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!

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway