Friday, June 1, 2012

Weezy et al., Once Again, Relying Too Much on Suppressed Premises...

Here's an example of an invalid argument that I use as an introduction to validity and soundness.

It comes from Young Money's song, "Bed Rock." As Young Money artist Lloyd sings in the chorus: "Oh, baby. I be stuck to you like glue, baby. Wanna spend it all on you, baby. My room is the G-spot. Call me Mr. Flintstone, I can make your bed rock."

Thus, we seem to have an argument for referring to Lloyd as 'Mr. Flintstone.' The argument can be reconstructed as follows:
P1: My room is the G-spot
P2: I can make your bed rock
C: Call me 'Mr. Flintstone'

(NB: In the song P2 and C are flipped. I switched the positioning of each phrase to make it easier to follow.)

As it stands this argument is not valid (i.e., the conclusion does not follow from the premises). Knowing that Lloyd's bedroom is the G-spot, and knowing that he can make your bed rock, does not entail that you (or anyone else) should refer to him as 'Mr. Flintstone.' However, it seems like there may be some suppressed premises that we could articulate to make the argument valid. I need some help filling in these suppressed premises. Any thoughts?




No comments:

Post a Comment