I found this Melanie & Mike's page in the Burnside site. Perhaps it is worth discussing. I do not accept M&M' view.
By the way, we've always been puzzled by the following syllogism:
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. [Therefore] Socrates is mortal.
It seems obvious on the face of it but, when it is examined more deeply, one realizes that there is a flaw: one cannot say that "all men are mortal" until one knows whether or not Socrates is mortal. What would Aristotle have said of that?
I don't know much about the details of Aristotle's thought, but I think he would have said that the major premiss is part of the logical structure of the world. Being mortal is an essential property of being a man. And since Socrates possesses the property of being a man, therefore Socrates possesses any other properties logically contained in it. The inclusion of mortality inside humanity is not inductive but essential.
NicholasW comments: I think he would have said that the major premise is part of the logical structure of the world. Being mortal is an essential property of being a man.
And in the long run, it doesn't matter. The validity of a syllogism is not dependent on the truth of its premises. The syllogism:
All lizards have feathers All robins are lizards Therefore, all robins have feathers.
is logically valid. The lack of truth of the major and minor premises has no bearing on its validity nor does it make the conclusion untrue.
All lizards etc. As my old logic professor, Dr. Albert Hammond, used to warn us, whenever you see a proposition in the form of a syllogism which contains the universal tag "all": BEWARE -- scrutinize the veracity of the premises with all possible care. As Faldage notes, 'all' can produce a perfectly logical conclusion, but not necessarily a true conclusion.
All syllogisms are arguments from major to minor premise Socrates is not a premise Therefore, "All men are mortal..." is not a syllogism
(mortality is essential, as was said elsewhere)
***
Is the following true?
Since the majority of people who have ever lived are living still, probability does not support the major premise of the syllogism in question, namely, that all men are mortal.
***
And here is an interesting piece of rhetoric: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights..." No, I'm not making a political statement. This fragment contains at least three performative utterances. It is a revolution unto itself.
Since the majority of people who have ever lived are living still, probability does not support the major premise of the syllogism in question, namely, that all men are mortal.
It's not true, but I once thought it was. On being questioned, I tracked down where I thought I'd got it from, and found it hadn't said it. But perhaps the claim is circulating and I picked it up from somewhere.
If you look at the Earth's population estimates, you see something like this, (which is very rough): 1 thousand million in 1800, 2 thousand million in 1900, 3 in 1930, 4 in 1960, and increasing. Project these forward and back and add them up to either 100 000 or 3 000 000 years ago, it makes no difference which, and you find that our present population is of the order of one fifth of those who have ever lived. But it should reach the majority within a hundred years.
(Repeats disclaimer about vagueness, but it gives the right picture at least.)
Since the majority of people who have ever lived are living still, probability does not support the major premise of the syllogism in question, namely, that all men are mortal.
Also, since the vast majority of people still alive have not gotten to the point where they would be expected to be dead yet, probability *still does not prove the major premise to be unlikely. Interestingly, we having something akin to the computer halting problem. We can't declare the major premise to be proven false until an infinite amount of time has gone by and someone is still alive.
Interestingly, we having something akin to the computer halting problem. We can't declare the major premise to be proven false until an infinite amount of time has gone by and someone is still alive.
Or like proving there really is a new economy?
Dear inselpeter: have you proved that Socrates is still alive?
No, but I've had a hell of a time convincing him he isn't.
I think he's proved he doesn't know what a syllogism is.
Probably, logic has never been my strong suit. [ignoring titters emoticon] Explain?
Since the majority of people who have ever lived are living still, probability does not support the major premise of the syllogism in question, namely, that all men are mortal.
I have always declared that I am immortal, and will continue to maintain that fact to my dying day!
Syllogism: All syllogisms are arguments from major to minor premise Socrates is not a premise Therefore, "All men are mortal..." is not a syllogism
Is this a syllogism? A syllogism necessarily characterises a flow from two connected premises to the conclusion. I don't think that your first statement is correct. The second one is correct, but the third one, I feel, is a non-sequitor; it does not follow from the second.
Regards, Manoj.
PS: I read somewhere about a great book or an articles, proving many false things using non-sequitors. Does anybody know about it?
The discussion on logic reminded me of a passage from the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy. It was explaing how the population of the universe was zero. It went as follows: There are a finite number of planets that are habitable in the universe while there are an infinite number of planets. As everyone knows any finite number divided by infinitiy is pretty much zero, therefore the population of the universe must be zero.
It is unfortunate, but I see people making conclusions just as valid every day in the newspaper.
And to follow up that quote, while attempting to pique the interest of our gutter police, the Guide continues Population: None.
It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero.
Art: None.
The function of art is to hold the mirror up to nature, and there simply isn't a mirror big enough.
Sex: None.
Well, in fact there is an awful lot of this, largely because of the total lack of money, trade, banks, art, or anything else that might keep all the non-existent people of the Universe occupied. However, it is not worth embarking on a long discussion of it now because it really is terribly complicated. For further information see Guide Chapters seven, nine, ten, eleven, fourteen, sixteen, seventeen, nineteen, twenty-one to eighty-four inclusive.
Max, are you trying to imply that Rouspeter might be wrong? I've been working for years on the assumption that HHGTTG was absolutely right about the population of the galaxy, and that the morons I generally have to deal with on a daily basis (with, of course, the potential exception of the members of this august forum) were simply figments of my fevered imagination, conjured up by me and for me to keep me from feeling lonely.
The next thing that this board will debunk will be bistromathics. I don't know!
Dear CK and Max: Sadly, it appears that there is a Gilbert O'Sullivan. But his talent seems minuscule compared with that of either Gilbert or Sullivan. The only thing he has going for him is the similarity in names.
The only thing he has going for him is the similarity in names.
As one who grew up hearing Mr. O'Sullivan's biggest hit often, I was well aware of his existence, but did not know that he had changed his first name specifically to create the similiarity to G & S. The other consequence of so much exposure to that most Magdalen of songs is that I have a craving for Schweppes® lemonade every time I think of it.
It seems to me that some very bright people take seriously ideas that to me seem stupid. At the moment I am thinking about the idea that a thousand monkeys typing indefinitely would eventally type Shakespeare's complete works. In the first place there is no reason to be confident that there is any such thing as infinite time. And even if the logistics of training and maintaining the monkeys could be met,I believe the time elapsed prior to completion of a single correct line would be so great that there could be no hope of completing the whole task.
>It seems to me that some very bright people take seriously ideas that to me seem stupid. At the moment I am thinking about the idea that a thousand monkeys typing indefinitely would eventally type Shakespeare's complete works.
It is of course a silly idea, I mean, a typewriter? Now really, how 20th century! Just give them Word 2000 with the built-in proofing tools and just see what they can do! I meen eye all ways use my spell chequer and it works four me.
Of course it goes without saying that you would need someone to reboot the computers every few days when they crash and update/patch the softwre as appropriate.
<<t is of course a silly idea, I mean, a typewriter? Now really, how 20th century! Just give them Word 2000 with the built-in proofing tools and just see what they can do! I meen eye all ways use my spell chequer and it works four me.>>
Those thousand monkeys will never do it. Their strokes aren't random, so they won't generate Shakespear out of randomness. However, they'll do that a lot quicker on computers, and with more revisons and more trees felled.
Incidentally, have you ever fed a poem through a grammar checker? Make sure you save a copy of the original.
No. Even though the minor premise is itselt a false syllogism, I only see three terms there.
***
As has been said, the truth of a syllogism is not empirical and has only to do with the truth values of its arguments, as defined. It is purely logical and, as such, makes no reference to the "real" world. In addition, there is no logical structure to the world, there are verifiable phenomena.
IP
As terrified as I was of coming back here, I stand by my original syllogism.
OK, he exists, I just can't figure out how to get to the site and still have time to do something besides waiting for it to load. I had never heard of O'sullivan.
The island, the rock maintains: I stand by my original syllogism
Well, I guess that's OK then, inselpeter. As long as you stand over there by your original syllogism (sic) I needn't fear tripping over you in the dark.
Sure, Lad, and if his name was Sullivan there is an Irish patriarch in the line who bestowed the name! ... deny it tho he might Sullivan had Irish bloodlines. wow
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site.
Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to
hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.
[Saunters off into the sunset whistling some Gilbert O'Sullivan tune or another emoticon]
