John wrote: > I actually took a course on logic and debate in college. > Really. Maybe my instructor was screwed up.
Instructor? Maybe a graduate student in the college of arts and letters? :-) John wrote: > There is only ONE correct syllogism, David, and something > like 13 or 17 (I forget) ways of writing a syllogism poorly. Aristotle was the one who established the syllogistic method and if memory serves me correctly, he identified something like 19 types of syllogisms. Many logicians have constructed rules whereby one can determine whether or not he has a problem with a syllogism that he has constructed. These rules generally seem to number from about four to a dozen. Nevertheless, many courses in logic teach more than one type of syllogism. With the goal of simplifying the subject, some instructors identify four types of syllogisms, some identify three types, and some two. If you learned that there was only one type of syllogism, and you are a legalist with your particular concept of a syllogism, that could explain why we have trouble communicating on this. :-) John wrote: > You have a major and minor premise and a conclusion. Only in the categorical type of syllogism. Strictly speaking, perhaps I should not have gone along with your "major and minor" form that you laid out for me. In the type of syllogism that I have offered, it obviously does not matter if the premises are called major and minor or simply premise one and premise two. I was hoping we could avoid going down the road of discussing types of syllogisms. Besides categorical type syllogisms like the one you seem to be stuck on, some use the label of conditional syllogisms, which use if / then statements, and disjunctive syllogisms, which use either / or statements. Some logicians lump several types as hypothetical syllogisms and contrast them with categorical syllogisms. John wrote: > The major premise is the larger of the two considerations > and is a fact without debate. Wrong. The major premise might also be false. The proper construction of a syllogism does not determine the truthfulness of a statement. A syllogism may be constructed properly, but the conclusion still be false. The whole idea of a syllogism is that the conclusion will definitely be true only if both the two premises are true. For example, consider the following categorical type syllogism: All animals have hair. A catfish is an animal. Therefore, a catfish has hair. This is a properly constructed categorical syllogism. However, the conclusion is false because the major premise is false. Not all animals have hair. The usefulness of the syllogism is that we know the conclusion is logically true and must be true if the premises are true. It allows us to narrow our focus on researching the truthfulness of the premises. John wrote: > The minor prmise [sic] is more specific and is related > to the major premise. Only in a categorical type syllogism. Syllogisms of the form, a=b, b=c, therefore a=c does not follow this model whereby the second premise is more specific in its relation to the first premise. John wrote: > Let's consider your "syllogism:" > > John is comfortable keeping his sin. > "Keeping his sin" is equivalent to saying "in sin." > Therefore, John is comfortable in sin. > > Both the major and minor premise are unture. > The first is a lie. Then you have just agreed that what you originally said was a lie because you originally said that you were comfortable with the idea of a man like you keeping your sin and being called righteous. It would be more important for us to talk about this rather than disagreeing with the form of a syllogism. Concerning our knowledge of truth, if the premise is false, it really doesn't matter if the syllogism is properly constructed. John wrote: > The second is a conclusion not > related to the major premise. Wrong. It is related to the major premise by the phrase "keeping his sin." This is found in both the first and second premise. Perhaps what you mean to say is that it is not a subset of the major premise, which is the primary way that categorical type syllogisms are constructed. This is not necessary in order to have a valid logical syllogism. You are confusing the rules for constructing a categorical type syllogism with rules for constructing other types of syllogisms. I don't really care if you want to drop this subject. I almost did not want to respond to this, but I figure maybe somebody on the list might get interested in logic and check out some of the issues that I discuss here. I really don't expect you to do your homework and see that the subject of logical syllogisms goes far beyond your introductory college course in logic and debate. Who knows, maybe you will pleasantly surprise me with a gracious reply. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
