key could be in the in the safe, that's in the drawer, that's not in the basement....but is in the basement? 0.o
> not valid.


Good, we agree then on the justification.



Lord Pixel said:


> Unless the definition of key changes throughout the argument. The first and third use of the word key could mean "of paramount or crucial importance."


No, that would be equivocation and it's a fallacy. You have to assume each word means the same thing throughout the argument and unless otherwise specified in the premises themselves, each word is assumed to mean what it ordinarily means (at least for ordinary, informal arguments like this one).



Lord Pixel said:


> and the second use could mean a physical door key.


Any key would do here as long as you don't switch from one sense to another midway.



Lord Pixel said:


> Than it would be valid.


No, because if you changed even once then all bets are off and the last "key" possibly means anything and then the conclusion can't be necessarily true. For example, the "key" of the conclusion may be taken to mean "the Moon" and then the premises don't support the conclusion that the Moon is necessarily in the drawer. And of course, the drawer itself may then also be taken to mean all sorts of idiotic things. So, we don't need to pay attention to what the words mean as long as we assume they mean exactly the same throughout the argument. Otherwise, it's just grossly fallacious and while sometimes it may be funny, it's no longer a logical argument.
EB


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

Ziegel said:


> Joe is an elephant. It's written right there. So not a squid.


OK, but given your justification, would you then agree that the following is valid:



> No squid is a giraffe;
> No giraffe is an elephant;
> No elephant is a squid;
> Joe is either a squid or a giraffe;
> ...


EB


----------



## Pippi (Dec 24, 2016)

Speakpigeon said:


> Could people who voted both Squid and Monkey arguments not valid tell here which of the two they feel is the most clearly not valid?
> 
> You can use a scale of 0 to 5: 0 (_not at all sure it's not valid_) to 5 (_absolutely confident it's not valid_)?
> 
> ...


*Monkey Argument*



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


Not valid, but if you change it to the following, you have a valid argument:

_No monkey is a giraffe;
No giraffe is an elephant;
No elephant is a squid;
No squid is a monkey;
Joe is either an elephant, a monkey or a squid;
Joe is neither an elephant nor a giraffe;
Therefore, Joe *might be* a monkey._



*Squid Argument*



> No squid is a giraffe;
> No giraffe is an elephant;
> No elephant is a squid;
> Joe is either a squid or a giraffe;
> ...


You can't fix this by altering the last line.


----------



## Speakpigeon (Jul 31, 2019)

OK, we have 16 votes overall, quite a good result, most of them either "not valid" or "nonsense". 
Half the voters have been able to articulate some kind of reason for their position, and, broadly, there is agreement on the reason not to vote "valid".
The other poll has been less successful. Only five votes, mostly the same posters as for this one and all "not valid" votes.
The reduced vote tally may be due to all sorts of reasons. "Voter fatigue"? Maybe the argument is somehow less motivating? Possible also the argument may be less obvious or more difficult? Hard to tell and there are possibly other reasons. It would help if posters could express themselves on that.
Another difference is that no one voted "doesn't make sense" for the Monkey argument. It is important that there should be this difference because it shows that people, however confused they may be about logic, still, overall, make a clear distinction between these two species of arguments: They are both regarded as not valid, but the Squid argument is regarded as meaningless on top of not valid, and this can obviously be related to the fact that the Squid argument features contradictory premises, as indeed some posters have noted.

It is however a fact that there exists a view, in some "quarters", that arguments with contradictory premises, like the Squid argument, are valid, and this precisely because of their contradictory premises. It would be interesting to see if posters could be at all convinced that this view is correct. 

However, before trying that, I would really need to see how voters rate the comparative difficulty of the Squid and the Monkey arguments.

So, for now, I will wait to see if we can have some feedback on this crucial aspect. 

In any case, thanks to all those who cast a vote.
EB


----------



## Pippi (Dec 24, 2016)

Speakpigeon said:


> The other poll has been less successful. Only five votes, mostly the same posters as for this one and all "not valid" votes.
> The reduced vote tally may be due to all sorts of reasons. "Voter fatigue"? Maybe the argument is somehow less motivating? Possible also the argument may be less obvious or more difficult? Hard to tell and there are possibly other reasons. It would help if posters could express themselves on that.


The conversation's already happening here, including on your end, so people are adding to it here. If you want to liven up that thread, start addressing people there individually, and you'll get more discussion there as well.

"Voter fatigue": Well, I voted in that thread before I noticed this thread existed, so I wasn't worn out from this one by the time I got there, and I think "voter fatigue" is a little farfetched, considering that it takes like half a second and an eighth of a calorie to vote in each.


----------



## Foxyfox (Oct 21, 2016)

Speakpigeon said:


> Could people who voted both Squid and Monkey arguments not valid tell here which of the two they feel is the most clearly not valid?
> 
> You can use a scale of 0 to 5: 0 (_not at all sure it's not valid_) to 5 (_absolutely confident it's not valid_)?
> 
> ...



Nah Im done. I don't even want to know the answer anymore (if there is one). On another note- how do ppl like grilled squid? Its so rubbery and tasteless


----------



## Pippi (Dec 24, 2016)

Foxyfox said:


> Nah Im done. I don't even want to know the answer anymore (if there is one). On another note- how do ppl like grilled squid? Its so rubbery and tasteless


I know, right? Too much fanfare, too little action. I like pickled octopus, though. The tiny little cute ones.










In a way, they're like little tiny monkeys.


----------



## Foxyfox (Oct 21, 2016)

Pippi said:


> I know, right? Too much fanfare, too little action. I like pickled octopus, though. The tiny little cute ones.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ahh no no no there's nothing cute about that. Deep fried and I still have pretend they're just magical little circles from the sky (no tentacles)

You saying Squid = monkey?


----------



## Pippi (Dec 24, 2016)

Foxyfox said:


> ahh no no no there's nothing cute about that. Deep fried and I still have pretend they're just magical little circles from the sky (no tentacles)
> 
> You saying Squid = monkey?


No, no, I'm just saying octopus ≈ monkey, when viewed in a certain frame of mind.


----------



## Foxyfox (Oct 21, 2016)

Pippi said:


> No, no, I'm just saying octopus ≈ monkey, when viewed in a certain frame of mind.


I vote "makes sense/ valid argument"


----------



## Pippi (Dec 24, 2016)

Foxyfox said:


> I vote "makes sense/ valid argument"


Thanks!


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

i don't like the way Descartes is lookin at me while I'm trying to figure this out


----------



## Pippi (Dec 24, 2016)

@Speakpigeon Your party's fizzling out. Do something cool.


----------

