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!

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

The Vision of John McCain

Today is the funeral of a great American statesman, John McCain.

In the political environment of 2018 he had an unusually unifying and moral vision of America. He left us glimpses of that vision in his last book, "The Restless Wave."

He wrote:

"This wondrous land shared its treasures and ideals and shed its blood to help make another, better world. And as we did we made our own civilization more just, freer, more accomplished and prosperous...."

I don't know the details of McCain's foreign policy views but from this statement I believe he knew that business is important, but that everything in the world is not business. Human beings and friends and neighbors and allies are not businesses, and the relationships between friends and neighbors and allies are not business relationships.

Helping other countries doesn't mean we are losing, it means we are investing in a better future for all of us. When a friend or an ally needs help you don't try to calculate how much profit you are going to make, you calculate how much you can afford to give, and then you give it, trusting that everyone will be better off when you do the right thing.

He wrote:

"To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than to solve problems is unpatriotic."

Here McCain encourages us to stay involved in the world, to work together with other people, to spend less time looking for people to blame and more time looking for solutions and ways to make our country and our world better for everyone.

He wrote:

"We don't build walls to freedom and opportunity, we tear them down."

This line probably has more than one meaning but surely one of them must be referring to the issue of undocumented immigration to the United States.

I think McCain is suggesting here that we should treat people coming to our borders, and the undocumented immigrants who already live here, with honor and respect. They are, after all, just like us, our brothers and our sisters who are seeking freedom and safety and prosperity for themselves and our children just as we do.

Maybe it is impossible to take all these people in, but even if that is so, there is no reason to hate them, or to be angry with them, or to fear them. Even if we have to turn them away there is nothing to prevent us from wishing them well, and treating them well.

And maybe the image of tearing down walls to freedom and opportunity means that we need to start working with countries like Guatemala and Honduras and El Salvador to find mutually beneficial ways to help them become more prosperous and safe so the good people who live there don't need to leave their homes to find hope.

Maybe I am wrong about my interpretations here. John McCain was a Republican and I am a Democrat so I am sure we would have disagreed on many issues. But I feel certain that one part of McCain's vision was that the United States should always be a country where people respect each other enough to talk and to argue, to fight for what they believe in but to still find ways to compromise so that everyone in the country can all move forward together.

John McCain is gone. Let's hope his vision will never die.

***

[This was Senator McCain's last book. A good chance to get to know a fallen hero. If you read it before I do please send me a review I can publish here.]

[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!]

***

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

A Life of Honor: John McCain

John McCain is gone. From naval officer to combat veteran to prisoner-of-war to United States Senator to Presidential candidate he was a part of American history for more than 50 years.

I have tried my best to be an independent, moderate, intelligent Democrat since 1983 and McCain was a Republican but he was one of the Republicans I most admired. Years ago I made a list of Republicans I could POSSIBLY vote for in a Presidential election and McCain was on that, admittedly short, list.

McCain spent his life in wars and political conflicts and I have spent most of my life in books but there are certain characteristics he had that I try to emulate.

• He believed in fighting for what he believed in which is why he was in Vietnam in the first place.
• He believed you do not take advantage of your position to get special privileges which is why he refused an offer to be released from prison in Hanoi because his father was an Admiral.
• He believed in trying to make America better.
• He believed in finding ways to compromise.
• He believed in criticizing his own side when his own side was wrong.
• Above all McCain believed in honor - telling the truth and doing the right thing, even when that is difficult.

As it happens I did NOT vote for McCain in 2008. In the end I decided the Democrats had the better candidate. BUT, if McCain had won in 2008, I would not have been afraid. I would have known that the United States was in good and honorable hands.

John McCain was a great man. We need more public servants like him in BOTH parties. Sadly, people like John McCain are rare.

There was a famous moment in the 2008 campaign that will go down in history. It was a moment when McCain showed that he would not stoop to dishonor even to win the White House. He would not accept a dishonest attack on his opponent even when that's what the crowd wanted to hear.

Wikipedia described the moment like this: "On October 10, 2008, a female McCain supporter at a rally said she did not trust Barack Obama because "he's an Arab." McCain's rallies had become increasingly vitriolic, with hecklers denigrating Obama and with rallygoers displaying a growing anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, and anti-African-American sentiment. McCain replied to the woman, "No ma'am. He's a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues." McCain's response was considered one of the finer moments of the campaign and was still being viewed several years later as marker for civility in American politics." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008

And you can see the video of that dramatic moment here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIjenjANqAk

***

[This was Senator McCain's last book. A good chance to get to know a fallen hero. If you read it before I do please send me a review I can publish here.]

[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!]

***

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Did Trump Take a Chinese Bribe to Help ZTE?

Is Trump selling out the national security of the United States to make money for himself and his family?
That sounds like the plot for a spy novel but there is actually some circumstantial evidence of this that should lead to further investigation.
Consider the case of Chinese phone maker ZTE for example:

1. In 2012 Congress warned that ZTE and Huawei phones could be used for espionage against the United States.
2. In February 2018 the CIA, FBI, NSA, and Defense Intelligence Agency all repeated these warnings to a Congressional Committee. They advised Americans not to buy phones from these companies.
3. In the meantime the U.S. Commerce Department took legal action against ZTE for illegally selling equipment to Iran and North Korea.
4. The Pentagon has prohibited the sale of ZTE and Huawei phones on military bases because of the espionage risk.

So, if ZTE has violated US sanctions, and their phones are potentially a threat to US national security, this is certainly not a company the US president would want to help, right?
Well... here comes the interesting part:

1. On May 7, 2018 Ivanka got approval for a number of Chinese trademarks which will help to protect her financial interests in that country.
2. On May 10, 2018 China approved a $500 million loan to an Indonesian development which will include a Trump hotel, residences, and a golf course.
3. On May 13, 2018 Trump surprised the world by announcing that the US government will HELP ZTE and get them back to work FAST....

This is a very suggestive and suspicious sequence of events. Within a single week in May 2018 Ivanka got her trademarks from China, the Indonesian development Trump is associated with got its loan from China, and China got help from Trump on the sanctions against ZTE!
Is this just a strange coincidence, or did China just pay off the Trump family to get the president to help a Chinese company that has been identified as a threat to US national security?
My sources are listed below. If anyone finds an error in the facts I am reporting please let me know.
The Indonesian Project Gets its Loan https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/trump-organization-indonesia-project-will-benefit-from-usd500-million-chinese-government-loan-report-says.html
Ivanka Gets Her Trademarks https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ivanka-gets-5-china-trademarks-as-president-works-zte-deal_us_5b0a07eee4b0568a880c0a0d
Trump Decides to Help ZTE https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-defends-reversal-on-chinas-zte/
***
[This looks like an interesting book about the Trump / Russia collusion case. If you read it before I do please send me a review I can publish here.]
[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!]
***
Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

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!

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway