|
| 10 Nov 2013 12:13 PM |
1. Alabama 2. Florida State 3. Baylor 4. Stanford 5. Ohio State 6. Oregon 7. Auburn 8. Missouri 9. Clemson 10. Oklahoma State 11. Texas A&M 12. South Carolina 13. Fresno State 14. UCLA 15. Michigan State 16. LSU 17. UCF 18. Wisconsin 19. Northern Illinois 20. Louisville 21. Texas 22. Arizona State 23. Oklahoma 24. Georgia 25. Minnesota (#26 would be Miami) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Nov 2013 12:15 PM |
| If Texas loses to Baylor in the Big 12 finale I want Baylor to rep the Big 12 in the National Championship game, hoping Alabama or Florida State lose in their respective conference championship games. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Nov 2013 12:15 PM |
> Ohio State goes DOWN one
No. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
zc23
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 16703 |
|
|
| 10 Nov 2013 12:17 PM |
Ohio State should stay 4th.
Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard ✓. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Nov 2013 12:17 PM |
I really don't understand them BOTH jumping us. Baylor beat an overrated OU. Florida State plays WORSE teams than us from here on out. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Nov 2013 12:18 PM |
>Clemson goes down 2.... r u srs we just crushed Virginia 59-10 last week qqqqqqqq |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Nov 2013 12:18 PM |
Florida State is better than Alabama.
Florida State is in a whole different world than the rest of the country at this point |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Nov 2013 12:20 PM |
@Ben Baylor is better than y'all.
1) You beat Buffalo 40-20 at home, Baylor beat them 70-13 at home. 2) You have yet to play a Top 10 team, nor will you this season. 3) Baylor already played #10 Oklahoma and Oklahoma State may come into the Top 10 for that matchup. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Nov 2013 12:22 PM |
| You are acting like the Bulls are awful. They are 7-2... |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Nov 2013 12:23 PM |
Yes but ohio State. DOES NOT BLOW OUT. The teams like Clemson or Miami. Infact. Your next three games except michigan are cakewalks just like us.
ACTUALLY. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF NORTHWESTERN AND WISCONSIN
MOST OF YOUR SCHEDULE HAS A BEEN A CAKEWALK. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Nov 2013 12:25 PM |
@Deangelo.
Who do they play of significance? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Nov 2013 12:25 PM |
Since when did I actually say "Buffalo" and "awful" in the same sentence. Quit jumping to conclusions.
I'm only saying Baylor beat an opponent worse than you guys did.
And don't come out with the card of "we just want to be sportsmanlike", because Ohio State has 76-0 and 63-14 wins this season. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Nov 2013 12:25 PM |
"You beat Buffalo 40-20 at home, Baylor beat them 70-13 at home."
What significance does this game have? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Nov 2013 12:26 PM |
| That Baylor has a more talented team than Ohio State. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Nov 2013 12:27 PM |
| ROFL!!!!!!! BEATING BUFFALO DOESNT MAKE YOU GOOD ROFLFLLFLFLF |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Nov 2013 12:28 PM |
I can't even talk to you without you jumping to dumbass conclusions.
Baylor beat Buffalo worse than Ohio State.
Do you even know what you're talking about? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Nov 2013 12:28 PM |
Deangelo. Your whole argument is flawed.
You say that Buffalo isn't a bad team but then you say that beating them doesn't make anyone good. That's a contradiction if they are supposedly a "good team" |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| 10 Nov 2013 12:31 PM |
You're making contradictions to my opinions, therefore you're arguing.
Case closed. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
ddude
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 11 Nov 2007 |
| Total Posts: 47837 |
|
|
| 10 Nov 2013 12:31 PM |
Baylor hasn't really played anyone.
Ohio State has had an easy schedule, but not as easy as Baylor.
At least the Buckeyes have a quality win in Wisconsin. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Nov 2013 12:32 PM |
| But can you really name others? Or compare them to FSU? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Nov 2013 12:33 PM |
In logic and philosophy, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons for accepting a particular conclusion as evident.[1][2] The general structure of an argument in a natural language is that of premises (typically in the form of propositions, statements or sentences) in support of a claim: the conclusion.[3][4][5] The structure of some arguments can also be set out in a formal language, and formally-defined "arguments" can be made independently of natural language arguments, as in math, logic and computer science.
In a typical deductive argument, the premises are meant to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion, while in an inductive argument, they are thought to provide reasons supporting the conclusion's probable truth.[6] The standards for evaluating non-deductive arguments may rest on different or additional criteria than truth, for example, the persuasiveness of so-called "indispensability claims" in transcendental arguments,[7] the quality of hypotheses in retroduction, or even the disclosure of new possibilities for thinking and acting.[8]
The standards and criteria used in evaluating arguments and their forms of reasoning are studied in logic.[9] Ways of formulating arguments effectively are studied in rhetoric (see also: argumentation theory). An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of the symbolically-represented or natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations.
Contents [hide] 1 Formal and informal arguments 2 Standard argument types 3 Deductive arguments 3.1 Validity 3.2 Soundness
4 Inductive arguments 5 Defeasible arguments 6 Argument by analogy 7 Transitional arguments 8 Other kinds of arguments 8.1 Argument in informal logic 8.1.1 Logical status of argument
8.2 World-disclosing arguments
9 Explanations and arguments 10 Fallacies and nonarguments 11 See also 12 Notes 13 References 14 Further reading 15 External links
Formal and informal arguments[edit]
Further information: Informal logic and Formal logic
Informal arguments as studied in informal logic, are presented in ordinary language and are intended for everyday discourse. Conversely, formal arguments are studied in formal logic (historically called symbolic logic, more commonly referred to as mathematical logic today) and are expressed in a formal language. Informal logic may be said to emphasize the study of argumentation, whereas formal logic emphasizes implication and inference. Informal arguments are sometimes implicit. That is, the rational structure –the relationship of claims, premises, warrants, relations of implication, and conclusion –is not always spelled out and immediately visible and must sometimes be made explicit by analysis.
Standard argument types[edit]
There are several kinds of arguments in logic, the best-known of which are "deductive" and "inductive." Deductive arguments are sometimes referred to as "truth-preserving" arguments, because the truth of the conclusion follows given that of the premises. A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises. An inductive argument, on the other hand, asserts that the truth of the conclusion is otherwise supported by the premises. Each premise and the conclusion are truth bearers or "truth-candidates", capable of being either true or false (and not both). While statements in an argument are referred to as being either true or false, arguments are referred to as being valid or invalid (see logical truth). A deductive argument is valid if and only if the truth of the conclusion is entailed by (is a logical consequence of) the premises, and its corresponding conditional is therefore a logical truth. A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises; a valid argument may well have false premises under a given interpretation, however, the truth value of a conclusion cannot be determined by an unsound argument.
Deductive arguments[edit]
Main article: Deductive argument
A deductive argument is one that, if valid, has a conclusion that is entailed by its premises. In other words, the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises—if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. It would be self-contradictory to assert the premises and deny the conclusion, because the negation of the conclusion is contradictory to the truth of the premises.
Validity[edit]
Main article: Validity
Deductive arguments may be either valid or invalid. If an argument is valid, it is a valid deduction, and if its premises are true, the conclusion must be true: a valid argument cannot have true premises and a false conclusion.
The validity of an argument depends, however, not on the actual truth or falsity of its premises and conclusion, but solely on whether or not the argument has a valid logical form. The validity of an argument is not a guarantee of the truth of its conclusion. Under a given interpretation, a valid argument may have false premises that render it inconclusive: the conclusion of a valid argument with one or more false premises may be either true or false.
Logic seeks to discover the valid forms, the forms that make arguments valid. A form of argument is valid if and only if the conclusion is true under all interpretations of that argument in which the premises are true. Since the validity of an argument depends solely on its form, an argument can be shown to be invalid by showing that its form is invalid. This can be done by giving a counter example of the same form of argument with premises that are true under a given interpretation, but a conclusion that is false under that interpretation. In informal logic this is called a counter argument.
The form of argument can be shown by the use of symbols. For each argument form, there is a corresponding statement form, called a corresponding conditional, and an argument form is valid if and only its corresponding conditional is a logical truth. A statement form which is logically true is also said to be a valid statement form. A statement form is a logical truth if it is true under all interpretations. A statement form can be shown to be a logical truth by either (a) showing that it is a tautology or (b) by means of a proof procedure.
The corresponding conditional of a valid argument is a necessary truth (true in all possible worlds) and so the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, or follows of logical necessity. The conclusion of a valid argument is not necessarily true, it depends on whether the premises are true. If the conclusion, itself, just so happens to be a necessary truth, it is so without regard to the premises.
For example: Some Greeks are logicians; therefore, some logicians are Greeks. Valid argument; it would be self-contradictory to admit that some Greeks are logicians but deny that some (any) logicians are Greeks.All Greeks are human and all humans are mortal; therefore, all Greeks are mortal. : Valid argument; if the premises are true the conclusion must be true.Some Greeks are logicians and some logicians are tiresome; therefore, some Greeks are tiresome. Invalid argument: the tiresome logicians might all be Romans (for example).Either we are all doomed or we are all saved; we are not all saved; therefore, we are all doomed. Valid argument; the premises entail the conclusion. (Remember that this does not mean the conclusion has to be true; it is only true if the premises are true, which they may not be!) Premise 1: Some men are hawkers. Premise 2: Some hawkers are rich. Conclusion: Some men are rich.
This argument is invalid. There is a way where you can determine whether an argument is valid, give a counter-example with the same argument form.
Counter-Example: Premise 1: Some people are herbivores. Premise 2: Some herbivores are zebras. Conclusion: Some people are zebras. (This is obviously false.)
The counter-example follows the same logical form as the previous argument, (Premise 1: "Some X are Y." Premise 2: "Some Y are Z." Conclusion: "Some X are Z.") in order to demonstrate that whatever hawkers may be, they may or may not be rich, in consideration of the premises as such. (See also, existential import).
The forms of argument that render deductions valid are well-established, however invalid arguments can also be persuasive: inductive arguments, for example. (See also, formal fallacy and informal fallacy).
Soundness[edit] |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|