Re: syllogism

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 10/02/04 

Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:29:38 GMT

On 1 Oct 2004 19:06:38 -0500, "Acme Diagnostics"
<LFinezapthis@partpostmark.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>
> 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.

No problem. Thank you for the compliment. I also enjoy good
conversation that leads somewhere.

>>>>>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.

A little learning can be a dangerous thing though. Most words I use
tend to have common definitions. Offhand I can't think of any that
don't.

>>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>

On the other hand I don't know the definition of "soft universal".
Sounds like something one hopes but can't prove is universal.

><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>

Yeah, the problem here, Acme, is that you're analogizing what needs to
be a pretty clear statement of the value of a syllogism.

>No implication intended that you don't know Venn Diagrams (or
>need to). I'm just being Larry.

I studied Venn diagrams many years ago in college. Pictures are
pretty, but they aren't necessarily conducive to correct reasoning.
The old saw "A picture is worth a thousand words" can easily be
reversed in science.

>>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.

Well, sure, but here you have to realize as well that there are
different purposes served. I tend to think and speak in complete
sentences. But over the course of the last ten years I've deliberately
cultivated the Gracie syndrome as you so aptly put it just because it
represents a legitimate albeit irritating mental effect just for that
reason. But of course I wouldn't use it to explain anything serious.

>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>

There are a lot of forensic techniques available, many or perhaps even
most discovered by the ancient Greco-Roman logicians and orators. In
fact I find it incredible how many incorrect techniques of argument
are allowed in debating.

The problem is that we aren't just debating. We're supposed to be
doing science. (You notice how often the lack of a good verb form
results in the neologism "doing") Yet I wind up spending most of my
time trying to focus subjects and dealing with what I call exemplary
denial, attempts to deny an assertion by example, which is something
most people do very badly.

I also change the subject in the course of refining an objective when
I realize that the nominal objective isn't really what's important.
It's fascinating to watch threads progress topically.

>>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.

Well, here I have to be a little circumspect, Acme, because friendly
exchanges don't really lead to much progress in science in my own
experience. I've been accused of being a troll because I deal in very
contentious lopsided insights that tend to upset people, and I don't
apologize for it but insist on the point. Just yesterday a poster here
killfiled me for a rhetorically objectionable question in pointed
terms.

It's the old problem of the mule and the 2x4. First you have to get
their attention. For what it's worth I've usually found the greatest
progress can be made on the most divisive issues. They just generate
the most heat and hopefully for some a comparable amount of light.

>>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>

Not actually. It's a back formation of my own from "analogy" not
"analysis". The term analogical just rolls off the tongue. I usually
use it to describe thought processes and the term dialectic to
describe verbal and dialogic (!) techniques. Probably a distinction
without a difference, but I also find some terminological variety
important. Both deal with thought in subjective ways.

>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.

Well, I often use the word analysis in my posts, but in reference to
objective predicate sequences, which is why I try to use other terms
appropriate to other situations and meanings when I don't mean
"analysis" in my own specialized usage.

>>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>.

Well, here I have to demur because the whole purpose of what I write
is to get at the true meaning of those words in strict mechanical
terms of cause and effect, and the mechanical significance of terms
like consciousness, mind, free will, etc. are exactly my target.

>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."

Absolutely concur. The interesting thing I've found, though, is that
quite often the least pretentious word is one that has been used in
various, often technical, contexts but has a very simple meaning.
Words like dimension, argument, as well as dialectic, shorn of their
modern pretensions, are often exactly what needs to be said.

>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.

Well, I can certainly agree. But I also enjoy the line of continuity
linking the ancient and modern usage because it shows how original
concepts and modern baggage came to be. When one recognizes that
dialectical materialism really only represents the scientific doctrine
of materialism conveyed through analogical bull*** for political
purposes, it really says a lot. A word like dialog is also accurate
but conveys very little of historical significance, and personally I
like to load and prejudice my arguments with as many historically
significant implications as possible because it helps show exactly how
and why we got into the intellectual pickle we're in.

>>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>

Or better yet we can move on up the intellectual ladder by making our
arguments objective and explicit, which is what science is all about.

>>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>

Well, the clarification is trivial provided the issues are trivial (no
offense) and there is good faith dialog. However, on truly important
issues I find this not at all to be the case. There is a high degree
of prejudice and deliberate manipulative misrepresentation that has to
be countered. On the highly contentious issues I address, I find that
cooperative good faith is meager at best and often entirely absent.

>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.

I think it shows smart people can do it if they want to.I have various
thoughts on these kinds of issues. One is that if we have so many
smart people, why do we have so many pernicious, unsolved and
unresolved issues in science, ala the mind, consciousness, free will.
If they're hanging out on .puns newsgroups (no offense intended), it
occurs to me they've just given up on these problems. And I haven't.

>>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).

And something that occurred to me long, long, ago is that conclusions
are reached prior to premises. Premises are developed after the fact
solely to justify known conclusions.

>>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.

Yeah, Larry, I know what you mean. So am I. And two of the best, least
contentious threads I ever participated in were with believers who
allowed me to develop and pursue lines of reasoning of my own and
refine my insights and arguments.

But I have a problem apart from the obvious time constraints you
mention. (It's rare that I get to spend an hour composing one reply.)
In a way I also need the strongest, most contentious, even the most
fractious, highly charged and opinionated exchanges to find the
strongest arguments, to hone and refine my arguments to the bare
minimum ("Everything is differences because anything different from
differences would be an oxymoron." for example) And not just with
hacks but with academics and others of wide experience.

I also admit to enjoying these exchanges in the sense of vanquishing
ignorance. However, my primary and ultimate purpose is to come to
terms with my own ignorance vis-a-vis the mind, consciousness,
knowledge, free will, etc.

Regards - Lester

Quantcast