RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Plum and the league agenda
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6584
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 5:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 6706



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 5:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 6584
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 6:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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".



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 6706



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 7:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 6706



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 7:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 6584
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 7:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 6706



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 8:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I pointed out his syllogism was wrong as stated.


awhom111



Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 1612



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 8:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 3921
Location: Underground


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 8:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.



_________________
We live in a political world
Love don't have any place
We're living in times
Where men commit crimes
And crime don't have any face
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 6706



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 9:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It's pretty clear that Lori Ann was Angel's better half. Until she got married, I suppose.


Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 15259
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 9:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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?



_________________
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4152
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 9:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 8495



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/14/17 9:19 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 7151



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/14/17 9:22 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 3921
Location: Underground


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/14/17 9:36 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Queenie wrote:
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?


Nicely done. Very Happy



_________________
We live in a political world
Love don't have any place
We're living in times
Where men commit crimes
And crime don't have any face
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 6706



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/14/17 10:23 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 3921
Location: Underground


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/14/17 10:34 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If Logic were perfect, she'd still be in the WNBA.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Smile



_________________
We live in a political world
Love don't have any place
We're living in times
Where men commit crimes
And crime don't have any face
Jet Jaguar



Joined: 11 Feb 2014
Posts: 1111



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/14/17 11:33 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

What happened to this thread?



_________________
Oderint dum metuant - Let them hate, so long as they fear
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4152
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/14/17 12:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 6584
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/14/17 1:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
premisses (not premises)...

That would be news to me (and all my logic textbooks)...



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 4306
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/14/17 1:06 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
premisses (not premises)...

That would be news to me (and all my logic textbooks)...



Laughing Shocked Laughing



_________________
2-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-2-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6584
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/14/17 1:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

WNBA 09 wrote:
justintyme wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
premisses (not premises)...

That would be news to me (and all my logic textbooks)...



Laughing Shocked Laughing

To be fair, this might come from some older "correct usage" debate that I am unaware of. To a one, my professors on the subject were rather young so I wouldn't necessarily know if there is some old school thought on the matter.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 55145
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/14/17 1:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.



_________________
Come love come, the road lies low
The way is long and hard I know
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6584
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/14/17 2:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
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.

You are going to have to show me a source on this, since I find it hard to believe that all the textbooks are wrong. Also, I can find numerous acedemic sources which use the term "premises" in only a short search.
http://www.uky.edu/~rosdatte/phi120/lesson1a.htm

https://people.umass.edu/klement/100/logic.html

https://msu.edu/user/blmiller/BasicLogic/PremissesandConclusions.htm

Here is Encyclopedia Britannica using premises: https://www.britannica.com/topic/logic/Scope-and-basic-concepts#ref535919

"Argument: a sequence of statements such that some of them (the premises) purport to give reasons to accept another of them, the conclusion"

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd Edition (Cambridge University Press), editor Robert Audi, 43.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4152
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/14/17 2:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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
SDHoops



Joined: 09 Nov 2007
Posts: 681



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/14/17 2:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote


Me to the purple rose colored glasses including the W




Last edited by SDHoops on 06/14/17 2:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6584
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/14/17 2:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
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

Very Happy Fair enough. That was what I guessed in my other post, since you are seldom inaccurate. Since I knew that "premises" was/is commonly used in academic writings and references it seemed this was the most likely reason for your statement.

Funny enough, even though I am a post-modernist and would therefore be inclined to such fluidity of language, I was not even aware that there was such a stance. The debate over it never even came up during my studies. That being the case, I love that I know about this now!



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 15259
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/14/17 9:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Jet Jaguar wrote:
What happened to this thread?


Have you ever tried to herd cats?

Now, have you ever tried to teach cats to herd?

Okay. Now, try teaching cats to herd cats.

(In other words, one of the things I find most amusing about Board Junkies- myself included- is how easily we're distracted and how difficult it is to keep people from going off on tangents.)



_________________
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8495



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/17 10:03 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Queenie wrote:
Jet Jaguar wrote:
What happened to this thread?


Have you ever tried to herd cats?

Now, have you ever tried to teach cats to herd?

Okay. Now, try teaching cats to herd cats.

(In other words, one of the things I find most amusing about Board Junkies- myself included- is how easily we're distracted and how difficult it is to keep people from going off on tangents.)


Tangents? Only tangents? Conic sections are important too -- think about the proper arc for a shot and of course conic sections jump into your mind.

And I thought everybody used Aristotle and zone attack in the same breath.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
StevenHW



Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 10040
Location: Sacramento, California


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/17 2:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Queenie wrote:
Have you ever tried to herd cats?

Now, have you ever tried to teach cats to herd?

Okay. Now, try teaching cats to herd cats.


(In other words, one of the things I find most amusing about Board Junkies- myself included- is how easily we're distracted and how difficult it is to keep people from going off on tangents.)


I guess you never saw this commercial... Razz

https://youtu.be/vTwJzTsb2QQ



_________________
"My mechanic told me, 'I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder'." - comedian Steven Wright
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 55145
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/17 2:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
Conic sections are important too -- think about the proper arc for a shot and of course conic sections jump into your mind.


I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus,
In conics I can floor peculiarities parabolous



_________________
Come love come, the road lies low
The way is long and hard I know
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6584
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/15/17 2:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
ClayK wrote:
Conic sections are important too -- think about the proper arc for a shot and of course conic sections jump into your mind.


I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus,
In conics I can floor peculiarities parabolous

Man, I love that play. I have ever since I heard Geordi sing that song on ST:TNG and looked it up for the first time.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin