Discover Top Posts Tagged with #syllogism

Syllogism:

Orchids are parasitic.

Rhian's soul is represented by phantom orchids.

Rhian's soul is parasitic.

#school for good and evil #rise of the school for good and evil #rhian #rhian mistral #sge #sfgae #the school for good and evil #tsfgae #rotsge #rotsfgae #my post #syllogism #orchid #orchids #EVIL is parasitic (especially in the world of SGE)

I have seen hundreds, maybe thousands of butts in the course of 17+ years of being an aide/nurse/PCA. That does, of course, count the same people multiple times but if I have to see your ass crack five times a night I’m counting it in my tally.

I have also seen a lot, and I mean a LOT, of nuts.

I’ve noticed two things as truths.

1. I don’t know at what age it happens but 95%+ of my little old men patients HAVE NO ASS. They look like a frog standing on its hind legs and wearing pants.

2. The older they are, the longer their balls get. How these guys don’t sit on them or have em dribbling out their pant leg, I have no idea.

Now it’s time for a syllogism. (A syllogism is a three part statement where if the first two parts are true then the last part has to be true as well.)

1. Old men have no butts. 2. Old men have long nuts. Therefore 3. The nuts are connected to the butts and act in the same way a face lift does - the balls drag the ass inwards and when they have no ass their balls are at their lowest.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk, I will be taking no questions.

Go to 31:15 for the specific bit I learned this from. I recommend watching the whole thing though. 1991. I think I was seven or so. I LOVED the “inter-bed demented howling” and “lint-sucking, melting, coal mining stumps” bits.

#nuts and butts #syllogism #stories from the night shift #night nurse #these are the important questions #the things I ponder #Richard jeni #frog butt #old men have no butts #but they have long nuts #Youtube

Sotah 14a

#talmud #daf yomi #sotah #judaism #jumblr #moses #the good place #chidi anagonye #syllogism #moses is mortal #we never visit we never call

Logic (Part II)

Earlier, I wrote about why logic is so important. But what is it? The most important thing to remember about logic is that it is content-blind. It does not add any substance and does not change based on the substance of the statements it is relating. From the perspective of logic, the following two chains of reasoning are identical:

(1) All penguins can fly and nothing that flies lives in Antarctica; therefore, no penguins live in Antarctica

(2) All crows can fly and nothing that flies lives in Antarctica; therefore, no crows live in Antarctica.

It doesn’t matter that the conclusion of (1) is false and the conclusion of (2) is true. It also doesn’t matter that both (1) and (2) have false assumptions (sometimes called hypotheses). Their logical form is the same and, from the perspective of logic, they are both good: it is impossible to believe both of the assumptions but not the conclusion. In the other direction, it is possible to have an argument that is not logically good (logically sound) but has true assumptions and a true conclusion:

(3) All mammals are vertebrates and all gorillas are vertebrates; therefore, all gorillas are mammals.

To many people, (3) might sound like a reasonable chain of thought. But would you still think that if you did not already know the conclusion was true? Logically, it has the same form as:

(4) All people who live in Boston live in the United States and all people who live in Seattle live in the United States; therefore, all people who live in Boston live in Seattle.

(To those who don’t know: Boston and Seattle are two cities in the United States that are far from each other.) Do you see what the issue is now? It has nothing to do with whether the particular assumptions or particular conclusions are true; it is an issue with the form of the argument.

Forcing arguments into logical forms often reveals that the speaker is playing upon some ambiguity. For example:

(5) Americans like baseball and Maria is American; therefore, Maria likes baseball.

Is this argument logically good? That depends on what the first part means. If it means “All Americans like baseball”, the argument is fine. But if it means something weaker, like “Some Americans like baseball” or “Many Americans like baseball”, then the logic is bad. It is possible to believe the assumptions but not the conclusion.

There is another reason why the logic in (5) might be bad: the world ‘American’, like many words, has multiple meanings. It could refer to, say, a US citizen, someone who lives in the Americas, someone who is from the Americas, or something else. If we mean that “All citizens of the US like baseball and Maria lives in North America”, the conclusion clearly does not follow! People frequently take advantage of ambiguous words, especially those with vague or emotional meanings, such as “good”, “terrorism”, “scientific”, “normal”, “democracy”, or “leader”. It’s easy to fall into believing these arguments, especially when the conclusions sound good. But logically, they’re terrible and usually reflect some kind of concealed assumption.

It’s important to distinguish between justifying a belief as the most reasonable belief to hold and justifying a belief absolutely. This is logically bad:

(6) 80% of US citizens like baseball and Maria is a US citizen; therefore, Maria likes baseball.

But this is perfectly fine, at least from a logical perspective:

(7) Maria is a person, the US is a country, and whenever one knows nothing about a person except that they are a citizen of a particular country and one knows that a certain statement is true of more than half of the the people who are citizens of that same country, it is reasonable to assume that the statement is true of that person; therefore, it is reasonable for someone who knows nothing about Maria but that she is a US citizen and who knows that 80% of US citizens like baseball to assume that Maria likes baseball.

Similarly, in a competition between many people, one can argue that a particular competitor is the most likely to win while also arguing that it is more likely that they do not win than that they do (this is true at the beginning of most sports seasons, at least according to betting markets).

One of the primary roles of logic is to encourage and demand careful thinking and precise statements. Though it may feel constraining at first, it is easy to see that it is worthwhile, given how easy it is to develop false beliefs with no guideposts. Many people who seek to deceive others know about the kinds of errors in thinking people frequently make and take advantage of them; it is impossible to fall into any sort of trap if one states all arguments carefully and examines them to ensure that they are logically correct.

#logic #logicalreasoning #logical fallacy #fallacy #syllogism

Syllogism: Reasoning and Fallacy

Syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning where you arrive at a specific conclusion by examining two other premises or ideas.

Hello, my name is Fidel Andrada. Syllogism derives from the Greek word syllogismos, meaning conclusion or inference.

Some syllogisms contain three components:

Major Premise

Minor Premise

Conclusion

For example, all roses are flowers (major premise). This is a rose (minor premise). Therefore, I am holding a flower (conclusion)

Types of Syllogism

The type of syllogism that typically contains these three components is a categorical syllogism. However, there are two other major kinds of syllogism. We'll discuss each one here, plus enthymemes and syllogistic fallacy.

As we know, our first example about roses was a categorical syllogism. Categorical syllogisms follow an "If A is part of C, then B is part of C" logic.

Let's look at some more examples of syllogism.

All cars have wheels. I drive a car. Therefore, my car has wheels.

Major Premise: All cars have wheels.

Minor Premise: I drive a car.

Conclusion: My car has wheels.

All insects frighten me. That is an insect. Therefore, I am frightened.

Major Premise: All insects frighten me.

Minor Premise: That is an insect.

Conclusion: I am frightened.

Conditional syllogisms follow an "If A is true, then B is true" pattern of logic. They're often referred to as hypothetical syllogisms because the arguments aren't always valid. Sometimes they're merely an accepted truth.

If Katie is smart, then she will get into a good college.

Major premise: Katie is smart.

Minor premise: Because she is smart Katie will get good grades.

Conclusion: Katie will get into a good college.

If Richard likes Germany, then he must drive an Audi.

Major premise: Richard likes Germany.

Minor premise: Richard likes all German things.

Conclusion: Richard drives a German car.

Disjunctive syllogisms follow a "Either A or B is true, if it's A, B is false" premise. They don't state if a major or minor premise is correct. But it's understood that one of them is correct.

This cake is either red velvet or chocolate.

It's not chocolate.

This cake is red velvet.

On the TV show Walkikng Dead, Claire's husband is either dead or alive.

He's not dead.

Claire's husband is alive.

An enthymeme is not one of the major types of syllogism but is what's known as rhetorical syllogism. These are often used in persuasive speeches and arguments.

Generally, the speaker will omit a major or minor premise, assuming it's already accepted by the audience.

He couldn't have stolen the jewelry. I know him.

Major Premise: He couldn't have stolen the jewelry.

Minor Premise: I know his character.

Her new purse can't be ugly. It's a Louis Vuitton.

Major Premise: Her new accessory can't be ugly.

Minor Premise: It's made by famous designer Louis Vuitton.

In an enthymeme, one premise remains implied. In the examples above, being familiar with someone or something implies an understanding of them.

Some syllogisms contain false presumptions. When you start assuming one of the major or minor premises to be true, even though they're not based in fact - as with disjunctive syllogisms and enthymemes - you run the risk of making a false presumption.

All crows are black. The bird in my cage is black. Therefore, this bird is a crow.

Major Premise: All crows are black.

Minor Premise: The bird in my cage is black.

Conclusion: This bird is a crow.

The scenery in Ireland is beautiful. I'm in Ireland. Therefore, the scenery must be beautiful.

Major Premise: The scenery in Ireland is beautiful.

Minor Premise: I'm in Ireland.

Conclusion: The scenery is beautiful.

Of course, not every black bird is a crow and not all of Ireland is beautiful. When preparing a speech or writing a paper, we must always make sure we're not making any sweeping generalizations that will cause people to make false presumptions.

Rules of Syllogism

There are six known rules of syllogism. However, they mainly apply to categorical syllogism, since that is the only category that requires three components: major premise, minor premise, conclusion. Here are six rules that will ensure you're making a strong and accurate argument.

Rule One: There must be three terms: the major premise, the minor premise, and the conclusion - no more, no less.

Rule Two: The minor premise must be distributed in at least one other premise.

Rule Three: Any terms distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in the relevant premise.

Rule Four: Do not use two negative premises.

Rule Five: If one of the two premises are negative, the conclusion must be negative.

Rule Six: From two universal premises, no conclusion may be drawn.

Further Examples of Syllogism

Syllogisms make for colorful literary devices. They explain situations indirectly, affording readers the opportunity to practice reasoning and deduction skills. Shakespeare was a master of many things, including syllogism. Here is an example of a syllogism fallacy in The Merchant of Venice:

Portia was a woman desired by many men. It was arranged she would marry the man who could correctly guess which of three caskets contained her portrait. One casket was inscribed with, "Who chooseth me shall gain what many men desire." One man concluded that, since many men desired Portia, her portrait must be in that casket.

He was wrong. His assumption falls under the category of syllogistic fallacy. One cannot deduce that, since this casket contains what men desire, it's automatically the portrait. Men also desire fortune and power, for example. There wasn't enough evidence to leap from premise to conclusion here.

Socrates is the subject of one of the most famous, and easily understood, examples of syllogism in philosophy. Note that it clearly follows the rule of three components.

All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, I am mortal.

This draws a clear picture of how one statement, when known to be universally true, should point perfectly to another clear claim, thus drawing an accurate conclusion.

Keep syllogisms in mind when viewing advertisements. Many leaps are made in advertising, skipping either a major or minor premise:

Women love men who drive a Lexus.

Get ready for an enthymeme or syllogism fallacy. A blanket statement such as this skips one of the two required premises. Every time a woman likes a man, it can't be assumed he drives a Lexus.

Persuasive Speeches and Writing

Understanding syllogisms will help you create masterful persuasive speeches and essays. They create a formula for you to abide by, in order to ensure your main point is flawless.

Syllogisms also allow you to test your theories according to syllogistic fallacies. When examining your main argument or point for discussion, be sure you haven't made any presumptions that your audience might disagree with.

Maybe some women won't like Lexuses. Perhaps they prefer a good 'ol fashioned Jeep! Just keep your eyes and ears open while you allow syllogisms to drive your point home with clarity and truth.

#fidel andrada #Andrada #syllogism #fallacy

From the Collected Writings of Charles Sanders Peirce.

#animal harm cw #charles sanders peirce #physiology #logic #syllogism #neuroscience #habit #psychology

I'm Nobody! Who are you? Are you – Nobody – too? Then there's a pair of us! Don't tell! they'd advertise – you know!

How dreary – to be – Somebody! How public – like a Frog – To tell one's name – the livelong June – To an admiring Bog!

----

I'm Nobody! Who are you?

Emily Dickinson 1830-1886