Begging the Question

[Coito ergo sum]

So, yes, if by breaking one line into two, you are pulling the conclusion out of the premise, then you can make it no longer beg the question.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy. It's not much of a fallacy if you can correct it just by dividing one line into two.

You can't correct JUST by dividing one line into two. You correct it by changing the logic so the conclusion is not assumed in the premises.

You pull the conclusion out of one premise, but it's still there contained in the two premises.
.

No. If the conclusion is assumed to be true in either of the premises, then it's begging the question.

All humans are mortal.
Socrates is a human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal

That's NOT begging the question. Period.

[mistermack]

No. If the conclusion is assumed to be true in either of the premises, then it's begging the question.

All humans are mortal.
Socrates is a human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal

That's NOT begging the question. Period.

I disagree.
Because the second line just adds another assumed fact, it's just adding to the premise.
So the premise contains the conclusion. So it's begging the question.
If the second line just contained an argument, it wouldn't be.
A fallacy is a fallacy. Just breaking it up doesn't make it logical.
The first two lines contain the fact that Socrates is mortal, without any furthur logical step or argument being required.
.

[camoguard]

Some syllogisms get just get dated in the light of new evidence like for example:
All the planets orbit the Sun
Earth is a planet
Therefore the Earth orbits the Sun

The conclusion to that syllogism is still true today, but the old premise that all the planets orbit the no longer true since the indirect discovery of numerous extrasolar planets which do not orbit the sun.
Syllogisms can only be a good as the credibility of their major premise and often frequently the major premise begs the question.

yeah. But we're not talking about accidentally getting something right. We're talking about repeatably using mechanics that help us focus our thinking. In this case you find out the first statement is false, therefore, you should stop there. The conclusion is not properly related to the statement.

Related to belief systems, having a god exist isn't the point. Failing to use logic means you can be right and also that you'll never have any principle to explain why it is you are right. So the rest of us should not act upon the believer's "proof".

The old major premise that "all swans are white" was a major premise that was considered beyond doubt for centuries and many people generally thought that it was in a category of syllogisms that it was "unfalsifiable" that is where they stopped - until black swans turned up in Australia

Right. The problem with knowledge is that it has no tool for foresight. If all the swans are white, the possibility of all swans being white is true. When a non-white swan is found, any following bits of logic based on "all swans being white" should be reviewed, updated, or discarded as necessary.

We do the best we can with the information we have. It doesn't make the logic faulty when the premise is false. After all, it is the rules of logic that tell you to stop when the premise is false.

Are you saying that any logical sequence of statement begs to have its premises analyzed? I can agree with that.

[Coito ergo sum]

No. If the conclusion is assumed to be true in either of the premises, then it's begging the question.

All humans are mortal.
Socrates is a human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal

That's NOT begging the question. Period.

I disagree.
Because the second line just adds another assumed fact, it's just adding to the premise.

First line is called the "major premise."

Second line is called the "minor premise."

They are both premises.

Is logic not taught anymore?

So the premise contains the conclusion. So it's begging the question.

The premise does not contain the conclusion, because the conclusion is "socrates is mortal" which is not assumed in either of the premises - it FOLLOWS FROM the premises, which is what a syllogism is.

If the second line just contained an argument, it wouldn't be.

The second line is the minor premise.

A fallacy is a fallacy.

Dude - the syllogism above is not a fallacy. It is THE prime example most commonly used of a syllogism in any logic course. I didn't just make that one up. You'll find that in logic textbooks. Buy one. You'll see.

Just breaking it up doesn't make it logical.

It's logical because the conclusion follows necessarily from the major and minor premises.

The first two lines contain the fact that Socrates is mortal, without any furthur logical step or argument being required.
.

You're arguing that syllogisms are logical fallacies.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[mistermack]

Is logic not taught anymore?

I hope not, I've never read such bollocks. Split a fallacy onto two lines and it becomes logical?

The premise does not contain the conclusion, because the conclusion is "socrates is mortal" which is not assumed in either of the premises - it FOLLOWS FROM the premises, which is what a syllogism is.

The problem is, the greek philosophers were trying to make logic like maths, which it will never be. One person's opinion of what's bleedin' obvious and can be assumed is different to another's. What do I think is wrong with the 'classic' example you give?

No. If the conclusion is assumed to be true in either of the premises, then it's begging the question.

All humans are mortal.
Socrates is a human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal

"All humans are mortal". Presumably that includes all humans called Socrates? So you've already assumed that any human called Socrates is mortal. And then you state "Socrates is a human, therefore Socrates is mortal".
If that's not begging the question, Zeus help us!!
That's why this type of logic is bollocks, because if opinion creeps in, it can never be like maths, which is what it attempts to do.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

Is logic not taught anymore?

I hope not, I've never read such bollocks. Split a fallacy onto two lines and it becomes logical?

It's not "splitting a fallacy onto two lines." It's writing a proper syllogism.

The premise does not contain the conclusion, because the conclusion is "socrates is mortal" which is not assumed in either of the premises - it FOLLOWS FROM the premises, which is what a syllogism is.

The problem is, the greek philosophers were trying to make logic like maths, which it will never be.

? That may be a problem, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the logic of the syllogism. The syllogism works, and you were just flat out dead wrong when you said that the premise contained the conclusion. It doesn't, and I explained why.

One person's opinion of what's bleedin' obvious and can be assumed is different to another's. What do I think is wrong with the 'classic' example you give?

You've said what you think is wrong with it. I dispatched your objection. Anything else?

No. If the conclusion is assumed to be true in either of the premises, then it's begging the question.

All humans are mortal.
Socrates is a human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal

"All humans are mortal". Presumably that includes all humans called Socrates?

So you've already assumed that if Socrates is human, he is mortal. And then you state "Socrates is a human, therefore Socrates is mortal".
If that's not begging the question, Zeus help us!!

It's not begging the question, because "all humans are mortal" is not "assuming" Socrates is mortal. It's not assuming he's human either. Maybe Socrates is a deity in a weird religious cult.

All humans are mortal.
Socrates is a deity in a weird religious cult.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

That logic doesn't work, because it doesn't follow from the major and minor premises that Socrates is mortal.

You see, you assumed that by Socrates we were talking about the Greek philosopher. That is an unwarranted assumption.

That's why this type of logic is bollocks, because if opinion creeps in, it can never be like maths, which is what it attempts to do.
.

Opinion hasn't crept in. What the premises are and whether they are true do not matter in terms of the logic.

We could say:

All heebeejeebies are belanthamums.
Tobbysnark is a heebeejeebie.
Therefore, Tobbysnark is a belanthamum.

It's the same syllogism. And, it doesn't beg the question. For the same reason the humans/mortal/socrates syllogism does not beg the question.

[mistermack]

"all humans are mortal" must include all humans called Socrates.
So all that stuff about deities is irrelevant.

[Coito ergo sum]

"all humans are mortal" must include all humans called Socrates.
So all that stuff about deities is irrelevant.

Get an education.

You're embarrassing yourself.

[mistermack]

"all humans are mortal" must include all humans called Socrates.
So all that stuff about deities is irrelevant.

Get an education.

You're embarrassing yourself.

I'm familiar with that. When someone is shown up, the old ad hominem comes out.
I'm afraid you should be emabarrased YOURSELF.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

"all humans are mortal" must include all humans called Socrates.
So all that stuff about deities is irrelevant.

Get an education.

You're embarrassing yourself.

I'm familiar with that. When someone is shown up, the old ad hominem comes out.
I'm afraid you should be emabarrased YOURSELF.
.

Dude - you think syllogisms are logical fallacies and beg the question. I've explained several times where you're wrong, and you come back with "all humans are mortal" must include all humans called socrates. so all that stuff about deities is irrelevant."

That's your response. After that, I can hardly even believe you're serious, really. I get the feeling you're just messing with me.

But, we'll state it one more way.

All X are Y.
A is an X.
Therefore A is a Y.

That's the syllogism. There is nothing fallacious about it, and it doesn't beg the question, because the conclusion doesn't assume as true either the major or the minor premise. The same is true if you X=humans, Y=mortal, A=Socrates.

Here's a book called "A guide to syllogisms": http://books.google.com/books?id=E8sAAA ... &q&f=false Note, the first syllogism discussed in the book is the very same syllogism you claim to be fallacious and "begging the question."

If you repeat your same objection, let me refer you to this textbook on Aristotelian Syllogisms: http://books.google.com/books?id=oKtFWn ... &q&f=false It's an entire book about the Socratese/mortal/human syllogism you seem to have uncovered as "fallacious" and "begging the question."

You're wrong. Face it.

[mistermack]

You've embarassed yourself, and you can't make it right with a load of twaddle.
I don't expect an apology, but I would RESPECT an apology.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

You've embarassed yourself, and you can't make it right with a load of twaddle.
I don't expect an apology, but I would RESPECT an apology.
.

What is wrong with you?

I don't expect you to admit that you are full of it. But, I would RESPECT that.

Your claim: The classic syllogism, "All X are Y, A is an X, therefore A is a Y" is fallacious and begs the question because it breaks into three lines what could have been written as "All X, including A, are Y. Therefore A is Y."

Your claim is total and complete bullshit. I've explained why, and I've cited two sources to back me up.

And, YOU want an apology?

[mistermack]

I didn't think you deserved a rope, but I threw it anyway, to see if you were man enough to grab it.
Bye.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

I didn't think you deserved a rope, but I threw it anyway, to see if you were man enough to grab it.
Bye.
.

Grow up. I'm fairly sure you're just trolling anyway. Nobody can be quite as dim as you pretended to be. You can't REALLY believe the nonsense you posted.