mistermack wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:
The syllogism that you keep claiming is "begging the question," isn't, because saying "All men are human" and then "Socrates is a man" -- doesn't ASSUME that Socrates is human. That's the conclusion, drawn from the premises.
Socrates may not be human. He may be your neighbor's dog, Socrates. So, the second premise may be factually incorrect, which is a good ground for attacking the premise and defeating the argument. I.e. - "Your conclusion is wrong, because Socrates is not a man, he's a dog, and therefore the basic premise of your argument fails." But, that does NOT mean that the syllogism begs the question, because the premises do not assume the conclusion.
Got it, yet?
I don't see how anybody can get anything from that gobbledgook.
English can be difficult for some.
mistermack wrote:
You seem to be getting more and more confused. Why don't you have another go, before I grace it with a reply?
It's clear as crystal.
mistermack wrote:
To help you out, Socrates being a man, and being human, are the same thing in this argument.
That is where you are wrong. They aren't the same thing.
All men are human is a premise. Whether it is true or untrue is irrelevant in terms of the logic. It may as well be "All A are B."
And Socrates is a man is another premise. Whether it is true or untrue is irrelevant to the logic. It may as well be "C is an A."
Therefore, Socrates is a human - that's a conclusion which follows necessarily from the premises REGARDLESS of whether the premises are true. It may as well be "Therefore, C is a B."
Got it? Even if it is:
All dogs are cats.
Fido is dog.
Therefore Fido is a cat.
That is logical for the same reason that the Socrates syllogism is logical. Even if Fido is not a dog, in reality, or even if not all dogs are cats is the reality, the syllogism still works. If you're in a debate, and someone uses a syllogism to present their argument, you can attack it in a couple of ways, (1) does the conclusion NECESSARILY follow? and (2) are the premises "true."
A person can start with erroneous premises and then proceed perfectly logically to a completely wrong conclusion.
mistermack wrote:
It was about Socrates being MORTAL.
It doesn't MATTER what it's about.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
Perfectly logical. It doesn't beg the question. It is the same as "All A are B" "Socrates is an A." Therefore, "Socrates is B."
This can't be that hard for you. You must be a troll, because I can't believe anyone is this stupid.
mistermack wrote:
But if that confuses you too much, use this :
All men are black
Socrates is a man
Socrates is black.
The principle is identical, but I like this better, because you can tell if he's black without killing him.
Right - and it doesn't beg the question. If all men are black and if socrates is a man, then socrates is necessarily also black.
We know from experience that not all men are black. And that is a good way to attack this argument - by demonstrating that the premise is faulty. However, the logic holds. It doesn't beg the question.