<< Chapter < Page Chapter >> Page >
1 All griznoxes chorble happily. Premise
2 A floober is a type of griznox. Premise
3 Therefore, floobers chorble happily. Syllogism, lines 1,2

You don't need to be a world-class floober expert to evaluate this argument, either.

Got questions? Get instant answers now!

Lewis Carroll, a logician, has developed many whimsical examples of syllogisms and simple reasoning. (Relatedly,note how the social context of Carroll's examples demonstrates some feminist issues inteaching logic .)

As you've noticed, the form of the argument is the same in all these.If you are assured that the first two premises are true, then, without any true understanding,you (or a computer) can automatically come up with the conclusion. A syllogism is one example of a inference rule that is, a rule form that a computer can use to deduce new facts from known ones.

Some non-proofs

Of course, not all arguments are valid proofs. Identifying invalid proofs is just as interesting as identifying valid ones.

Homer: Ah, not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working. Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Thank you, honey.Lisa: By your logic, this rock keeps tigers away. Homer: Oh? How does it work?Lisa: It doesn't work. Homer: Uh-huh.Lisa: It's just a stupid rock. Homer: Uh-huh.Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around here, do you? [pause]Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock! [A moment's hesitationand money changes hands.] (From The Simpsons Much Apu About Nothing .)

If Lisa isn't around, who will identify specious reasoning for us? We can certainly use her approach of finding other particular examplesthat follow the same argument, yet lead to a clearly erroneous conclusion.

Suppose that my friend makes the following argument:

1 Warm cola tastes bad. Premise
2 Warm salt-water tastes bad. Premise
3 Therefore, mixing them together tastes bad. Common-sense conclusion, lines 1,2
I'm skeptical, so I have a sip; sure enough, the conclusion is indeed true. But is the proof correctdoes thecommon-sense conclusionrule actually hold? In order to refute the form of the argument, we can trysimilar arguments which have the same form but a false conclusion (as Lisa did).
1 Ice-cold coke tastes good. Premise
2 Ice coffee tastes good. Premise
3 Therefore, mixing them together tastes good. Common-sense conclusion, lines 1 and 2.
After another unfortunate sip, I verify that this conclusion is not true, and therefore my friend's reasoning is at fault.

My friend responds by claiming that thecommon-sense conclusionis too valid; the rule is that bad-taste is preserved upon mixing,not that any taste is preserved. While I'm inclined to believe that, we realize we can stilltest this more refined rule: can you come up with an instance of mixing together bad-tasting thingsand ever getting a yummy result? (Say, salt and flour, which can be mixed and baked to get delicious saltines!The argument continues, about whether the form of the argument precludes baking, and so on.)

The end result (after I take some antacid) is that we have a clearer understanding ofthe initially vaguecommon-sense conclusion, and stricter rules about when it applies.Thus, refining the argument has led us to a greater understanding.

Got questions? Get instant answers now!

Get Jobilize Job Search Mobile App in your pocket Now!

Get it on Google Play Download on the App Store Now




Source:  OpenStax, Intro to logic. OpenStax CNX. Jan 29, 2008 Download for free at http://cnx.org/content/col10154/1.20
Google Play and the Google Play logo are trademarks of Google Inc.

Notification Switch

Would you like to follow the 'Intro to logic' conversation and receive update notifications?

Ask