Ishtarr
Posts: 1130
Joined: 4/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Chulain
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ishtarr
You made the claim that it's impossible for a human being to have no limits.
You made the claim that it's possible for a mentally disturb person to have no limits.
You have committed (and are erroneously trying to pin on me) one of the most common logical fallacies: All As are Bs, all As are Cs, therefore all Bs are Cs.
All human beings have limits.
Having no limits means one is mentally disturbed.
It does not follow that having no limits means one is not human, which is the conclusion you are trying to tag me with.
Sweetie, make sure that you actually make the CORRECT translations before you accuse me of committing a fallacy of undistributed middle
First of all, in the conclusion the predicate term ALWAYS comes second, and the subject term ALWAYS comes second.
This means that in your example of a logical fallacy the conclusion should be "all C are B". Not "all B are C" which is absolutely impossible in categorical logic.
Further, you mistranslated the statements I said you made.
"It's impossible for a human to have no limits" does NOT translate into "All A are B" if you're going to use "A" as the middle term.
You are correct that it's the logical equivalent to "all humans have limits" which is translated logically to: "All P are M" or if you want to use A and B to "All B are A" (seeing that you're using "A" as the middle term meaning "no-limits".
For the second term, "it's possible for a mentally disturb person to have no limits" does NOT translate into "All A are C".
In fact, this statement can't even be translated into an A (all S are P) statement because it implies existence.
Instead, it's an I statement, and as such is the logical equivalent of "There are mentally disturbed humans who do not have limits" which is the logically equivalent to "Some mentally disturbed humans are people who do not have limits" (remember, because it implies existence.
Therefore, the symbolic translation correctly is: "Some S are M" or "Some C are A" (if you use "A" as the middle term like you did).
Thus:
You made the claim that it's impossible for a human being to have no limits.
You made the claim that it's possible for a mentally disturb person to have no limits.
Translates into:
All P are M.
Some S are M.
And then the only logical conclusion is (because this argument is in figure 2):
Some S are not P
Which means: "Some mentally disturbed people are not human beings.
This is an EIO3 argument... look it up...
No, as to the argument you just made...
All human beings have limits.
Having no limits means one is mentally disturbed.
It does not follow that having no limits means one is not human,
Is logically translated to:
All P are M.
Some S are not M. ------> Because "Having no limits means one is mentally disturbed." is the logical equivalent of "Some mentally disturbed people are not humans who have limits" AND because you can't have two different middle terms, it's either "have limits" like in your first premiss, or "have no limits" like in your second premiss, in this translation I picked "have limits"... I can do it with the other term as well, if you'd like.
Therefore, all M are P. -----> Because "It does not follow that having no limits means one is not human" is the obversion of "All being who have no limits are human beings".
So your argument is:
All P are M.
Some S are not M.
Therefore, all M are P.
Which is NOT a valid argument, seeing that you CAN'T use the middle term in the conclusion.
Logically, that argument is absolute gibberish, and the conclusion does not follow even remotely from the premisses.
Now, the correct conclusion for those two premisses would be (seeing that the figure is 2 and you use an A and an O premiss).
Some S are not P.
Which translates into: "Some mentally disturbed people are not humans."
So you can twist your wording around all you want to make it sound like you're saying something...
But the fact is that you just made the SAME argument again.
You made up a conclusion that doesn't follow your premisses, and the ONLY conclusion that DOES follow your premisses is that you believe mentally disturbed people aren't human beings...
Ishtar
_____________________________
Du blutest für mein Seelenheil
Ein kleiner Schnitt und du wirst geil
Egal, erlaubt ist, was gefällt
Ich tu' dir weh.
Tut mir nicht Leid!
Das tut dir gut.
Hör wie es schreit!
|
RE: no limits period - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread