Re: syllogism

From: Acme Diagnostics (LFinezapthis_at_partpostmark.net)
Date: 10/06/04 

Date: 6 Oct 2004 01:52:06 -0500

 lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote:
>On 5 Oct 2004 07:41:11 -0500, "Acme Diagnostics"
><LFinezapthis@partpostmark.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>>Sorry I was vague, but didn't know your context. I was expecting
>>perhaps a real-life example, i.e. an actual example from your
>
>Acme, let me give you my real life take on analogical reasoning
>versus syllogistic inference <snip>

But we've already stated our respective dogmas on the ambiguity
of language, and of middle terms. I then attempted to examine
these using examples. I thanked you for one example which I
analyzed somewhat, to which you did not respond. I presented
several examples in my last post to which you did not respond;
however I thank you again for your response to the "Snuffles"
(contrived) example previous to that.

You previously stated (paraphrase) that you didn't like examples
to make arguments, or similar. Unfortunately, I'm at the
opposite extreme. I depend entirely on examples to validate
philosophy and my philosophical activities have largely been
devoted to gathering them.

In constrast, you continue with more dogma. The paragraphs
start with an argumentative proposition, then continue as if that
proposition was agreed to, and contain more argumentative
propositions. That's why I call it dogma. IMO it does not rise to
what I would call argumentation responsive enough to be
productive for learning, though of course it has many other uses.

Thus, at this point, I feel we are just using one another's posts
basically to make our speeches. I appreciate that, I do it a
lot (as here <g>). It is necessary to have a starting point for
analysis. But I've published my dogma enough. I instead need
to learn through applying the dogma to experience to test it.
That typically involves examples.

There remain a few statements of interest to me, which I'll
comment on.

>As noted previously, conclusions are invariably reached before
>premises. <snip>

That was not agreed to. "Invariably" makes it a universal, easy
to refute. Thus the remainder of the paragraph became moot.

>No one under any circumstances in my estimation discovers
>anything syllogistically. <snip>

It may be a minor avenue of discovery, but I have a lifetime of
examples to refute that. Given the apparent problem with
examples, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

>Those who advance arguments first need to reach some conclusion
>via analogical reasoning but then demonstrate that conclusion by
>advancing subordinate premises demonstrating that conclusion. In
>other words, he needs to resolve the critical path supporting his
>basic conclusion.

We agreed that that often happens, maybe usually happens. We
made distinctions which are now missing, e.g. how accomplished
reasoners are, who does that expecting successful results,
subjects that have good empirical tests like battles as opposed
to politics, etc. If our continuations do not include
distinctions already agreed to, or if we are not responsive to
determine agreement, then it is difficult to arrive at tests of
our ideas.

<snip about "reality" or "what is real." - comment below>

>(If you don't mind I'll skip most of the material below because
>it doesn't raise substantially different issues. If I miss
>something important, please put it back on the table.)

Please excuse my snippage of material that I found not to raise
substantative new issues as well. (Said with a grin - I hope you
are not taking this too seriously. We've established basic
philosophical differences, now we've just argued them too long.
Time for a beer. <g>)

>Believers, true believers, non believers, it's all the same to me.
>They all think and they all think in the same way mechanically.

IMO, you must have an exotic definition of "think" to make that
statement. Replacing that with "reasoning," true believers reason
by faith. Others reason by logic and empirical facts. I've asked
for a third choice many times, none has been forthcoming. Why
I keep asking. But it seems you are saying there is no faith v.
logic or faith v. science distinction.

>>I gave two examples where words were not ambiguous. I have
>>designed and implemented inventory systems, though I didn't want
>>to introduce something with which all readers may not be familiar.
>>Anyway, syllogisms work spectacularly and there is no language
>>ambiguity (unreliability) problem. Having run three business, I
>>can report that language ambiguity is seldom a problem in that
>>activity (ignoring "purposely vague" as in lawyering). I've
>>talked to a person who held the Navy speed record for carrier
>>flight deck operations during a period of wartime and thus was
>>sent around the fleet to organize same. I asked him precisely
>>this question, exact quote: "Was there any problem with the
>>ambiguity of language?" His answer, again an exact quote,
>>"Absolutely not." (Then explained why, involving "The cost of
>>being wrong" and "Special words within a task.")
>
>Let me put the problem of word and concept ambiguity to you this
>way,

Sorry, that is not responsive but instead ignores those examples
and introduces a new block of dogma which I snip for reasons
stated.

>(By the way, the only way certainty in the
>military arises is through simplification and fiat. I should know
>[ref: Lester Zick, grad. U. S. Naval Academy, 1966]. It's how
>they can be wrong despite always being right.

That is an excellent credential. A *tough* job completed!
I don't know about certainty in the military, but I do know
something about reliability. I asked the aformentioned expert
how many carrier landings without a (serious) accident
(peacetime) and he estimated 10,000. Don't know what it is today
or when you went to school, but it is certainly some high number.
That would be impossible if there was a problem of ambiguous
terms in the incalculable number of syllogisms involved in that
many landings that must work correctly. I will also use this
example to refute any claim of the lack of an objective reality.
If each person involved had different versions or reality, or
even perception, or if there wasn't a common reality for all of
them, those planes would be crashing all over the place.

True, the universe could have been created 5 minutes ago,
or Usenet could be my delusion. All of logic is certainly a
construct in the Great Scheme of Things, something that's been
known for thousands of years (I'm told). That's useful for
defining limits or boundaries. Beyond that, trying to define
"Existence" is simply an unproductive use of thinking time. It
may be fun to think about as evidenced by the threads in many
groups, but I just don't have that time. I don't think our
technology on this planet is anywhere near that stage of
technological development, assuming it ever will be. The extreme
variety of guesses attendant to the "Drake Formula" thread just
completed in rec.arts.sf.science evidences this, and that is
confined to just *this* meta-universe. <g>

>>Yes, in inventory, carrier operations (including high
>>technology), or oil-spots in driveways, etc., those middle terms
>>are explicit.

>Well, yes and no.

What does that say? You continue on economics, but that is
not included in the above list. I've already agreed in a previous
post that economics as an area typified by the lack of good tests
(mainly because all other things do not remain equal.) and thus
subject to ambiguous terms (and other things). So your
continuation next remains unresponsive.

>People make middle terms explicit in economics,
>but they don't always make the right choice of middle term.
>Economics is one of those absolutely subjective realms of value
>where value is some objective measure of utility but no one can
>tell for certain just whose utility or what. That's why we need a
>free flow of capital to determine the most productive uses.

You say economics is subjective, but then state a *highly*
argumentative opinion as fact. You would get little but argument
about that in most groups where that is usually discussed.
Coupled with your "ambiguity of language" argument, you might be
accused of holding that ambiguity of language is a problem only
when others use it, not you. That is a well-known trap of
unobjectivity. That is a well-known kook unfalsifiability device.
One off-hand example doesn't evidence much, but nevertheless.

>>and after-hours bullsessions talking with bartenders. The
>>conversations are indeed insightful. However, I must say,
>>conversations with hookers and strippers have been even more

>I also learned a lot about human nature playing pinochle in the
>park.

Very good! I stand corrected. <g>

Thanks for your time, and nice to know you. I'm sure you have
no more interest in continuing this discussion than I. But, as I
always do, I will give you that last word in our discussion if
you like. Good luck with your investigation into consciousness,
mind, free will, etc.

Larry

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots
    ... >> than yours and his dogma is much more polished as well. ... >> everyone's language but his of course). ... ambiguity of language, so when adults mention it, it is almost always ... unfalsifiablity device of kook dogma and one of the easiest ways of ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: why cannot assign to function call
    ... refers to" and "change what 'b' refers to". ... Even in spoken language, ... I'd be interested to know to what extent this ambiguity exists in languages ... *The Morning Star and The Evening Star is... ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: syllogism
    ... >reasoning is that the middle terms are missing and I wouldn't ... reasoning or someone you know well. ... But Socrates qualifies very nicely! ... out of his example then focuses on the ambiguity of the word ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: The Case Against RosAsm (#2)
    ... that should make it clear as crystal and unambiguous (natural language ... the very natural ambiguity in the words we use...infamously, ... exploiting the natural _ambiguity_ of natural languages...you know, ... series of these very minor "context changes" from sentence to ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Arabic -- qawsitaliyya?
    ... the problem of teaching with this disadvantage is obvious. ... >> evolved as most language elements do to improve clarity in the ... But reducing the ambiguity is only part of the problem for the new ... reader -- a large portion of learning to read is to recognize the ...
    (sci.lang)