How to Think #11: Bocardo

The 11^th valid syllogism to study is called Bocardo. In symbols Bocardo looks like this:
Some M's are not P's
All M's are S's
Therefore, some S's are not P's

In words a Bocardo argument could come out like this:

Some people who act on their grievances against the government are not heroes
All people who act on their grievances against the government are protesters
Therefore, some protesters are not heroes.

Is that second line true? How do we define "protester?" That could be a weak point in this syllogism.

Here is another example:

Some people who break very minor laws are not deserving of jail time
All people who break even very minor laws are criminals
Therefore, some some criminals are not deserving of jail time.

Notice I changed the wording of the M term very slightly between lines 1 and 2. If I changed the meaning of the M terms in those two lines I have damaged this syllogism. I think the meaning is the same and the syllogism is good.

Notice that this syllogism is essentially making a distinction between different kinds of criminals – those who deserve jail and those who don't. A lot of thinking is just doing this – making distinctions. One of the clearest warning signs of a poor thinker is the inability to make distinctions. For poor thinkers everything gets a label and everything with the same label is the same. If you meet someone who thinks every Democrat and every Republican, every rich person and every poor person, every illegal alien and every terrorist, every person on welfare and every Syrian refugee is the same as everyone else in their group and deserves the same treatment – you're probably dealing with a poor thinker.

One caution, sometimes we use expressions like "All politicians seek power for themselves" as an emphatic way of saying "MOST politicians seek power for themselves." If they mean "most" ask them to say "most." If they mean all, you might be dealing with a poor thinker so start looking for counter-examples to disprove their statement.

Only use "all," as we do in syllogisms, when the subject is carefully limited and defined so that "all" is the right word to use and no counter-examples will shoot down the argument we are trying to make.

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

***

I have not read this book but it looks great! 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!