Logic

There are 4 Fundamental Laws of Logic
1. The Law of Non-Contradiction two statements presented as absolutes that are mutually exclusive cannot both be true.

Example: in a court of law, if asked whether you were present at a specific place and time, your answer cannot be both yes and no. If you do say yes and no, you will be asked to qualify what you mean by yes and no.

Truth is measured by the correspondence of a statement with reality. Your answers are put together to see whether there is a coherence with your statements.

Example: "how can God be both sovereign and I am free." Answer: they are not absolutes. You cannot go the broad way and expect rewards of the narrow way.

"A contrariety is that which brings together two opposite parts, neither of which is an unqualified absolute." - R. Zaccharias.

Validity, Strong and Weak Arguments
An strong argument is supported by the "truthfulness" (or voracity ?) of its premises and logic of its conclusion. Assuming the premises are true, the validity of an argument depends on the logical progression from premise to conclusion. A **valid argument** is absolutely true and cannot be rejected. However an **invalid argument** cannot be confirmed absolutely and can sometimes be true or false. This uncertainty does not always reject an invalid argument; invalid arguments can still be considered either **strong** or **weak**. A strong argument is often true "most" of the time, while weak arguments may be true only "some" times. Unlike a valid argument, the certainty of what is considered a strong or weak argument is unclear and determined by social conventions, i.e. votes. 2. People are humans. || 1. //90%// of humans are right-handed. 2. Terry is a human. || 1. //50%// of people are female. 2. Terry is a human. ||
 * ~ Premise || 1. //All// humans have DNA.
 * ~ Conclusion || All people have DNA. || Terry is right-handed. || Terry is female. ||
 * ~ Validity || Valid || Invalid || Invalid ||
 * ~ Strength ||  || Strong || Weak ||

Induction and scientific reasoning are used in science to make strong arguments at minimum that form generalizations from observations in a small population. Note: the scientific and logical definitions of the term //inductive reasoning// are different. An inductive argument in science is a prediction (conclusion) of a general phenomenon based on particular evidence of prior cases (premises). The strength of the **inference** depends on the track record of prior cases or the truthfulness of the data points. For instance, we observe penguins in the antarctic and New Zealand don't fly and generalize by inductive reasoning that all penguins don't fly (this example is inherently weak due to the author's lack of creativity, yet the principle is still presented). In other words,the same phenomenon is observed in different cases A, B, C, etc., therefore we can conclude inductively with the generalization that under similar conditions this phenomenon will occur again. Thus a prediction is set up which can only be refuted by experimentation. Discussion on experiments and predictive power of scientific method is addressed in Richard Feyman's Lectures on the Character of Physical Law.

Tips
Avoid people who are solely interested in winning debates despite being wrong. They may try manuevers such speaking louder, lodging personal insults, using elevated language, declaring victory in spite of defeat. It is sufficient to make a strong argument if not valid.