A logic question...need help!
@andrewk@Nagase or anyone else.
Premise 1: All living things are things that suffer
Premise 2: No living things are things that want to suffer
I drew a Venn diagram and no conclusion seems to follow.
I even tried some backward thinking, like so:
Since there's a negative statement (premise 2), the conclusion must be negative.
There are only two negative categorical statements:
A) No S are P
B) Some S are not P
It can't be B from the Boolean perspective because B's a particular statement and can't be derived from universal statements.
So, it has to be A: No S are P. The middle term in the premises is = living things. So, the conclusion must be:
No things that want to suffer are things that suffer. But the Venn diagram doesn't show this conclusion.
What's wrong? Thanks.
Premise 1: All living things are things that suffer
Premise 2: No living things are things that want to suffer
I drew a Venn diagram and no conclusion seems to follow.
I even tried some backward thinking, like so:
Since there's a negative statement (premise 2), the conclusion must be negative.
There are only two negative categorical statements:
A) No S are P
B) Some S are not P
It can't be B from the Boolean perspective because B's a particular statement and can't be derived from universal statements.
So, it has to be A: No S are P. The middle term in the premises is = living things. So, the conclusion must be:
No things that want to suffer are things that suffer. But the Venn diagram doesn't show this conclusion.
What's wrong? Thanks.
Comments (30)
1) All cats are mammals
2) No cats are dogs
What is the conclusion?
Draw a Venn diagram in the standard way and you'll see we can't draw any conclusion from it. Strange??!!
Syllogisms from Orphan Black (you have to answer true or false):
Some bags are pockets, no pocket is a pouch.
Conclusion: All bags are not pouches.
Some pigs are predators, no predator is a pet.
Conclusion: Some pigs are not pets.
Some maggots are flies, no fly is welcome.
Conclusion: no maggots are welcome.
Some doctors are fools, all fools are rich.
Conclusion: Some doctors are rich.
All mangoes are golden, nothing golden is cheap.
Conclusion: All mangoes are cheap.
Then there's Dodgson/Carroll:
The only animals in this house are cats;
Every animal is suitable for a pet, that loves to gaze at the moon;
When I detest an animal, I avoid it;
No animals are carnivorous, unless they prowl at night;
No cat fails to kill mice;
No animals ever take to me, except what are in this house;
Kangaroos are not suitable for pets;
None but carnivora kill mice;
I detest animals that do not take to me;
Conclusion: Animals, that prowl at night, always love to gaze at the moon.
Invalid, fallacy of illicit minor
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Valid
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Invalid, fallacy of illicit minor
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Valid
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Invalid, the conclusion should be negative since one premise is negative.
What's your point though? Did you have a look at the premises in the OP. It seems we can't draw any conclusion from it. Can you help?
No point. You're on a logic kick, and I think it's cool that the sort of syllogisms you're messing with have recently been featured in a TV show (an excellent TV show). And one needs no reason to quote Lewis Carroll.
As for the OP, I thought that was settled. Were you expecting something else?
ADDD: You could conclude with Freud that all living things possess a death drive.
Sorry to bother you but can you give me a link, if there's one? Thanks.
A link to what?
Oh.
Orphan Black.
The syllogisms appear in a sort of test some people are given, but not until season 3.
I can't be bothered to draw the diagram, but label your circles 'living things', 'things that suffer', 'things that want to suffer', and shade out what the premises tell you are empty regions.
Not the most exciting conclusion I've ever seen.
Premise 1: All living things are things that suffer
Premise 2: No living things are things that want to suffer
Yes, the conclusion should be, as you said:
No suffering thing wants to suffer
But there's an error. The conclusion distributes the class ''things that suffer''.
However, it's not distributed (it should be) in the premises.
That's the problem. A more easier example is below (uses the same form):
All dogs are mammals
No dogs are cats
Conclusion???!!!
No cats are mammals???!!!
So indeed, these are both examples of conclusions that don't follow from the premises.
Seems unlikely though! :D
That being the case it is not worth persisting.
A tree is alive. A tree does not suffer. A tree does not want.
Even for living things that suffer, suffering implies not wanting. So the argument is circular and the venn diagram is not what you think it is.
What about this then:
Premise 1: All dogs are mammals
Premise 2: No dogs are cats
What is the conclusion?
Why?
Premise 2: No dogs are cats
Because these are just two statements about dogs that are not connected.
Only that I was wrong.
I can't see where the problem is.
[i]Argument A:
Premise 1: All dogs are mammals
Premise 2: No dogs are fish
We can draw a perfectly reasonable conclusion:[/i]
No fish are mammals
FALSE. No such conclusion may be made. Premise two only means a fish is not a dog. According to that premise a Fish could be the same as a cow or a pig.
You are either taking the piss. or are just stupid. Which is it?
I think you have a point. Can you be more specific
I see something:
Argument A
1. All dogs are mammals
2. No dogs are cats
So,
3. Some mammals are not cats
Argument A is valid from the Aristotelean standpoint given that there's at least 1 dog.
However, from a Boolean perspective it's invalid. The Boolean perspective doesn't allow us to conclude anything from the premises. I wonder why.