There has always been debate here about what is argument and what is not and what is its value.

For the simple fun of doing it, below is the basic layout of a categorical argument or syllogism.

This is not to educate, or inflame, anyone, just fun like a crossword puzzle, and some unfinished business for me here at PTT. Thanks, Ayn Rand. I am doing because you said I could.

Analysis of news items and more explanation may follow…as I get time. If you can, enjoy.

***************

Categorical formal logic is putting things in classes and then drawing conclusions. All do it every day. This drawing conclusions is also known as making arguments or syllogisms.

The 7 rules of categorical arguments or syllogisms:

Rule 1. There must be ONLY THREE TERMS in THREE STATEMENTS.

The first two statements have all of the three terms in them. These are the starting premises of the argument. The third and final statement has two of the three terms and is the conclusion.

There must be no more than three terms. Most debates have a number of arguments, but all arguments still break down into three terms in three statements.

One term in the argument is called the major term, one the middle term, and one the minor term. The middle term must logically link the major term to the minor term.

Terms and premises in an argument (in the first figure) look like this:

First Premise: middle term + is (or some form of "is") + major term.
Second Premise: minor term + is + middle term.
Conclusion: therefore + minor term + is + major term.

(What the figure of a syllogism is is for later.)

Rule 2. The middle term must not appear in the conclusion.

Rule 3. If a term is distributed in the conclusion, it must be distributed in the premises.
Rule 4. The middle term must be distributed in the premises at least once.

A distributed term is a term that is universal or that refers to all the members of the class named by the term. An undistributed term is a term that is particular or refers to only some of the members of the class named by the term.

You know a term is distributed in a premise by some interesting laws of logic:

It is a fact that there are only four statements in all language – all a is b, some a is b, no a is b, some a is not b .

Also, the four statements are either positive or negative.

The laws of distribution for the four statements – always true – are:

All a is b – a is always distributed and b is always undistributed.
Some a is b – a is always undistributed and b is always undistributed
No a is b – a is always distributed and b is always distributed
Some a is not b – a is always undistributed and b is always distributed

Rule 5. No conclusion comes from two negative premises.
Rule 6. If one premise is negative, then the conclusion must be negative.
Rule 7. If both premises are positive, then the conclusion has to be positive.

The rules guarantee that the argument is valid. However, that’s just getting to first base.

An argument may be valid in form and have untrue information in the terms. This is called a valid but unsound argument. A sound argument is both valid in form and correct in facts.

***************

There are three main branches of logic. There is informal logic, which covers a list of fallacies, deductive formal logic, and inductive formal logic.

Inductive logic is basically science. (Some might not think it’s basically science.) The two types of deductive logic are categorical and conditional. Categorical logic is putting things in classes. Conditional logic is the if-then stuff.

There is a math-based logic that uses truth tables and symbols, which although it uses the same processes is a different ballgame. I do not do truth tables.

***************

Too many rules?

Picture, then.

1st: ___________ (middle or major term) + is + ___________ (middle or major term)

2nd: ___________ (middle or major term) + is + ___________ (middle or major term)

Conclusion: ___________ (minor term) + is + ___________ (major term)

The major term is always the second term in the conclusion.

The major term must be in the first premise, also. It either can be the first term in the first premise or the second term in the first premise.

The middle term can be located anywhere in a syllogism as long as it isn't in the conclusion. This is important because the laws of distribution (from way up above) make or break an argument depending on the location of the middle term.

For example, this argument:

All Democrats are intelligent people. No Republicans are Democrats. Therefore no Republicans are intelligent people.

This is an AEE statement. All a is b. No a is b. No a is b. According to the laws of distribution (from way up above), this is a DU, DD, DD syllogism that breaks Rule 3. The word intelligent is distributed in the conclusion but is undistributed in the first premise. May be talking about a different kind of intelligence. (So let's take it to MoveOn.org…)

*********************

Everybody’s draws conclusions.

Like: Bush is an idiot.

First premise: Idiots + are + (people who?) __________.
Second premise: Bush + is + ________.
Conclusion: Bush is an idiot.

What is a middle term, that is not some repeat of idiot or Bush, that logically links Bush to the major term idiot? It's a search for the intelligent middle term.

******************
Ordinary sentences can be put into one of the four logical statements:

The letters A, I, E, O stand for the four statements – all a is b, some a is b, no a is b, some a is not b. They come from the Latin AFFIRMO AND NEGO. The two vowels in each word stand for a statement. A and I in AFFIRMO mean all a is b and some a is b. N and E in NEGO mean all a is not b and some a is not b.

Statements are either all or some (universal or particular) and either negative or positive if it has a "not" or not.

There are 64 possible arguments. Out of 64, only 19 are valid. Out of the nineteen, only 5 are used regularly.

***************************

William of Shyreswood, a medieval person with no last name, put all the valid arguments into Latin. The vowels in each word stand for one of the four statements of logic.

In Shyreswood Latin, the five common arguments are:

BARBARA (AAA) and CELARENT (EAE) where the middle term is the first term in the first premise and second term in the second premise.

CESARE (EAE) and CAMESTRES (AEE) where the middle term is second in both premises.

CAMENES (AEE) where the middle term is second in the first premise and first in the second premise.

Validity tracks along these five.

***********************

The 9 ways to translate ordinary, conversational statements into logical statements:

1. Identify the subject, or first term, if it's not at the beginning of the sentence, and move it to the first part of the sentence. It is a topic, which is a first term, plus something said about a topic. What is said about the topic is the second term.
2. Add an "is" (or some form of is) if it is not there. Conservatives always belong in the Republican Party. Conservatives are people who always belong in the Republican Party.
3. Turn the second term into a class if it is not one. Roses are red. Roses are flowers that are red.
4. Add the missing all or some. All conservatives are people who belong in the Republican Party.
5. In "only" sentences, switch the terms and change "only" to "all". Only intelligent people are liberals. Change to: All liberals are intelligent people.
6. Change negative sentences into either E or O statements. Usually an O statement unless it's clear that its an E.
7. Change sentences with "except" either to an E or an A statement. They can be done either way, so have to choose one way and stick to it.
8. Change "anyone", "anything", "if", and "if then", and those statements similar, into A statements. This almost gets into conditional logic with the if-then. But change if-then to all a is b for categorical.
9. "Something", "someone", "there is", "there are" are changed into I statements.

Most arguments are made as enthymemes. An enthymeme is an argument that has an unstated premise or conclusion. Fun with that.

 

Last edited: Saturday, December 02, 2006 at 8:17:51 AM

Here's an example from The God Delusion, courtesy onegoodmove.

 

 

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/09/dawkins_on_mora.html
A book I'll have to read.

Last edited: Monday, September 25, 2006 at 4:08:14 PM

JJ: as you have appointed yourself an authority, preethee: what law does this piece of logic follow?

 

 

Following this type of logic, I suppose you would say that there was no proof that osama bin laden blew up the WTC because he's not in jail...and that saddam hussein possed WMD because he is.

Absolutely brilliant. I see that you've been maintaining your sharp mind. Please keep up your informative pieces on "logic."

Assclown.

Its always interesting and frustrating to read the spin that's applied to Bible accounts of events and the perceived motives behind those involved, especially when the reasons for certain actions or events are clearly stated.

Anyway, my real point in posting was to counter the sweeping statement concerning "irritated theologians". There are still plenty of people who continue to take Genesis literally and do not cherry pick what they believe. Of course, they're the ones usually kicked to the curb for being irrational or whatever, but they're there. However, within the context of the given example, the conclusion is correct. Either you stand on the whole counsel of God's Word or you're living by your own moral code, atheist or believer alike.

LOL

He said logic.

Stink. We couldn't find Osama. If I remember right Osama claimed to take them down too.

Read more carefully jacob...

A valid faith = one that uses reason correctly ("acts in accordance with reason")
Dialogue between religions and cultures = one that uses reason correctly
Therefore, a dialogue between religions and cultures = one that uses reason correctly

In logic, two things are equal to a third thing and then the two things are equal to each other.

The problems with the Pope’s speech (that resulted in riots, murder, and ad hom attacks) come from quotes that the Pope took from a debate between an emperor, Manuel II, and a Persian who is “educated in Christianity and Islam.”

The Pope doesn’t back Manuel’s side or the Persian’s side. WaPo article.

The big quote was from Manuel II who tells the Persian, “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by sword the faith he preached.”

The Pope’s money quote is: “[Manuel] goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable.”

The Pope's point: “The decisive statement in this [Manuel’s argument] against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.”

Eventually near the end, the Pope says that reason is necessary because: “Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religion so urgently needed today.”

Conversationally the syllogism goes:

A valid faith requires the correct use of reason.
Dialogues between cultures require a valid faith.
Therefore dialogues between faiths require the correct use of reason.

Expanded:

All valid faiths are the ones that require the correct use of reason.
All dialogues between cultures and religions are ones that require a valid faith.
Therefore, dialogues between cultures and religions are those that require the correct use of reason.

Since formal categorical logic is putting things in classes, the last part of conversational premises get expanded by adding “is” and a noun or pronoun and changing the last half of the sentence to a dependent clause.

Or, I suppose, you could just use the equal signs and let it go at that...

Last edited: Monday, October 02, 2006 at 8:09:30 AM

I suppose so! Brilliantly rendered, sir!
alas, it seems I, like you, have bereft myself of vaseline...so rather than engage in the conventional masturbatory excusion best practiced when the kids fall asleep and the wife is watching leno, I, like you, shall flog a bishop of another color:

To wit...

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Anon! I pitter-pat off on little cat feet, lest my wife catch me in the hall with my load...o toilet, receive this tiny death!

Validity has nothing to do with truth or reality, btw.
faith contingent upon reason? Eh?

Last edited: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 at 12:31:00 AM

^ We see it all the time in the news when a crazy does something heinous. A common misconception is that a crazy man has lost all his reason, why else would he do such a thing. The exact opposite is true. A crazy has lost everything EXCEPT his reason.

Tune in.

Keith Olbermann has another Special Comment tonight. This one about the end of habeas corpus.

Meanwhile, sample for balance.

*Link fixed.

Last edited: Thursday, October 19, 2006 at 7:21:48 AM

Well that made alot of sence. I didn't get a thing out of all this garb. I must be a simple person. I just set back and enjoy the good with the bad what else is there to do. :) XD

Jj, your link no worky.
crooks and liars has a link to olbermann's broadcast last night, pre-special comment.

Olbermann:

 

 

Lots of filler, little content. It looks like to me Olbermann has not read much of the legislation.

If the idea was Bush's perverting of habeas corpus, then what is he talking about? There's no facts? It's just pre-election shock-speak. This is propaganda.

To you, Keith Olbermann, I say, "This, sir, is the beginning of the end of American journalism!"

Why.

1. Habeas corpus rights belong to those under the Constitution.
2. The courts, not Bush, said no habeas for non-Americans who get caught killing or in the process of killing of those under the Constitution.
3. Under the Detainee Treatment Act, the military already must give a hearing to those in GITMO.
4. The Military Commissions Act did not do away with the Detainee Treatment Act.
5. Appeals by prisoners can be made to the Court of Appeals and if that fails, they can go to the Supreme Court.

Why didn't Olbermann mention any of that in the Special Comment?

Logic?

Bush is beginning the end of America by codifying habeas?
Changing habeas is what Bush is doing with the Military Commissions Act?
Changing habeas is the end of America?

Right, validity has nothing to do with truth or reason, but at least it shows your thinking.

This rant isn't thinking. It's boring.

Last edited: Thursday, October 19, 2006 at 8:31:44 AM

Olbermann's Special Comment

 

 

Rest of Comment.

 

Last edited: Thursday, October 19, 2006 at 8:12:51 AM

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/18/countdown-special-comment-death-of-habeas-corpus-your-words-are-lies-sir/
if you don't feel like reading.

JJ, I don't think either of us has the legal pedigree to get into this so well, but my feeling is you may have missed the larger point, which the sentimental left does not overlook.

 

 

 

Too many rules?

Picture, then.

1st: ___________ (middle or major term) + is + ___________ (middle or major term)

2nd: ___________ (middle or major term) + is + ___________ (middle or major term)

Conclusion: ___________ (minor term) + is + ___________ (major term)

The major term is always the second term in the conclusion.

The major term must be in the first premise, also. It either can be the first term in the first premise or the second term in the first premise .

The middle term can be located anywhere in a syllogism as long as it isn't in the conclusion. This is important because the laws of distribution (from way up above) make or break an argument depending on the location of the middle term.

For example, this argument:

All Democrats are intelligent people. No Republicans are Democrats. Therefore no Republicans are intelligent people .

This is an AEE statement. All a is b. No a is b. No a is b. According to the laws of distribution (from way up above), this is a DU, DD, DD syllogism that breaks Rule 3. The word intelligent is distributed in the conclusion but is undistributed in the first premise. May be talking about a different kind of intelligence. (So let's take it to MoveOn.org…)

*************************

Everybody’s draws conclusions.

Like: Bush is an idiot.

First premise: Idiots + are + (people who?) __________.
Second premise: Bush + is + ________.
Conclusion: Bush is an idiot.

What is a middle term, that is not some repeat of idiot or Bush, that links the Bush to the major term idiot? It's a search for the intelligent middle term.

Last edited: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 at 1:53:14 PM

Vote Republican.

WTP
YDT

Whats the point
why do this?

 

 

Granted.

 

 

Non Sequitur.

Last edited: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 at 7:55:43 PM

I guess that wasn't fair. I was in a hurry before bedie-by. I'll throw a bone:

 

 

Granted.

Syllogisms are petty, nearly useless blunt instruments...

Logic for people better at math than thinking. To wit:

 

 

Oh thank god for this assanine formula! Or else, how to tell that socrates was mortal? Useless...
thanks again JJ, for this primer into logic...you've offered us all a vehicle...a short bus, if you will...into the life of the mind.

Here's another real peach:

 

 

Thanks camestres, absolutely brilliant...until your short treatise I was at a loss on this damnable human/equine taxonomic paradox
(you goddam dolt).

This is the most primitive and simple form of deductive logic on the planet...let's devote a whole thread to it. If you are such a lump that you needed this remedial formula to reach the conclusion it establishes...do continue to vote republican, as JJ advises. You've chosen the right party.

"“a sneer is infinitely more noble than a syllogism”
Nietzsche

Last edited: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 at 11:09:53 AM

Only meanies post personal attacks.
Stinkfingers posts personal attacks.
Stinkfingers is a meanie.

 

A deductive formula isn't a person.
I attacked a deductive formula.
my attack on the formula wasn't personal.

Oh, what fun!

Ah, but Stink, you have to marvel at the simplicity of a three legged chair.

First premise: Idiots + are + (people who?) _are big deficit spenders_.
Second premise: Bush + is + _a deficit spender_.
Conclusion: Bush is an idiot.

First premise: Idiots + are + (people who?) _are hunters that shoot people in the face._.
Second premise: Cheney + is + _a hunter_.
Conclusion: Cheney is an idiot.

I think I understand JJ a lot better.

FWIW, here are last parts of categorical logic:

Ordinary sentences can be put into one of the four logical statements:

The letters A, I, E, O stand for the four statements – all a is b, some a is b, no a is b, some a is not b. They come from the Latin AFFIRMO AND NEGO. The two vowels in each word stand for a statement. A and I in AFFIRMO mean all a is b and some a is b. N and E in NEGO mean all a is not b and some a is not b.

Statements are either all or some (universal or particular) and either negative or positive if it has a "not" or not.

There are 64 possible arguments. Out of 64, only 19 are valid. Out of the nineteen, only 5 are used regularly.

***************************

William of Shyreswood, a medieval person with no last name, put all the valid arguments into Latin. The vowels in each word stand for one of the four statements of logic.

In Shyreswood Latin, the five common arguments are:

BARBARA (AAA) and CELARENT (EAE) where the middle term is the first term in the first premise and second term in the second premise.

CESARE (EAE) and CAMESTRES (AEE) where the middle term is second in both premises.

CAMENES (AEE) where the middle term is second in the first premise and first in the second premise.

Validity tracks along these five.

***********************

The 9 ways to translate ordinary, conversational statements into logical statements:

1. Identify the subject, or first term, if it's not at the beginning of the sentence, and move it to the first part of the sentence. It is a topic, which is a first term, plus something said about a topic. What is said about the topic is the second term.
2. Add an "is" (or some form of is) if it is not there. Conservatives always belong in the Republican Party. Conservatives are people who always belong in the Republican Party.
3. Turn the second term into a class if it is not one. Roses are red. Roses are flowers that are red.
4. Add the missing all or some. All conservatives are people who belong in the Republican Party.
5. In "only" sentences, switch the terms and change "only" to "all". Only intelligent people are liberals. Change to: All liberals are intelligent people.
6. Change negative sentences into either E or O statements. Usually an O statement unless it's clear that its an E.
7. Change sentences with "except" either to an E or an A statement. They can be done either way, so have to choose one way and stick to it.
8. Change "anyone", "anything", "if", and "if then", and those statements similar, into A statements. This almost gets into conditional logic with the if-then. But change if-then to all a is b for categorical.
9. "Something", "someone", "there is", "there are" are changed into I statements.

Most arguments are made as enthymemes. An enthymeme is an argument that has an unstated premise or conclusion. Fun with that.

Right off the bat I have been accused of cutting and pasting this. Yep, I did learn it somewhere. That's all I have to say about that.

It's obvious, the rules are cumbersome to apply.

^^ But even Flea is getting the hang of it. )

He's got a valid argument. However, the terms are not true and, while the argument is valid, it's unsound.

 

Groupthink is the problem. One or two high status individuals start saying silly stuff and soon it becomes the conventional wisdom. Everyone knows that Halliburton is an evil offshoot of BushCo, for example.

We are coming up on a Democratic takeover of Congress that is getting bit by its own groupthink.

Kerry and Pelosi.

They did the groupthink once too often and it goes Freudian on them. Stupid people fight in Iraq. It's the Americans that cause all the trouble in Iraq.

Last edited: Saturday, December 02, 2006 at 9:15:39 AM