Re: syllogism
From: Acme Diagnostics (LFinezapthis_at_partpostmark.net)
Date: 10/02/04
- Next message: Archimedes Plutonium: "2 most important questions not asked at the 1st debate: Invasion of Iraq revenge or security & Iraq civil war"
- Previous message: Mike Oliver: "Re: Comparing DC Proof with Metamath proof software"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: syllogism"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: syllogism"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: syllogism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 1 Oct 2004 19:06:38 -0500
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote:
>On 1 Oct 2004 02:05:10 -0500, "Acme Diagnostics"
>> lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote:
>>>On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:42:34 GMT, patty wrote:
Thanks for replying Lester. It's fun talking to you.
>>>>Hopefully by that you don't wish to imply that the syllogism gives us
>>>>demonstrably true and definitively correct results.
>>
>>I think syllogisms give demonstrably true results; that is,
>>empirically confirmable. Don't know what "definitively" means.
>
>The term definitive refers to objectively stated criteria for truth
>and correctness.
That sounds like a common definition, and since Patty was
criticizing an aspect of logic, I though it might have a formal
logic definition of which I am unaware. I'm not being sarcastic.
Patty knows lots of things about formal logic that I don't know.
>I'm not sure why you consider that syllogisms
>necessarily give demonstrably true results, especially empirically
>confirmable results. Many syllogisms involving negation do not.
I do however know the formal definitions of "necessarily" and
"soft universal." <g>
<Snip Socratic dialectic and chess analogy>
>
>Well, dialectic can yield truth but provides no evidence in itself
>that a true conclusion is reached.
Agree, which is all I think the dialectic does provide. "True" is
a flag word here, so distinguishing from "valid."
>The value of the syllogism lies in
>its ability to show the evidence of truth through objective middle
>terms.
Agree. That is a good way to capture the meat of a syllogism. I
like to state it another way: given three concentric circles, the
small one will be inside the large one. That's more analogous to
real life, but not terribly so. One needs to add a probability of
the small one being in the middle one, the middle one being
inside the big one, and then infer the probability that the
little one is inside the big one. I posted the "oilspot in the
driveway" example last year in c.a.p. Nobody cleaned it up. <g>
No implication intended that you don't know Venn Diagrams (or
need to). I'm just being Larry.
>Merely dialectical discourse doesn't do this. People start off in one
>problematic direction and delsutorily meander to some ambiguously
>related collateral line of reasoning. It happens all the time on the
>usenet.
Agree. The Gracey Allen Syndrome. It drives me crazy when people
don't finish a point. It happens in real-life too. I remind, but
not too much. It's not polite. But it really does irk me. I'll
argue a point all night, whatever, but it needs to be resolved,
at least to an "agree to disagree." Otherwise you don't
accomplish anything.
Incidently, there's a list of ways that people announce a lost
position in logical argumentation to avoid eating humble pie,
observed by an opponent (because next time it will be them).
Several are variations on changing the subject. So, technically,
when one changes the subject an opponent can claim a win. That
assumes arguing to win, i.e. a debate. Anyway, sometimes
reminding people of this will cure them a little, perhaps maybe.
It's worth a shot. <g>
>That's basically what these threads are and why so much time
>is wasted coming to any well defined point much less any well defined
>conclusion.
Agree.
>It's also the reason there is so much ill will and arguing
>back and forth.
Especially when a kook.troll dominates a group for many years,
distributing trace paranoia throughout, even into unrelated
discussions. There are groups where everyone is friendly and
email each other once in a while, including personal info about
one another. Those are the best groups. Kooks and trolls are
not a problem in those groups because posters have a sense
of familiarity and responsibility to the group.
>Nobody quite understands exactly what's being
>discussed or in exactly which terms. It's one of the failings of what
>I call analogical reasoning.
Fair enough for you to define your own terms, but why use a
variation of "analysis" to describe what is largely ambiguity?
(if so) Isn't that somewhat a corruption of the word "analysis"
or "analytical?" Whereas IIRC before you promoted that word over
the dialectic? Why not call it ambiguiticity or something? <g>
My "good faith" qualification is that I often use the word
"analysis" in my posts, and always as the highest form of
productive dialog. So I'm a little personally invested in it.
Maybe I shouldn't be so.
>The terms and methods of discussion are
>just not clear. They're subjective.
Agree. I've also thought to notice that definitional problems are
the #1 cause of confusion in (serious) Usenet discussion
generally. I have devices to address that. I reject words like
conscience, mind, etc., anything that has more than 10 columns
of definitions in my dictionary. <g>.
If someone rejects my word I will replace it with "X=" where X is
whatever definition my argument requires. (I mean "necessitates"
<g>) My language dogma, posted 100 times, is "Always use the most
common, least pretentious, least problematic *sufficient* words."
I don't like "dialectic" because it has terminology associated
with it that most people I talk to forgot 30 years ago. It has
the communism loading. That's what I mean by "problematic," also
it's probably just a teency bit pretentious sounding to some. I
prefer dialog, and people know what kind of dialog I mean since
the context is always obvious, as here. But let's continue with
dialectic, as entirely appropriate here.
>Basically in dialectical discourse everyone is having to guess at the
>implied middle terms and their relation to one another.
But some are better than others at doing that. I think we're now
talking about context. In logical argumentation, I think 9/10ths
of everything is context, and 9/10ths of context is experience.
That can take us out of college and even out of our youth. <g>
>Implications
>are subjective in this regard. Whatever they represent is inherently
>ambiguous from one line of reasoning to the next.
Agree. But the saving grace of Usenet is that clarification is
trivial, given both cooperative and good faith dialog. Are you
saying that some are so communication-challenged
that they can't even spot when a word is a problem? I haven't
seen much of that. Maybe we hang out in different bars. <g>
An amazing group is alt.usenet.puns There they intentionally
talk as ambiguously as possible, but seem to have equal
(or better) understanding to these intellectual groups. It is a
practical eye-opener for anyone interested in the ambiguity
of language. The main difference there: cooperation (aka charity).
A humor audience is the most cooperative. It has to be. Shows
that people can do it if they want to.
>The syllogism changes all that by making middle terms explicit and
>directly available by inspection. But that doesn't mean it resolves
>subjective reasoning processes by which components of a syllogistic
>insight are arrived at.
Agree again. I believe the techniques attempting to overcome that
are called "inferencing in context" and another 20 things that
mean about the same.
Regarding the formal v. real-world aspects of syllogisms, I've
heard the former described as "a starting point for agreement"
and I think it is crucial for that purpose (and others).
>This is undoubtedly more accurately reflected
>in dialectic processes.
>
>By the way, dictionaries are easily available online.
Hehe! Several, so I can pick the definition I like! <g> Patty and
I have some context. I pulled the "X=" trick on her one time, and
some other stuff.
I can link you to several Usenet discussions in which I
participated that overcame the liabilities you've listed. In one,
several posters were arguing the "god question" in typical
fashion. One poster's argument interested me. I replied to that
poster, beginning with:
1. An apology to the others for interrupting.
2. A compliment of the poster's argument.
3. An offer to attempt to help improve his argument.
Thereafter followed several 500 line exchanges that were great
fun because they were 110% cooperative and in good faith.
Compliments and "thanks for correcting me"'s here and there. Not
overdoing it, mostly implied. One contentious issue easily
overcome with not a discouraging word.
Another poster replied that he envied us because we were having
such an obvious intellectual adventure! How many times does that
happen? The other posters dropped out immediately. I can't speak
for my arguing partner, but I learned some small things, and one
very important thing that almost by itself completed an argument
I had been working on for 10 years!
I feel I can repeat this just about anytime, and pass up many
opportunities to do so. I just don't have the time. It has to be
an issue directly in my current focus. Anyway, I find that
logical argumentation, or "dialectic as analytical," can be very
intellectually productive. Also that most people can do it, you
just have to approach them in the right way. I even had a
productive, friendly argument in a *political* group with someone
who started out by flaming! People want to have good discussions.
It's the usenet paranoia, kooks, trolls, grandstanding, etc. and
reaction to those. I'm a grandstander too, so sometimes part of
the problem.
Thanks,
Larry
- Next message: Archimedes Plutonium: "2 most important questions not asked at the 1st debate: Invasion of Iraq revenge or security & Iraq civil war"
- Previous message: Mike Oliver: "Re: Comparing DC Proof with Metamath proof software"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: syllogism"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: syllogism"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: syllogism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
