Begging the Question

[mistermack]

Yes, reworded like that the argument would definitely constitute an example of begging the question, but would you please stick with what the syllogism actually says? You are fabricating a new argument by adding words that make it patently circular and equating that with the original version which does no such thing. All men are mortal =/= All mortal humans are mortal. Socrates is a man =/= Socrates is a mortal human.

I have a right to do that, because the original doesn't make it clear whether "all men are mortal" is a defining law, or a claim that can be either right or wrong.
You can't demonstrate what the consequence of it being a definition is, without rewording it. And if it's a definition, then using the definition should change nothing at all of the meaning.

It's not me that's playing with words, it's the ambiguity of the premise.

I'm just showing that if it does mean a definition, it's still nonsense.
.

[Hermit]

Yes, reworded like that the argument would definitely constitute an example of begging the question, but would you please stick with what the syllogism actually says? You are fabricating a new argument by adding words that make it patently circular and equating that with the original version which does no such thing. All men are mortal =/= All mortal humans are mortal. Socrates is a man =/= Socrates is a mortal human.

I have a right to do that, because the original doesn't make it clear whether "all men are mortal" is a defining law, or a claim that can be either right or wrong.
You can't demonstrate what the consequence of it being a definition is, without rewording it. And if it's a definition, then using the definition should change nothing at all of the meaning.

It's not me that's playing with words, it's the ambiguity of the premise.

I'm just showing that if it does mean a definition, it's still nonsense.

There is nothing at all ambiguous about the premiss: All men are mortal. It's the proposition, for fuck's sake, that all men are mortal. Nothing in line one even hints at the stipulation that mortal men are mortal. It clearly states that all men are mortal. Likewise, the second premiss or proposition does not stipulate that Socrates is a mortal man. It just says he is a man. Please stop adding shit to premisses that are not there. Thank you.

If it is true that all men are mortal and if Socrates is a man, we can conclude that Socrates is mortal. No circularity - or begging the question - within cooee.

[Coito ergo sum]

You're discussing the differences between a general statement and a specific one. We use the general rule which we might imagine has not been tested on Socrates and are really discussing our expectations. "Mortal" is something that can be determined using other means. But in this case it is determined by a rule we have that all men are mortal. At some level these rules begin as assumptions. Their order of use is the logic.

Yes, you have to start with an assumption. But the rules of the logic state that your assumptions can't include your conclusion. The word "all" is such a little word, we almost ignore it. But what it means is every single living man. So for option a) where line 2 is true, if you don't want to assume the conclusion, that Socrates is mortal, you would have to say :

All men (apart from Socrates, we don't know about him) are mortal.
Socrates is a man
Socrates is mortal? ( is he?, we still don't know about him.)

So you can only prove it by first assuming it. Which isn't a proof at all.
.

Here's what you're getting wrong: The major premise "all men are mortal," does not - repeat does NOT - include or assume the conclusion "Socrates is mortal."

Why?

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

All X are Y does NOT assume that A is a Y.

That is precisely the same syllogism as the Socrates/man/mortal syllogism. Your confusion is that you - YOU - assume that Socrates is mortal because you think you know which Socrates is being discussed. However, you don't know that Socrates is not a dog, or a boat or a star in the sky. You don't know what Socrates is until you proceed to the minor premise. When you are told Socrates is a man (that A is X), and you already know that all men are mortal (or all X are Y), then you can logically conclude that Socrates is mortal (or that A is Y).

Can you, at least, see that the All X are Y - A is an X - therefore A is Y - syllogism is not begging the question? Do you see that?

[Coito ergo sum]

Let's try this one more time.

Prime numbers are natural numbers that have exactly two distinct natural number divisors: 1 and itself.
7 is a natural number that has only two distinct natural divisors, 1 and itself.
Therefore 7 is a prime number.

How is this not logical?

There is a subtle difference here. Are you saying that the DEFINITION of a prime number is a natural number that has exactly two distinct natural number divisors: 1 and itself? So that BY DEFINITION there can't be a number that doesn't conform to that? Because it makes a difference.

If you say that all men BY DEFINITION are mortal humans, that the word man means a mortal human, this is what you get :

1) All mortal humans are mortal.
2) Socrates is a mortal human.
3) Socrates is mortal.

It's not exactly an improvement is it?
.

This is wrong, though. You're changing the syllogism. It's not "all men are mortal humans." It's "all men are mortal."

Not all things that are mortal are men. So, we aren't assuming that anything mortal is a man.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, reworded like that the argument would definitely constitute an example of begging the question, but would you please stick with what the syllogism actually says? You are fabricating a new argument by adding words that make it patently circular and equating that with the original version which does no such thing. All men are mortal =/= All mortal humans are mortal. Socrates is a man =/= Socrates is a mortal human.

I have a right to do that, because the original doesn't make it clear whether "all men are mortal" is a defining law, or a claim that can be either right or wrong.

It's a syllogism. It need not be either a "defining law" (whatever that is), or a "claim that can be either right or wrong. It says what it says. That's why you can use X's and Y's and A's instead of Socrates/man/mortal. It doesn't matter if the assertion is actually true.

You can use complete gibberish if you want:

All kerbloops are kerblop.
Shinglezip is a kierbloop.
Therefore, Shinglezip is kerblop.

Or, it can be just wrong:

All dogs are cats.
Felix is a dog.
Therefore, Felix is a cat.

From this syllogism it logically follows that Felix is a cat. If, however, the major premise is wrong, or the minor premise is wrong, then the conclusion will or may be wrong. The mistake your making is taking your own personal beliefs or what you believe to be known facts about the characters in the syllogism and then making unwarranted assumptions. You ASSUME Socrates is the bearded old Greek philosopher, and therefore he is included in the major premise reference to men. However, that is an unwarranted assumption. Socrates may be something else.

Let me add that, if we take our personal beliefs into account, then we know the minor premise is wrong. Socrates is not a man. Socrates is either a corpse or worm food. He WAS a man. He's dead now. So, he's not a man.

You can't demonstrate what the consequence of it being a definition is, without rewording it. And if it's a definition, then using the definition should change nothing at all of the meaning.

It's not me that's playing with words, it's the ambiguity of the premise.

I'm just showing that if it does mean a definition, it's still nonsense.
.

Nonsense or not, it doesn't beg the question.

[mistermack]

There is nothing at all ambiguous about the premiss: All men are mortal. It's the proposition, for fuck's sake, that all men are mortal. Nothing in line one even hints at the stipulation that mortal men are mortal. It clearly states that all men are mortal. Likewise, the second premiss or proposition does not stipulate that Socrates is a mortal man. It just says he is a man. Please stop adding shit to premisses that are not there. Thank you.

That's fair enough. You clearly and unambiguously say that the first two lines are propositions. So line one is not true by definition.

Both premises can be true or false.

I did clearly say "if you are claiming line 1 is true by definition" to all of that.

In that case, I stand by my previous argument, which shows that you have to assume the truth of the conclusion, to prove the conclusion.
.

[camoguard]

We appear to have incompatible views of what logic. I think logic is the structure and the structure of the example is sound. Sure, checking the premises is an important part of the step, but often times, such as in Geometry, we used premises that we had demonstrated first so we knew them to be true.

[Coito ergo sum]

There is nothing at all ambiguous about the premiss: All men are mortal. It's the proposition, for fuck's sake, that all men are mortal. Nothing in line one even hints at the stipulation that mortal men are mortal. It clearly states that all men are mortal. Likewise, the second premiss or proposition does not stipulate that Socrates is a mortal man. It just says he is a man. Please stop adding shit to premisses that are not there. Thank you.

That's fair enough. You clearly and unambiguously say that the first two lines are propositions. So line one is not true by definition.

That's always the case. A premise is a proposition.

Both premises can be true or false.

Again, that's always the case.

I did clearly say "if you are claiming line 1 is true by definition" to all of that.

Unless someone said they were claiming that line 1 was true by definition, then your addition of that is unwarranted.

In that case, I stand by my previous argument, which shows that you have to assume the truth of the conclusion, to prove the conclusion.
.

A syllogism says nothing about the truth of the conclusion. It only says something about whether the conclusion LOGICALLY FOLLOWS from the premises.

Do you understand the difference between something being "true" and something "logically follows?" Take the dog/cat/Felix syllogism. That syllogism is perfectly logical, and does not beg the question. In the real world, however, the conclusion is false because we know that cats are not dogs. Nevertheless, the logic is flawless and there is no question begging.

[mistermack]

We appear to have incompatible views of what logic. I think logic is the structure and the structure of the example is sound. Sure, checking the premises is an important part of the step, but often times, such as in Geometry, we used premises that we had demonstrated first so we knew them to be true.

Yeh, but we're dealing with a premise that can be true or false.

So line 1 is an ASSUMPTION : All men are mortal.
So as soon as you write line 2 : Socrates is a man, line 1 assumes he is mortal.
So before you get to the conclusion, you've assumed that Socrates is mortal.
.

[Hermit]

There is nothing at all ambiguous about the premiss: All men are mortal. It's the proposition, for fuck's sake, that all men are mortal. Nothing in line one even hints at the stipulation that mortal men are mortal. It clearly states that all men are mortal. Likewise, the second premiss or proposition does not stipulate that Socrates is a mortal man. It just says he is a man. Please stop adding shit to premisses that are not there. Thank you.

That's fair enough. You clearly and unambiguously say that the first two lines are propositions. So line one is not true by definition.

Both premises can be true or false.

I did clearly say "if you are claiming line 1 is true by definition" to all of that.

In that case, I stand by my previous argument, which shows that you have to assume the truth of the conclusion, to prove the conclusion.

Would it be helpful if you thought of the premisses as conditional statements? Try reading the syllogism like this:

Premiss 1: If all men are mortal
Premiss 2:If Socrates is a man
Conclusion: Then Socrates is mortal.

[Coito ergo sum]

We appear to have incompatible views of what logic. I think logic is the structure and the structure of the example is sound. Sure, checking the premises is an important part of the step, but often times, such as in Geometry, we used premises that we had demonstrated first so we knew them to be true.

In any argument or debate, you can attack a person's argument in two main ways:

1. Looking at the logic alone. Take what the person said, and break it down to show that what they are arguing does not logically follow from their premises. An example would be if they argue from authority or use ad hominem. "Bush is liar and an idiot," and "Bush never taught a day in his life" -- therefore his No Child Left Behind program is a complete bust. it may be true that Bush is a liar and an idiot and he may have never taught a day in his life - but it doesn't logically follow from those premises that the No Child Left Behind program is a complete bust.

It may be true that the No Child Left Behind program is a complete bust - but, it doesn't LOGICALLY FOLLOW from the premises asserted that it is a bust.

2. One can also attack the premises. In other words, is it true that Bush is a liar and an idiot? What evidence do we have to support that? Or, is it true that he never taught a day in his life? Maybe he was a teacher for a year back in 1973. Let's assume he was. Then you can attack the other person's argument by saying "you're premises are wrong, Bush taught school in 1973, which means your assertion that he did not teach a day in his life is wrong. Therefore, your argument fails."

Where mistermack goes wrong is conflating these two concepts. And, he seems to think that whenever the conclusion does logically follow from the premises, that the premises must be begging the question because they are true.

[Coito ergo sum]

We appear to have incompatible views of what logic. I think logic is the structure and the structure of the example is sound. Sure, checking the premises is an important part of the step, but often times, such as in Geometry, we used premises that we had demonstrated first so we knew them to be true.

Yeh, but we're dealing with a premise that can be true or false.

All premises can be true or false.

So line 1 is an ASSUMPTION : All men are mortal.

It's an assertion, which may be true or false.

So as soon as you write line 2 : Socrates is a man, line 1 assumes he is mortal.

No, it doesn't assume anything. It merely asserts all men are mortal. That may not be correct.

So before you get to the conclusion, you've assumed that Socrates is mortal.
.

No YOU have assumed he's mortal. The minor premise asserts he's a man.

Logically, IF Socrates is a man, and IF all men are mortal, then Socrates is mortal. No question begging at all.

Even if not all men, in reality, were mortal, and even if Socrates was a monkey in reality, the logic still holds true and there is no question begging.

[Coito ergo sum]

Mistermack, if you would, could you please tell me, yes or no, if the following in your opinion begs the question:


All A's are B.
C is an A.
Therefore, C is B.


Does that, or does that not, beg the question?

[camoguard]

Coito ergo sum and I basically agree. I'm bored of this topic because it seems like one of those scenarios where mistermack is trying to establish a point that doesn't really do anything for me. I already know to look at the statement to evaluate truth or falseness. I already know to look at the structure to identify comprehensive logic.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito ergo sum and I basically agree. I'm bored of this topic because it seems like one of those scenarios where mistermack is trying to establish a point that doesn't really do anything for me. I already know to look at the statement to evaluate truth or falseness. I already know to look at the structure to identify comprehensive logic.

This is just one of those threads that make me shake my head. I'm wondering...are we being trolled to see how long we will argue this thing, or does he really not get it? It seems so bleeding obvious to me, and after it's been explained six ways from Sunday, he still keeps repeating the same error. I think a straight answer to the question I posed in my last post would go a long way to clearing this up.