Hi Platt --
[Platt, syllogized]:
1) humans are aware
2) humans are composed of particles
3) :. particles are aware.
[Craig]:
This reasoning has got to go, else:
1´) humans are bipedal
2´) humans are composed of particles
3´) :. particles are bipedal.
[Platt]:
Does this reasoning have to go, too?
"If chemistry professors exercise choice, and chemistry professors are
composed exclusively of atoms, then it follows that atoms must exercise
choice too." (Lila, 12)
'Fraid so, Platt. A common flaw of categorical syllogisms is the assumption
that if you have one characteristic of a group, you have all of the
characteristics. This is also referred to as the fallacy of the
undistributed middle. A syllogism with an undistributed middle term is one
that attempts to equate two subjects by appealing to a shared
characteristic.
Thus, for example:
1) students carry backpacks
2) my wife carries a backpack
3) :. my wife is a student.
Or -- following Pirsig's construction:
1) birds can fly
2) birds are composed of cells
4) :.cells can fly.
But I also have a problem with Pirsig's premise that "chemistry professors
are composed exclusively of atoms". This would imply that if nuclear
scientists were able to configure atoms in precisely the arrangement that
constitutes the anatomy of a chemistry professor, they would create a
chemistry professor ...complete with the ability to "exercise choice", of
course.
Surely you don't believe this.
Regards,
Ham
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
