Begging the Question

[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.

[leo-rcc]

Group X has the property Y.
A is a member of group X.
Therefore A has property Y.

That is not begging the question, that is a logical conclusion based on the 2 premises.

Begging the question would be

"Why do all homosexuals act so feminine in their behavior?"

It implies that all homosexuals act feminine in their behavior even though that is neither correct nor established.

[A Monkey Shaved]

Group X has the property Y.
A is a member of group X.
Therefore A has property Y.

That is not begging the question, that is a logical conclusion based on the 2 premises.

Begging the question would be

"Why do all homosexuals act so feminine in their behavior?"

It implies that all homosexuals act feminine in their behavior even though that is neither correct nor established.

Occasionally I have heard some people state "you can tell he is homosexual because he is limp wristed" that is begging the question. Why is the trait of limp wristedness be a trait exclusive to only homosexuals?

[Trolldor]

Begging the question is asking a question based on an assumed factor.

The end.

[Hermit]

"all humans are mortal" must include all humans called Socrates.

Not until line two, which introduces the minor premiss, to wit: Socrates is human. Please stop ignoring the fact that the the conclusion follows from two separate and independent premisses, the first one proposing that all humans are mortal, and the second one proposing that Socrates is human. If either one is wrong, the conclusion is falsified because of it. Thus, no circularity - or begging the question - in this syllogism. Socrates is definitely mortal only if both premisses obtain. The conclusion that Socrates is mortal depends on both aforementioned premisses being true: 1. All men are mortal, and 2. Socrates was a man.

[Pappa]

I beg your pardon?



























Sorry, I've been wanting to post that in this thread since it started.

[camoguard]

All humans except for Pappa are mortal.
Socrates is a human.
Pappa is a sentient computer like Hal in 2010.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

[Pappa]

Pappa is a sentient computer like Hal in 2010.

How did you guess?

[camoguard]

Pappa is a sentient computer like Hal in 2010.

How did you guess?

It was the eyeball as your avatar.

[Pappa]

Pappa is a sentient computer like Hal in 2010.

How did you guess?

It was the eyeball as your avatar.

Fuckit!

[Coito ergo sum]

"all humans are mortal" must include all humans called Socrates.

Not until line two, which introduces the minor premiss, to wit: Socrates is human. Please stop ignoring the fact that the the conclusion follows from two separate and independent premisses, the first one proposing that all humans are mortal, and the second one proposing that Socrates is human. If either one is wrong, the conclusion is falsified because of it. Thus, no circularity - or begging the question - in this syllogism. Socrates is definitely mortal only if both premisses obtain. The conclusion that Socrates is mortal depends on both aforementioned premisses being true: 1. All men are mortal, and 2. Socrates was a man.