Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Logical Fallacies


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 rsd79

rsd79

  • Members
  • 180 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oilers Country
  • Local time:03:46 AM

Posted 26 May 2008 - 06:41 AM

Here is the example:

Monkeys eat :thumbsup::bananas::flowers:
Humans eat :trumpet::bananas::inlove:
Therefore, evolution is fact.

What type of logical fallacy, is this example?

I am thinking it would be an "Undistributed Middle" syllogism. Although, Monkeys( A ) and Humans( B ) share the same property(banana), the difference is that humans are apes, not monkeys. In this case, the conclusion of "evolution [being] fact", would be false.

Am I right, wrong, or are you just as bored as I am for even reading this topic?

On Edit: I just realized I misspelled the title of this topic. :cool:

(Moderator edit:corrected spelling. jgweed)

Edited by rsd79, 26 May 2008 - 03:09 PM.

Dustin Penner is the new Jaromir Jagr.

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 jgweed

jgweed

  • Members
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:05:46 AM

Posted 26 May 2008 - 08:03 AM

Yes, in a way.
But the greater fallacy is drawing a conclusion with terms not in the first or second propositions, so there is really not a "middle term" in the traditional syllogism you provided.
Cheers,
John
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

#3 rsd79

rsd79
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 180 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oilers Country
  • Local time:03:46 AM

Posted 26 May 2008 - 03:07 PM

Can you please elaborate? I was right that was a syllogism because there are four terms, correct? The four terms being Monkeys, Humans, Bananas, and evolution.
What would be the correct syllogism, in this example? I have become really interested in learning these logical fallacies, ever since watching darwinshamster and stefbot on youtube.

Cheers, mate. Thanks for reply and edit.

Edited by rsd79, 26 May 2008 - 03:18 PM.

Dustin Penner is the new Jaromir Jagr.

#4 JohnWho

JohnWho

    Who was running the store?


  • Members
  • 2,611 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tampa Bay Area, Florida, USA
  • Local time:06:46 AM

Posted 27 May 2008 - 08:13 AM

I would go with this:

Monkeys eat :thumbsup::bananas::flowers:

Humans eat :trumpet::bananas::inlove:

Therefore, :cool: :) :P are edible.

Yumm.


I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


#5 jgweed

jgweed

  • Members
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:05:46 AM

Posted 27 May 2008 - 10:35 AM

Standard-form categorical syllogisms contain only three terms (class names, if you will), each of which occurs in only two of its propositions.
Thus:

All M is P
All S is M
Therefore, all S is P

All Greeks are human.
All Athenians are Greeks.
Therefore, All Athenians are human.

For further reading:

http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e08a.htm

Cheers,
John
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

#6 rsd79

rsd79
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 180 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oilers Country
  • Local time:03:46 AM

Posted 31 May 2008 - 03:53 AM

Standard-form categorical syllogisms contain only three terms (class names, if you will), each of which occurs in only two of its propositions.
Thus:

All M is P
All S is M
Therefore, all S is P

All Greeks are human.
All Athenians are Greeks.
Therefore, All Athenians are human.

For further reading:

http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e08a.htm

Cheers,
John


Hey man, thanks for the link. I think the problem with my attempt at a syllogism was that I was trying to stick to the standard of 4 terms, when 3 would have sufficed.

Edited by rsd79, 31 May 2008 - 03:55 AM.

Dustin Penner is the new Jaromir Jagr.

#7 jgweed

jgweed

  • Members
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:05:46 AM

Posted 31 May 2008 - 07:14 AM

If there are more than three terms, then the valid form to use becomes litotes, or a series (chain) of categorical syllogisms, each of which has a prior conclusion as one of its propositions. These can become quite lengthly and involved.
Symbolic logic is able to handle more than three terms since it allows more valid kinds of inferences than traditional syllogistic logic (either/or, if>then). Here the argument-structure might look like:
(A & :thumbsup:> [C=(D v E)]
A & B
Therefore C=(D v E)
It would not be unusual to have 10 or more propositions leading to a conclusion.

Cheers,
John
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users