Syllogism Puns

So, I believe there is divinity in all things. I believe in the sanctity of life. All living things need to be treated with compassion because of this. Therefore we should be as pacifist and as non violent as possible. Can you please set this into a valid and sound syllogism? I don't know how to lay it out.

Apologies if this just isn't the right place for this. And I hope you'll respond to the spirit of my question and overlook how scattered it actually is. This idea has been bugging me for some time.

Aquinas's five ways. Kalaam. TAG. I dunno. Name some more. If we can pretend or suppose for the sake of my simple ass that the premises or arguments in them are true/valid/sound, has the existence of God or the conclusion of each actually been demonstrated? I feel frustrated being unable to word that better. Can ANYTHING at all be shown or demonstrated to literally exist solely from argumentation?

Cheers. I'm hoping the more generous among you as it relates to my clumsiness can either word that in a less dumb way or speak to what I'm trying to ask. Thanks so much. If there's a better sub for this, point away. See you guys. Enjoy the sub.

Come on, guys. I'm starting to think the constant focus from some people on us having the nerve to classify some Evangelicals as fundamentalists is due to the fact that a lot of people here straight up don't know what the other denominations are and think that the denomination of the non-Evangelical fundies here is just... fundie.

Fundamentalism is not a denomination.

I was looking through another post on this subreddit the other day, and I went down a rabbit hole until I ended up learning about Darapti syllogism. However, the place where I found it being explained claimed that for modern logicians, it's deemed invalid, yet, I can't see why.

The example that was given that I remember was this:

(1)All Chimera breathe fire

(2)All Chimera are animals

(C) Therefore, some animals breathe fire

I totally accept the example is unsound, but I fail to see how it makes it invalid, because, if Chimeras did exist, then I think it would be fair that it is necessary. Could the author have made some mistake, have I made a mistake or is there perhaps a better example that shows it to be invalid?

I did a first year Logic and Critical thinking exam tonight that I struggled with. We were given Peter Singers analogy of how if we are morally obliged to save a drowning child that we are morally obliged to donate to famine relief.

We were asked to identify the argument type and critique it based on the text.

I decided that it was deductively valid and could be proved as such by using a categorical syllogism and drawing a venn diagram, a classmate of mine decided it was inductive and was an argument from analogy. Talking to each other, we could not come to agreement.

Any thoughts?

Here ya go, read it, Hmm, OPs, wonder what that would do to soldiers after exposure to say....something that would make them more prone to ....say... some sort of weapon, look a the studies of how OPs work, more or less sensitive to the encounter.....sleeeeeeepy!! Lock and Load!!

Im totally lost. Especially applying it to real life scenarios. Please help

You can sidestep the entire thing in good faith by just recognizing Closeted gay people vs Openly gay people.

That's the nurture part. Letting people know they wont be stoned to death if they are a certain way.

You arent "creating more gay people", you're just fostering an environment where people feel more comfortable leaving the closet and not fearing as much harm or harassment. Those people are gay regardless of the media. Full stop.

Throughout history there have been many closeted gay people, and the openly gay ones routinely got murderfied in many cultures. So this would lead us to believe that in environments where being openly gay has consequences, those more interested in self-preservation than fighting for gayness would often remain closeted.

Gloryholes and bushes in the park. These memes exist for a reason.

This doesnt "create" more gay people by having more gay cartoon characters or gay friendly messaging, it only "more accurately helps us report the number of" gay people as time goes on to recognize social demographics more accurately and fosters an environment where people arent scared to just self-identify and live their lives.

Because then Papa Fash has to prove :

• How much gay media is enough to cause someone to "flip", therefore creating a gay person? This is demonstrably different from coming out, which is the act of publicly announcing ones Gayhood, and not being inducted in the halls of Gaydom as a new Initiate.

He must at the very least provide to us the bar he is using at which someone becomes gay, otherwise his position is nebulous and just hand-wringing, because as far as we know, those people are gay regardless of them being closeted or choosing to self-identify as gay.

If the bar is them publicly saying they are gay and self-identifying as gay, then he isnt actually worried about them being "flipped". Hes arguing that he is worried that people will publicly come out, which means you can lean on the "so you just want to suppress people to make you happy?"

He will bite the bullet and say yes, and then you get to say, "well sack up snowflake, grow up, and get over it", because at that point he has capitulated his argument of "not wanting to create more gay people" by saying he has other explicit motivations influencing his argument of the point and that he doesnt actually care whether more gay people are created, he only want to foster an environment where gay people dont want to come out.

A very different

I kind of struggle with basic syllogisms, I take a bit too long to solve them. I think my approach is the problem, what strategy do you think works best? Drawing out venn diagrams, or just following the logic?

Example 1

Premise 1: Some quadrilaterals are squares.

Premise 2: Figure 1 is a quadrilateral.

Conclusion: Figure 1 is a square.

Example 2

Premise 1: Jesus was in Paradise (Heaven)

Premise 2: Jesus is in Lee Man Hee

Premise 3: Jesus is Paradise

Conclusion: SCJ is Heaven

The following argument was presented to me. The presenter has been combative and says because i cannot prove him wrong he is right

“(1) P(A|B)>P(A). (2) P(A&B)>P(A)P(B). (3) P(A)-P(A&B)<P(A)-P(A)P(B). (4) P(A&~B)<P(A)P(~B). (5) P(A|~B)<P(A).

So if B is evidence for A, not-B is evidence against A.”

But this conclusion offered is text book denying the antecedent.

So from 1 can assume that P(A)<P(B)? 2 is bayes 3 i get that if 2 is legit, How does 3 inform us about 4? Does 5 actually translate to, “So if B is evidence for A, not-B is evidence against A?”

hey guys,

so decision making is one of my weaker sections; and upon reflection of my mini mocks & mocks it seems like it’s always the drawing conclusions/syllogism questions that sneak up on me. i have been practice & on good days i’ll get majority of them right and on bad days the opposite — so does anyone have any techniques/strategies for these question types? like is it better to do it all in your head or write things on the whiteboard? or is writing things a waste of time? but if you do use the whiteboard, what are some of the things you take note of so that you’re not wasting time & you can be as efficient as possible?

thank you!

Are DM syllogisms the same number of marks/same score as the other questions? I have found leaving them til last quite useful as they take me ages but wanted to know if they are scored the same. Thanks!

(my wording is a bit off, sorry!)

How can I represent circular reasoning arguments in the form of a syllogism? For example, modus ponens looks like:

if a, then b  
a  
therefore b  

My initial guess was something like:

if a, then b  
if b, then a  
a
therefore b   

But I realize this is just modus ponens (extended). I'm very confused how I can even write down circular reasoning arguments in this type of form.

For If all that which exists is material [p1], and that which exists is not what it should be [p2], then that which should be doesn't exist

[c1].

If that which doesn't exist, can't exist [p3], and that which should be doesn't exist [p3.5][c1], then that which should be can't exist

[c2].

If that which should be can't exist [p4][c2], and if moral intuitions exist [p4.5], and if moral intuitions give us moral insights on what exists [p5], then moral intuitions can't give us moral insights on what should be

[c3].

Continuing on, If that which exists is to improve, it must become, either in degrees or in totality, what it should be [p6]. But if what should be can't exist [p4][c2], and that which exists cannot become what can't exist[p6], then that which exists cannot become improved, either in degrees or in totality

[c4].

So, If moral intuitions exist[p4.5], and if that which exists cannot become what can't exists [p7], and if that which exists cannot become improved, either in degrees or in totality [p8][c4], then moral intuitions cannot be improved, either in degrees or in totality

[c5].

But, if that which shouldn't be exists only in relation to that which should be[p9], and that which should be can't exist [p4][c2], then that which shouldn't be can't exist

[c6].

However, if that which should be can't exist [p4][c2], and if that which shouldn't be can't exist [p10][c6], and if moral intuitions give us moral insights on what exists[p5], then moral intuitions cannot give us moral insights on what should be or what shouldn't be

[c7].

But, if moral intuitions exist [p4.5], and if moral intuitions cannot be improved, either in degrees or in totality[p11][c5], and if moral intuition can't give us moral insights on what should be or what shouldn't be[p12][c7], then moral intuitions are always going to best they can be.

[c8]

Continuing, If flaws exist only in relation to that which shouldn't be, either in degrees or in totality[p13], and if that which shouldn't be can't exist [p14][c6], then flaws can't exist, either in degrees or in totality.

[c9]

But, if flaws can't exist, either in degrees or in totality [p15][c9], and if moral intuitions exist [p4.5], then moral intuitions can't have flaws

[c10].

Continuing, if a something A exists only in relation to what can't exist, [p16], then something A

GF made me reflect on the following
&gt; Furio likes a woman you can grab onto something
&gt; Furio likes Carmela
= Carmela is a woman you can grab onto something

Agree? Disagree? Please discuss

Could you give examples where a syllogism may be confusing/inefficient, and where induction reasoning would be superior? I'm trying to better understand Bacon and his role in philosophy.