12-08-2008, 01:41 PM
"All men are mortal. Socrates was a mortal. Therefore, all men are Socrates." -- Woody Allen
We understand the humor in the above. It's an argument, with premises and a conclusion, but the elements have been scrambled.
The argument here is:
Swampy's conclusion is correct; the conclusion in the argument is not.
The premise part of the argument is this:
From the above, what can we conclude? Let's take a less emotional example.
Say I eat oranges five days in a row. Sunday, Greg eats an orange. Monday, Greg eats an orange. Tuesday, Greg eats an orange. Wednesday, Greg eats an orange. Thursday, Greg eats an orange.
What can we conclude? Given the above, we might conclude something about Greg, about Friday, or about oranges. I think we might conclude that Friday, Greg will eat an orange.
Of course, I might not eat an orange on Friday, because Friday might be lasagna day. However, given the above, the statement "Friday, Greg will eat an orange" would not seem unreasonable.
Can I assert something about any given random orange? I don't think so. I can't assert something about the orange in Spain, or under the Atlantic, or in my neighbor's house. The only conclusion I can draw (even with vague confidence) is about what Greg will do, not about an element of the group with which Greg does a thing.
Now, back to the argument.
Swampy's assertion:
...is analogous to declaring what Greg will eat on Friday. Is it a sure thing? No. Might it be reasonable? Yes.
However, that is not the quoted argument's conclusion.
...is an assertion about oranges, and is therefore unsupportable. QED.
We also had the bus example. The problem with the bus example is that it points to the orange sitting on my counter Friday morning and says, "I consider is probable that Greg will eat this orange." Well, of course. But the quoted argument is not talking about (forgive me) Ahmed on the bus wearing a coat in the summer and mumbling to himself and holding the Koran. (Again, forgive me.) The argument is talking about Ahmed, anywhere. Read it again:
This states that all men are Socrates. Formally speaking, the argument is invalid; casually speaking, it is bogus, as the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
So much for Greg the philosopher. Now, let's turn to Greg the orange-eating liberal.
The thread is disgusting. Sarcasm is using words to imply their opposite meaning. "He's so tall" means he's short. "I feel great" becomes "I'm sick." Etc. Referring to Islam as "The Religion of Peace" sarcastically is either calling Islam the Religion of War, or the Religion of Violence, or - at minimum, the Religion of Not Peace. I wonder how might everyone feel about "Once again, the Catholic Church helping little boys," or "Hey, how about those Jews? Sure are acting Chosen again!" It's inflammatory, it's loutish thinking, and I feel bad for a Muslim who might wander across this place and get turned off.
Thanks,
GtDS
We understand the humor in the above. It's an argument, with premises and a conclusion, but the elements have been scrambled.
The argument here is:
Mrs. Argument wrote:
We know that the 19 (9-11) hijackers were Middle-Eastern men between 18 and 23. We know that the people who hit the Cole were the same profile. We know that the people who hit the embassies in Africa were the same profile. So not using what we know--that the probability that a Middle-Eastern male between 18 and 23 is going to be a terrorist--not using that, is folly. And I think we should use it. But it's not racial profiling, it's terrorist profiling.
Swampy's conclusion is correct; the conclusion in the argument is not.
The premise part of the argument is this:
Mrs. Premise wrote:
We know that the 19 (9-11) hijackers were Middle-Eastern men between 18 and 23. We know that the people who hit the Cole were the same profile. We know that the people who hit the embassies in Africa were the same profile.
From the above, what can we conclude? Let's take a less emotional example.
Say I eat oranges five days in a row. Sunday, Greg eats an orange. Monday, Greg eats an orange. Tuesday, Greg eats an orange. Wednesday, Greg eats an orange. Thursday, Greg eats an orange.
What can we conclude? Given the above, we might conclude something about Greg, about Friday, or about oranges. I think we might conclude that Friday, Greg will eat an orange.
Of course, I might not eat an orange on Friday, because Friday might be lasagna day. However, given the above, the statement "Friday, Greg will eat an orange" would not seem unreasonable.
Can I assert something about any given random orange? I don't think so. I can't assert something about the orange in Spain, or under the Atlantic, or in my neighbor's house. The only conclusion I can draw (even with vague confidence) is about what Greg will do, not about an element of the group with which Greg does a thing.
Now, back to the argument.
Swampy's assertion:
Swampy wrote:
if there were a terrorist attack on NYC, it will probably be done by a Middle Eastern male between the ages of 18 and 23
...is analogous to declaring what Greg will eat on Friday. Is it a sure thing? No. Might it be reasonable? Yes.
However, that is not the quoted argument's conclusion.
Mrs. Conclusion wrote:
...that the probability that a Middle-Eastern male between 18 and 23 is going to be a terrorist...
...is an assertion about oranges, and is therefore unsupportable. QED.
We also had the bus example. The problem with the bus example is that it points to the orange sitting on my counter Friday morning and says, "I consider is probable that Greg will eat this orange." Well, of course. But the quoted argument is not talking about (forgive me) Ahmed on the bus wearing a coat in the summer and mumbling to himself and holding the Koran. (Again, forgive me.) The argument is talking about Ahmed, anywhere. Read it again:
Mrs. Conclusion wrote:
...that the probability that a Middle-Eastern male between 18 and 23 is going to be a terrorist...
This states that all men are Socrates. Formally speaking, the argument is invalid; casually speaking, it is bogus, as the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
So much for Greg the philosopher. Now, let's turn to Greg the orange-eating liberal.
The thread is disgusting. Sarcasm is using words to imply their opposite meaning. "He's so tall" means he's short. "I feel great" becomes "I'm sick." Etc. Referring to Islam as "The Religion of Peace" sarcastically is either calling Islam the Religion of War, or the Religion of Violence, or - at minimum, the Religion of Not Peace. I wonder how might everyone feel about "Once again, the Catholic Church helping little boys," or "Hey, how about those Jews? Sure are acting Chosen again!" It's inflammatory, it's loutish thinking, and I feel bad for a Muslim who might wander across this place and get turned off.
Thanks,
GtDS