Anything Smart: Projects: Valid Arguments

Showing posts with label Projects: Valid Arguments. Show all posts

Sunday, October 7, 2018

How to Think #15: Fresison

The 15th syllogism we will learn about is called Fresison. This is the last of the unconditionally valid syllogisms, but there are still nine more conditionally valid syllogisms. More on that later.

Anyway, for now, let's learn about Fresison.

Using letters Fresison looks like this:
No P is M.
Some M are S.
Therefore, some S are not P.

In words an example of Fresison could look like this:
No good people commit fraud.
Some people who commit fraud are business owners.
Therefore, some business owners are not good people.

This is a valid syllogism so if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. Are these premises true? The second one is probably true, right? We could almost certainly find examples of business oweners who have committed fraud and even gone to jail for fraud.

What about the first premise? Is it possible that a person could do something wrong but still be a good person? That would be something to think about if you were trying to argue against this syllogism.

Now let's see how we can use Fresison to construct an argument.

Suppose someone says "All conservatives are stupid." You might think that is a little too extreme. "Surely," you think, "There must be SOME conservatives who are not stupid!"

Notice that what you just thought can be stated in the form of a Fresison conclusion: "Some conservatives are not stupid."

Let's plug that into the Fresison framework and see what it looks like:
No P is M
Some M are S
Therefore, Some conservatives(S) are not stupid(P)

To prove this conclusion we just have to work out what the premises are.

If we study the premises we will see that the way to prove the conclusion in this case is to find some group or characteristic (M), that no stupid people belong to but that some conservatives do belong to.

How about this:
No stupid person writes a brilliant book.
Some conservatives have written brilliant books.
Therefore, some conservatives are not stupid.

Now, this is a valid syllogism so if the premises are true the conclusion must be true.

Most people will probably agree with the first premise. If someone wanted to attack this syllogism they would probably go after the second premise and try to deny that any conservative has ever written a brilliant book. We could then respond that conservative political writer William F. Buckley, Jr. and conservative historian Paul Johnson certainly wrote brilliant books.

The response to that, especially if you are arguing on Facebook might be something like "Well, Buckley and Johnson were not REALLY conservative," or "Well, Buckley's books and Johnson's books are not REALLY brilliant."

At that point you would have to do something you probably should have done right at the beginning of your argument: define your terms. What EXACTlY do you mean by "conservative" and "brilliant" and, for that matter, by "stupid?"

***

Here is a good book to start learning how to think smarter and argue smarter.

If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on any of the book links in this post to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!

Sunday, September 2, 2018

How to Think #14: Ferison

The 14^th syllogism we will study is called Ferison.

In symbols Ferison looks like this:
No M's are P's.
Some M's are S's.
Therefore, some S's are not P's.

An example of Ferison in words would look like this:
No one who commits war crimes is worthy of respect.
Some people who have committed war crimes were soldiers.
Therefore, some soldiers are not worthy of respect.

If someone says all S's are P's – maybe, for example, that "All liberals are stupid," - you might think that is too extreme to be true. Surely there must be SOME exceptions; surely there must be SOME liberals who are intelligent, or, in other words, it must be that some S's are not P's.

You can use the Ferison syllogism to construct a counter argument. You want to end up with the conclusion "Therefore, some liberals are NOT stupid" which has the same pattern as the conclusion of a Ferison syllogism – "Therefore, some S's are not P's" - so now we just need to find an appropriate first and second premise to complete our syllogism.

The first premise of a Ferison syllogism is "No M's are P's." Given the conclusion we are trying to prove, the P in this line stands for "stupid." So we have "No M's are stupid." Now we just have to think of some group "M" that has no stupid members. How about Nobel Prize winners? That would give us a very reasonable sounding first premise, "No Nobel Prize winners are stupid."

So far we have:
No Nobel Prize winners are stupid.
Some M's are S's.
Therefore, some liberals are NOT stupid.

In the syllogism we are creating M stand's for Nobel Prize winners and S stands for liberals. Substituting these into the second premise we get "Some Nobel Prize winners are liberals."

Our final syllogism is:
No Nobel Prize winners are stupid.
Some Nobel Prize winners are liberals.
Therefore, some liberals are NOT stupid.

This is the valid syllogism Ferison so if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. We chose the first premise because it seemed obviously true. By doing a little research we can determine if the second premise is true. Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman both won Nobel Prizes in economics and both are generally believed to be liberals so it would seem the second premise is true as well as the first.

Based on this syllogism we conclude that the person who said "All liberals are stupid" is wrong. Our syllogism actually proves that "Some liberals are NOT stupid."

***

Here is a good book to start learning how to think smarter and argue smarter.

If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!

Sunday, July 8, 2018

How to Think #13: Festino

The 13^th valid syllogism we need to learn is called Festino.

The form of this syllogism looks like this:
No P's are M's.
Some S's are M's.
Therefore, some S's are not P's.

This might look familiar to you because it is exactly the same as Ferio, which we considered earlier, except that the P and the M have switched places in the first line.

Now here is an example of Festino using words:
No honorable person takes bribes.
Some police officers have taken bribes.
Therefore, some police officers have not been honorable people.

Syllogisms are not just curiosities and they should not be used just to impress people with how smart we are. Syllogisms are thinking TOOLS and we should use them to help us think better and make stronger arguments.

Let's take a look at how Festino might help us think better in a real debate.

Imagine someone says “ALL police officers are honorable people and deserving of respect.”

You might think that statement is exaggerated and that, in fact, it is likely that “SOME police officers have NOT been honorable people.”

But how can you prove that not ALL police officers are honorable people? If you notice that your statement is the conclusion of a Festino syllogism you can now look at the first two premises used in that syllogism to see what you will need to complete your syllogism and prove your conclusion.

The first premise of Festino is: No P's are M's. In this case, given the conclusion we are trying to prove, P is “honorable people,” so we have “No honorable people are M's.”

So what could M be that would make a person dishonorable? We are looking for characteristics of a person that would justify us in calling that person dishonorable. We can make a list of M's that might include things like lying, cheating, stealing, taking bribes, etc. If any of these things are true about someone then we could reasonably argue that person is dishonorable.

Now look at the 2^nd premise of Festino which is: Some S's are M's. In this case, given the conclusion we are trying to prove, S stands for police officers and potential M's are the items on our list of dishonorable characteristics.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is a book that should help us identify faulty reasoning so we can correct it:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

If you can associate one of the items on your list with police officers then you can prove your conclusion that some police officers are dishonorable.

You can look through the items on your list to find one that will be most persuasive to your audience and also one that can definitely be associated with some police officers.

You could use “lying” but maybe your audience will think that lying is so common to human beings that it doesn't really prove that a person is dishonorable to any unusual degree.

You could use “cheating” but you might decide that this word is too vague to be used in an effective argument: do you mean cheating on a test at school, cheating on your taxes, cheating on a time sheet at work, cheating on a spouse?

Using the taking of bribes seems to work well in this case. It is easy to understand what it means, it is clearly dishonorable, and there is no doubt that SOME police officers have been caught taking bribes.

So now, with help from the syllogism Festino, you have created a strong argument against the statement that “All police officers are honorable.”

The syllogism you have now constructed proves that at least some police officers have not been honorable:
No honorable person takes bribes.
Some police officers have taken bribes.
Therefore, some police officers have not been honorable people.

With practice this use of syllogisms will eventually become automatic. Arguments will take form in your mind so quickly you won't even be aware of the process but you should still be able to examine the final argument and demonstrate that it is a valid argument such as a Festino syllogism.

***

I believe this is classic work by a genius but I have not read it. Please beat me to it and then send a review I can publish here at AnythingSmart.org.

If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

How to Think #12: Ferio

The 12th valid syllogism to learn is FERIO.

This syllogism looks like this:
1. No M is a P.
2. Some S's are M's.
3. Therefore, some S's are not P's.

An example using words could look like this:
No one who lies is worthy of respect.
Some police officers lie.
Therefore, some police officers are not worthy of respect.

This is a valid syllogism so if the premises are true the conclusion must be true.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is a book that should help us identify faulty reasoning so we can correct it:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

But are the premises true?

Look at the first premise. "No one who lies is worthy of respect." Is that really true?

Many people would distinguish "white" lies or "kind" lies from the really bad kind of lies. If someone has been sick for a long time and you try to encourage them by saying "You are looking better today!" even when they really don't, surely you would not be condemned for that kind of lie.

Maybe we could improve that first premise by changing it to "No one who lies under oath to get someone convicted of a crime is worthy of respect."

Now our example becomes:
No one who lies under oath to get someone convicted of a crime is worthy of respect.
Some police officers have lied under oath to get someone convicted of a crime.
Therefore, some police officers are not worthy of respect.

That seems stronger, doesn't it? What we just did illustrates one of the advantages of using syllogisms. By stating our conclusion and our premises very explicitly in syllogism form we make it easier to analyze our arguments, spot weaknesses, and make them stronger.

***