Syllogistic Language?

[JM]

How important is syllogistic language to philosophy?

I picked up a logic text and it begins with syllogistic language but I'm more interested in informal logic, I'm not sure if this is a stupid question or not, do I need to study syllogistic logic to have a good understanding of informal logic?

Thanks,

j

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello JM,

Do I need to study syllogistic logic to have a good understanding of informal logic?

No, you don't. However, understanding "syllogistic logic" is invaluable to critical thinking. One of the main reasons is that when you take someone's argument and put it into proper catagorical propositional form, it forces you to really understand (clarify) what the author is saying. The process of "translating" everyday language into proper logical form is absolutely invaluable.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[JM]

Ok, I'll continue reading...thank you.

 

[Brian Bosse]

JM,

My pleasure. Do you mind telling me what text you are reading?

Thanks,

Brian

 

[biblicalthought]

Just remember, logic cannot determine truth, only the validity of the "form" of an argument. Valid/Invalid are your only options when examining syllogyms, not True/False or Good/Bad etc. Something (an argument) can be logically valid and false, just like something can be logically invalid and true.

All those married in the LDS temple will become gods.
My wife and I were married in the LDS temple
Therefore, we will become gods

This is pristine logic based on a false premise.

Anyhow, which work are you going through?

 

[RamistThomist]

Some dogs have spots.
My dog has spots.
My dog is some dog.

 

[JM]

JM,

My pleasure. Do you mind telling me what text you are reading?

Thanks,

Brian

Hi Brian, I just started reading "Introduction to Logic" by Harry Gensler. I also have "Intro to Logic" by Copi/Cohen [8th ed.] and didn't know which one to start with, since I just started reading Gensler a few days ago I'm re-thinking my Copi's textbook.

Which one should I read?

j

 

[cih1355]

A study of syllogistic logic will help you to analyze the form or structure of an argument. It will help you to discern whether or not the conclusion of an argument follows from the premises. However, when analyzing arguments it is not enough to know whether or not the conclusion follows from the premises. One must discern whether or not the premises are true.

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

Just remember, logic cannot determine truth, only the validity of the "form" of an argument. Valid/Invalid are your only options when examining syllogyms, not True/False or Good/Bad etc. Something (an argument) can be logically valid and false, just like something can be logically invalid and true.

All those married in the LDS temple will become gods.
My wife and I were married in the LDS temple
Therefore, we will become gods

This is pristine logic based on a false premise.

Anyhow, which work are you going through?

To explain invalid syllogyms I always use this one--

Major Premise: God is love.
Minor Premise: I love spinach.
Conclusion: God is spinach.

There is alot of "god is spinach" type theology in christianity based upon faulty logic and invalid syllogyms. Know the approach. Practise valid reasoning--but beware the wierd stuff!

 

[Civbert]

Hi Brian, I just started reading "Introduction to Logic" by Harry Gensler. I also have "Intro to Logic" by Copi/Cohen [8th ed.] and didn't know which one to start with, since I just started reading Gensler a few days ago I'm re-thinking my Copi's textbook.

Which one should I read?

j

[IMGR]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Q4CE7DHSL._AA240_.jpg[/IMGR] I have Copi/Cohen and it's pretty good. I don't agree that the idea of "existential import" was an improvement to traditional Aristotelian logic (and I don't think Copi really tries to prove otherwise, at least not formally), but for getting your mind around the basic principles of logic, Copi is considered a standard.

[IMGL]http://www.trinitylectures.org/images/item35.jpe[/IMGL]I started off learning logic with Gordon Clark's "Logic". It doesn't go into the depth or detail of Copi, and Clark uses his own notation (which can confuse people unfamiliar with it). However, I think Clark packs a lot of insight into his text. He never loses sight that logic is tied to philosophy. Modern logic seems to have lost touch with it's roots in Philosophy and it's more likely to be found under Mathematics and Computer Science. The result is that modern logic authors (like scientists) often have an empiricist world view underlying their thinking, but rarely examine their philosophical assumptions critically.

 

[biblicalthought]

To explain invalid syllogyms I always use this one--

Major Premise: God is love.
Minor Premise: I love spinach.
Conclusion: God is spinach.

There is alot of "god is spinach" type theology in christianity based upon faulty logic and invalid syllogyms. Know the approach. Practise valid reasoning--but beware the wierd stuff!

Excellent point, funny too, grieving as well...

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello JM,

I am not familar with Harry Gensler's book. I am familar with Copi. A fabulous little book on informal fallacies is With Good Reason by Engel. It is by far my favorite. At the beginning, it has a section on syllogistic argumentation, but it mainly deals with informal stuff. The treatment is terrific.

I started off learning logic with Gordon Clark's "Logic"...I think Clark packs a lot of insight into his text.

Clark does a great job illustrating how to put informal propositions (say from the Bible) into proper catagorical form. I cannot commend this type of exercise too much. Plus, Clark is thoroughly Christocentric - even if a little eccentric. Along with Civbert, I am a fan of Clark.

As much as I appreciate and respect my friend Civbert, I cannot disagree with him more regarding his criticim of modern logic and modern logicians. First off, all non-Christian logicians (including Aristotle) do not have the proper starting point. Secondly, most of the modern logicians I read are aware of the historical roots and development of logic - much more so than the traditionalists I have personally encountered. Lastly, as a Chrisitian, I can affirm the value of modern logic - not over and against traditional logic, but along with it. In fact, I was listening to Alvin Plantinga argue a point against Naturalism that he got from Liebnitz. As I was listening to one particular argument, it dawned on me that formal systems (a huge area of study in modern logic) are a picture of what Plantinga was arguing. Essentially, he was arguing that mechanical processes cannot account for propositional meaning. In formal systems, meaning is not part of the system. Rather, it is brought to the system. As such, formal systems can be seen as illustrations of Plantinga's and Liebnitz's argument.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[JM]

I've downloaded and listened to many of the mp3's on Robbins site and have enjoyed them.

What are some of the problems with V. Cheung's work?

 

[Craig]

I'm going to be reading Copi's introduction...I just found it at alibris for super cheap (about $3.00)...all I know is that Greg Bahnsen said Copi's book was the BEST introduction...for whatever you think Bahnsen's opinion is worth, you probably don't want to discard Copi.

 

[Civbert]

I've downloaded and listened to many of the mp3's on Robbins site and have enjoyed them.

What are some of the problems with V. Cheung's work?

I found his work fascinating. However, I haven't read everything he's written - and he appears to be a one-man-show (I don't know who he is accountable too). While I hesitate to endorse him, I've agreed with much of what I've read from him. Also others have had problems with him that I disagreed with.

 

[JM]

I think I've read everything Cheung has online but haven't studied much in terms of Christian philosophy so I wasn't sure what to think.

 

[Don]

JM,

My pleasure. Do you mind telling me what text you are reading?

Thanks,

Brian

Hi Brian, I just started reading "Introduction to Logic" by Harry Gensler. I also have "Intro to Logic" by Copi/Cohen [8th ed.] and didn't know which one to start with, since I just started reading Gensler a few days ago I'm re-thinking my Copi's textbook.

Which one should I read?

j

Gensler's book is good, esp. since he puts his solutions manual online for free. I would probably start with Copi, though.

 

[Davidius]

Let's say I wanted to start with Copi. Do I need to just march through the 700+ pages?

 

[JM]

Let's say I wanted to start with Copi. Do I need to just march through the 700+ pages?

I'm going to. I've been looking for direction in my study lately so this should help.

 

[BrianLanier]

I've downloaded and listened to many of the mp3's on Robbins site and have enjoyed them.

What are some of the problems with V. Cheung's work?

Don't waste your time with Cheung, it's not serious philosophy.

But I had to say it.

 

[Davidius]

I've downloaded and listened to many of the mp3's on Robbins site and have enjoyed them.

What are some of the problems with V. Cheung's work?

Don't waste your time with Cheung, it's not serious philosophy.

But I had to say it.

What's not serious about it?

 

[BrianLanier]

I've downloaded and listened to many of the mp3's on Robbins site and have enjoyed them.

What are some of the problems with V. Cheung's work?

Don't waste your time with Cheung, it's not serious philosophy.

But I had to say it.

What's not serious about it?

For starters, no *serious* contemporary philosopher would or has taken him *seriously*. Read some of Aquascum's critiques (just seach for it on google), they have not been dealt with in any satisfactory way. It is almost a waste of time to debate with them [those persuaded by Cheung]. The critiques are out there and they're good. Wish I could say more, but I just felt like opining (I just don't have the time to debate what has been debated ad nauseum).

 

[RamistThomist]

Let's say I wanted to start with Copi. Do I need to just march through the 700+ pages?

When I took Logic in college that is sort of what we did, although we skipped the section on categorical syllogisms. Make sure you read the first three chapters carefully.

But then I would skip around and read and study what I needed to.

 

[Davidius]

Don't waste your time with Cheung, it's not serious philosophy.

But I had to say it.

What's not serious about it?

For starters, no *serious* contemporary philosopher would or has taken him *seriously*. Read some of Aquascum's critiques (just seach for it on google), they have not been dealt with in any satisfactory way. It is almost a waste of time to debate with them [those persuaded by Cheung]. The critiques are out there and they're good. Wish I could say more, but I just felt like opining (I just don't have the time to debate what has been debated ad nauseum).

So...you say he's not a serious philosopher because "no serious philosopher would or has taken him seriously" and then support your argument by namedropping a guy called Aquascum. Well, okay. All I know about Aquascum is that he anonymously posts refutations of others' work on the internet and some people say that he is a "professional philosopher," whatever that means, and I don't understand how they could know this since he posts anonymously.

Neither do I know very much about Cheung, nor do I want to debate Cheung's philosophy with you (obviously, since I know only the very basics of it ). I just wanted to know what it is about him that makes him so unpalatable to you. It would not surprise me if no unbelieving philosophers would take a Christian philosopher seriously who bases his entire system on the Bible; the Word of God is foolishness to those who are perishing, right? But you're a believer, so what is it? his rejection of empiricism (not trying to make assumptions, it just seems that this is the problem most have with him and Clark)? If so, would you say that most of the Presocratics, Socrates, Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, Spinoza, Clark, et al. were not serious philosophers in their own right, even though you may disagree with them?

 

[JM]

I like Cheung's stuff, I just don't know much about the person is all.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Everyone,

I have read some stuff by Vincent Cheung. Some of his work is very good. However, I do not recommend him to anyone on two accounts...

1. He is not a very gracious person. He can be vetriolic and arrogant.
2. He does not honestly interact or deal with criticism. Most often his response to criticism is to say that he has already rebutted the criticism and points you to some of his writings, which may or may not weigh in on the issue. In short, he really does not care for discourse, but is only about a monologue.

I find his attitudes and interactions to be un-Christlike, but he goes to great lengths to justify himself. I remember one article where he was arguing that his use of provocative language towards unbelievers was justified because Jesus used such language and other Biblical writers used such language. That is fine as it goes, but motive is everything. Cheung's motives seem questionable to me. Our hearts are deceitful. There are many better people to read on the Web than Cheung.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[BrianLanier]

What's not serious about it?

For starters, no *serious* contemporary philosopher would or has taken him *seriously*. Read some of Aquascum's critiques (just seach for it on google), they have not been dealt with in any satisfactory way. It is almost a waste of time to debate with them [those persuaded by Cheung]. The critiques are out there and they're good. Wish I could say more, but I just felt like opining (I just don't have the time to debate what has been debated ad nauseum).

So...you say he's not a serious philosopher because "no serious philosopher would or has taken him seriously" and then support your argument by namedropping a guy called Aquascum. Well, okay. All I know about Aquascum is that he anonymously posts refutations of others' work on the internet and some people say that he is a "professional philosopher," whatever that means, and I don't understand how they could know this since he posts anonymously.

Neither do I know very much about Cheung, nor do I want to debate Cheung's philosophy with you (obviously, since I know only the very basics of it ). I just wanted to know what it is about him that makes him so unpalatable to you. It would not surprise me if no unbelieving philosophers would take a Christian philosopher seriously who bases his entire system on the Bible; the Word of God is foolishness to those who are perishing, right? But you're a believer, so what is it? his rejection of empiricism (not trying to make assumptions, it just seems that this is the problem most have with him and Clark)? If so, would you say that most of the Presocratics, Socrates, Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, Spinoza, Clark, et al. were not serious philosophers in their own right, even though you may disagree with them?

1) Some people do know who Aquascum is.
2) Have you read his critique(s)? If you have then you'll know at least *some* of the reasons he is "so unpalatable to [me]".
3) You *can't* base an entire philosophical system on the Bible, at least not one in the way Clark and Cheung are (purely on deduction).
4) Read some good contemporary *Christian* philosophers (plantinga, alston, wolterstorff, etc.) and I think you'll see the difference very quickly. The quality of work, the substance of argumentation, etc., are what makes me say Cheung is not a serious philosopher.

 

[Civbert]

1) Some people do know who Aquascum is.

But the fact that Aquascum is anonymous is still a good reason for being cautious about endorsing him.

2) Have you read his critique(s)? If you have then you'll know at least *some* of the reasons he is "so unpalatable to [me]".

I've read his arguments and even exchange e-mails with him. I don't think his arguments are as strong as people credit him with.

3) You *can't* base an entire philosophical system on the Bible, at least not one in the way Clark and Cheung are (purely on deduction).

Actually, I think Clark's philosophical system is quite solid. Cheung's too. There are some flaws in the details, but none are fatal. And there are some mistakes in execution. But those are failings of the person, and not the philosophical system itself.

4) Read some good contemporary *Christian* philosophers (plantinga, alston, wolterstorff, etc.) and I think you'll see the difference very quickly. The quality of work, the substance of argumentation, etc., are what makes me say Cheung is not a serious philosopher.

I also recommend reading some good contemporary philosophers. But you will also want to understand the history of philosophy. And don't assume a Christian is going to be a better philosopher.

You need to know the history to understand how some contemporary philosophy has developed. Also, don't assume philosophy as evolved in the sense of gradual improvements. Some of the first philosophers (the ancient Greeks) were right about some things. Some of the later philosophies were based on what they thought were improvements, but were actually set-backs. Contemporary philosophy is more sophisticated, but just as flawed.

When dealing with contemporary Christian philosophers, you might find some borrow a lot from contemporary worldly philosophies. Just as you see contemporary Christians who have given up to modern science without understand the philosophy behind science. Understanding views like post-modernism and existentialism can help you see how these have influenced some Christan philosophies and theologies. I think these philosophies have influenced the Federal Vision movement, and before that, NeoOthodoxy (Karl Barth).

What ever you do. Don't rely too much on blogs and web-boards. You can use them to get some ideas and advice - or the work out your ideas. But you have to weed out a lot of dross to get to the good stuff. There is good stuff to be found - just consider the source and weigh carefully.

 

[Davidius]

3) You *can't* base an entire philosophical system on the Bible, at least not one in the way Clark and Cheung are (purely on deduction).

The bible says that all wisdom and knowledge are in Christ. It also says that we've been given everything we need for life and godliness. Would you therefore explain to me why an entire philosophical system can't be based on the bible?

If, since you appended your point with the phrase "at least not...purely on deduction," you thereby mean that we can base a philosophical system entirely on the bible, yet not by means of deduction, how else would we base our philosophical system on the bible? The bible is a book of ideas from which inferences can be made, and the Westminster Confession states that all the truth which God has seen fit to reveal to us is either found in the scriptures or able to be deduced therefrom.

 

[Civbert]

I find his attitudes and interactions to be un-Christlike, but he goes to great lengths to justify himself. I remember one article where he was arguing that his use of provocative language towards unbelievers was justified because Jesus used such language and other Biblical writers used such language. That is fine as it goes, but motive is everything. Cheung's motives seem questionable to me. Our hearts are deceitful. There are many better people to read on the Web than Cheung.

I recall that article. It was titled "A Moron by Any Other Name". Here's a link the pdf file: (LINK)

One objection I have with his article is the use of the NIV.

Here is the final paragraph to whet the appetite:

The truth is that when I call someone a moron, I have at least momentarily spared him from the worst insult of all, an insult that represents all that is stupid, evil, filthy, and vile, and that speaks of someone who has no hope of getting better and no chance of escaping everlasting hellfire except by the sovereign grace of God. I am, of course, referring to the name "non-Christian." And once we have already used the greatest of insults, the rest are almost compliments.

While I don't agree with his approach to unbelievers, he certainly gives you something to think about. I would think Paul's examples of apologetics should be our model. And he seemed to use that kind of invective in dealing with false Christians - not unbelievers.

As for his motives, I am not a very discerning person, and will refrain from guessing.