View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
Posted: 06/13/17 5:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
GlennMacGrady wrote: |
I like this discussion of logic, validity, etymology and literature.
Syllogisms, by definition, provide logically true conclusions. What's wrong with this syllogism:
Major premiss: No center can pass as well as Janel McCarville.
Minor premiss: Sue Bird is no center.
Conclusion: Sue Bird cannot pass as well as Janel McCarville. |
It commits the fallacy of equivocation.
Even though the same words are used, the phrase "no center" has a different meaning in each of the premises.
_________________ ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011 Posts: 10911
Back to top |
Posted: 06/13/17 5:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I don't think that is a problem really as long as you take the premises as being symbolic only. Sue Bird = A; No Center = B. C = Can Pass as well as McCarville
So
Major Premise:
B (No Center) implies C (can pass as well as McCarville)
A (Bird) = B (No Center) Minor Premise
therefore
A implies C.
Being symbolic only they have no relationship to reality. So while logically correct it has no more meaning than the original premise B implies C.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
Posted: 06/13/17 6:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Randy wrote: |
I don't think that is a problem really as long as you take the premises as being symbolic only. Sue Bird = A; No Center = B. C = Can Pass as well as McCarville
So
Major Premise:
B (No Center) implies C (can pass as well as McCarville)
A (Bird) = B (No Center) Minor Premise
therefore
A implies C.
Being symbolic only they have no relationship to reality. So while logically correct it has no more meaning than the original premise B implies C. |
Sure, it could be read that way, but then the conclusion here is false, since it says that Sue Bird cannot pass as well as JMac.
So you would end up with a premise that says SB can pass as well as JMac, but have concluded the opposite. Since syllogisms are a form of deductive reasoning the premises must in and of themselves lead to the conclusion (or, in other words, if the premises are true, then it is impossible for the conclusion to be false). Since this is not true, the syllogism as written above is invalid. The reason for this is the equivocation of the term "no center".
_________________ ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011 Posts: 10911
Back to top |
Posted: 06/13/17 7:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I said all along that the correct answer was Sure Bird can pass as well as McCarville. I pointed that out in my first response to Glenn. See below.
Last edited by Randy on 06/13/17 7:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011 Posts: 10911
Back to top |
Posted: 06/13/17 7:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Randy wrote: |
The conclusion should be Sue Bird can pass as well as McCarville.
No center can pass as well as McCarville. (Major Premise)
Sue Bird = No Center (Minor Premis)
So substitute Sue Bird for No Center and you have
Sue Bird can pass as well as McCarville. |
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
Posted: 06/13/17 7:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Randy wrote: |
I said all along that the correct answer was Sure Bird can pass as well as McCarville. I pointed that out in my first response to Glenn. See below. |
Except that wasn't the conclusion provided. By changing the conclusion you are constructing a brand new syllogism. Glenn was asking what was wrong with the syllogism he provided.
A valid syllogism, when all premises are true means the conclusion must be true. But here we know this is a demonstrably false conclusion with two seemingly true premises. The key is discovering how these two independently true premises lead to a false conclusion. And the answer is equivocation since each premise uses a different meaning of "no center". In a valid syllogism definitions of words must remain the same between the different premises.
But yes, you could write a new syllogism as you did that uses the same premises without equivocation, that resulted in your new conclusion.
_________________ ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011 Posts: 10911
Back to top |
Posted: 06/13/17 8:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I pointed out his syllogism was wrong as stated.
|
|
awhom111
Joined: 19 Nov 2014 Posts: 4255
Back to top |
Posted: 06/13/17 8:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Whoa, the league is really good at their Kelsey Plum agenda.
All of that criticism of her and the league managed to change the focus of the thread to something else. That's politics-level of switching the narrative right there. |
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007 Posts: 7365 Location: Underground
Back to top |
Posted: 06/13/17 8:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Next, we have to debate who's better -- Angel or Lori Ann? And since they're the same person, we have to debate whether a debate is possible.
_________________ You can always do something else.
|
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011 Posts: 10911
Back to top |
Posted: 06/13/17 9:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
It's pretty clear that Lori Ann was Angel's better half. Until she got married, I suppose.
|
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18055 Location: Queens
Back to top |
Posted: 06/13/17 9:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Randy wrote: |
It's pretty clear that Lori Ann was Angel's better half. Until she got married, I suppose. |
So does that mean she has three halves now?
_________________ Ardent believer in the separation of church and stadium.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 8249 Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
Posted: 06/13/17 9:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Randy wrote: |
The conclusion should be Sue Bird can pass as well as McCarville.
No center can pass as well as McCarville. (Major Premise)
Sue Bird = No Center (Minor Premis)
So substitute Sue Bird for No Center and you have
Sue Bird can pass as well as McCarville. |
Nice logic. So now we have a supposed syllogism that generates two different conclusions.
Suppose we substitute Oprah Winfrey for Sue Bird in the minor premiss. We must then conclude under your approach that Oprah Winfrey can pass as well as McCarville.
Poor Socrates, Aristotle and Plato -- they couldn't logically analyze a women's basketball game. |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11187
Back to top |
Posted: 06/14/17 9:19 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Like all tools, logic can be applied incorrectly and lead to bad results.
No system -- in basketball, in philosophy, in life -- is perfect. Anyone who claims to have the perfect system is either deluded or lying.
_________________ Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
jap
Joined: 01 Apr 2007 Posts: 7938
Back to top |
Posted: 06/14/17 9:22 am ::: |
Reply |
|
ClayK wrote: |
Like all tools, logic can be applied incorrectly and lead to bad results.
No system -- in basketball, in philosophy, in life -- is perfect. Anyone who claims to have the perfect system is either deluded or lying. |
Logic also has its limitations.
_________________ Regards,
J A P
|
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007 Posts: 7365 Location: Underground
Back to top |
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011 Posts: 10911
Back to top |
Posted: 06/14/17 10:23 am ::: |
Reply |
|
jap wrote: |
ClayK wrote: |
Like all tools, logic can be applied incorrectly and lead to bad results.
No system -- in basketball, in philosophy, in life -- is perfect. Anyone who claims to have the perfect system is either deluded or lying. |
Logic also has its limitations. |
So far as logic is perfect it says nothing about reality. So far as it says anything about reality, it is imperfect. If A implies B and B implies C then A implies C is perfect logic. By itself, it has nothing to do with anything in the world though.
|
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007 Posts: 7365 Location: Underground
Back to top |
|
Jet Jaguar
Joined: 11 Feb 2014 Posts: 1111
Back to top |
Posted: 06/14/17 11:33 am ::: |
Reply |
|
What happened to this thread?
_________________ Oderint dum metuant - Let them hate, so long as they fear
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 8249 Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
Posted: 06/14/17 12:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I went off on the syllogism tangent because I was enjoying the badinage between JIT and Silky.
Now, a syllogism MUST give a true conclusion if the premisses (not premises) are valid. The syllogisms I proposed have yielded two different conclusions, both of which are untrue: that Sue Bird cannot pass as well as Janel McCarville, or that Oprah Winfrey can pass as well as Janel McCarville.
This is because the premisses of the syllogism are not valid. Exactly as JIT has explained, and for the reasons he explains, this syllogism is infected by the fallacy of equivocation: "no center" is used in two different ways.
My favorite example of the fallacy of equivocation is the one I first learned 60 years ago:
No dog has two tails.
My cat is no dog.
Therefore, my cat has two tails. |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
Posted: 06/14/17 1:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
GlennMacGrady wrote: |
premisses (not premises)... |
That would be news to me (and all my logic textbooks)...
_________________ ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
WNBA 09
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 12572 Location: Dallas , Texas
Back to top |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67051 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 06/14/17 1:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
justintyme wrote: |
GlennMacGrady wrote: |
premisses (not premises)... |
That would be news to me (and all my logic textbooks)... |
Then your textbooks are wrong. Premises are buildings and land considered in an official capacity. "You are ordered to vacate these premises."
The plural of premise (or premiss, if you prefer), when it comes to logic, is premisses.
_________________ I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 8249 Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
Posted: 06/14/17 2:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
justintyme wrote: |
GlennMacGrady wrote: |
premisses (not premises)... |
That would be news to me (and all my logic textbooks)... |
That's because you're a post-modernist and I'm a classicist or archaist.
My formal logic professor insisted we use the spelling in William Van Ormand Quine's textbook and that used by Russell and Whitehead in their Principia Mathematica. I still recall his distinction: "The 'premisses' are the logical propositions we're studying; the 'premises' is the building in which we are studying them."
"Premiss" seems to be losing the usage battle in our cultural decline back into the Hobbesian state of nature, but yet:
http://logic-rhetoric.livejournal.com/1079.html?nojs=1 |
|
|
|