philosophy

17 June 2020

Stewart Notes, 02 of 02 c. 2020

Chapters 3 & 4 from Elements of Knowledge; Pragmatism, Logic, and Inquiry

Philosophy 1370: 01 & 02 - Online!

First Summer Session 2020

Now, then, Euler’s diagrams and categorical syllogisms. Here, again, is the syllogism of interest:

All human beings are mammals (evidence, or “premiss”)

All mammals are warm blooded (evidence, or “premiss”)

- - - - - -

Thus, all human beings are warm blooded (conclusion)

- - - - - -

[Notice here that I’ve corrected something from yesterday: we want the first premiss to read as it is,

here, not “All human beings as mammals,” as was the case, yesterday. And, additionally, you will see

“premiss” rendered in my Elements of Knowledge as “premise.” Story? Well, “premise” is where one lives;

“premiss” is evidence in a deductive argument. Why? Well, I figured that if Vanderbilt University

Press, who invited me to write Elements,, and who paid for everything associated with production of the

book (rare, in the big leagues of scholarly publishing) wanted it that way, I wasn’t gonna complain, too

much !!]

- - - - - -

Now, back to it. Google “Euler Diagrams and Syllogistic Arguments - Image Results.” Scroll

around and you should see an image, a diagram, composed of concentric circles. So now, let us create

an Euler diagram to illustrate the syllogism given above. We’ll need three circles: a smallest one, to

1

represent “All human beings,” a second circle, somewhat larger, representing all “mammals,” with the

first, smallest circle contained within the second, and finally a third circle, somewhat larger still,

representing those animals who are warm blooded. Largest circle for the warm blooded, somewhat

smaller circle, enclosed within the largest, for the mammals, and, finally, the smallest circle of the three,

representing the human beings, enclosed within the one for the mammals. Bear in mind that birds, who

are quite warm blooded, are irrelevant to this exercise.

Think of drawing a circle, on paper, around a coin, say, a quarter. Then, within this, draw a

circle of a nickel. And finally, within the circle resulting from the nickel, draw one of a dime. And

again, mark the largest for the warm blooded, the medium-sized one for the mammals, and the smallest

of the three for the human beings. Now here’s the crucial part: please notice that the relation “smallest

to medium” cleanly portrays our first premiss, above; the relation “medium to largest” likewise renders

our second premiss, above; the conclusion, above, is what results.

Now, when you see that interlock, human beings to mammals, mammals to warm blooded, you

will know that the argument in question is valid. If you do not see that interlock between the three

circles, you will know that the argument in question is invalid, which is the case with the example from

p. 84 in Elements of Knowledge. So, with its false premiss and its invalid form, this example is rendered

unsound, and therefore worthless as an example of deduction reasoning. In such cases, we note a

content problem, namely the false premiss, and a formal problem/mistake that renders the whole matter

invalid. In such cases, then, we say that a formal fallacy, a formal mistake, is in play.

- - - - - -

Informal Fallacies. Mistakes in content occurring aside from being false. In our case, the fallacy held

in common in the following five examples has to do with a lack of relevance. More directly, their

common problem is irrelevance. E.g., say a classmate of ours announces that he or she suffers from

chronic, debilitation headaches. To prescribe an introductory book on Economics to reverse and

eliminate these headaches would be irrelevant !!

2

“Arguments from Ignorance.” Astrology is a classic example, with horoscopes as its main expression.

There is really no means by which to prove or to disprove the forecasts provided by astrology. If

someone “casts” your astrological forecast, predicting pending events in your future life, matters get

dicey. E.g., “Stewart, tomorrow you will become incredibly wealthy!” But tomorrow comes and goes,

and it doesn’t happen. The forecasting person can always retreat into claiming that I provided

insufficient information for the forecast. But suppose, for a moment, that I do become wealthy.

Tomorrow. Accidental accuracy. We are, by endorsing astrology, put in a position of unavoidable

ignorance, from which we cannot escape. Can’t prove it right. Can’t prove it wrong.

“Appeals to Unqualified Authority.” We’ve all known people who exude the posture of authority,

sometimes with force, to back themselves up, who really don’t know what they are talking about. I

recall individuals from private businesses, and from farming and ranching, and from academic life who

brought themselves to ruin, disgrace, and criminal convictions, because they dripped of authority. That’s

all they had, as it turned out. The distinction between appearance and reality finally arrived, though.

I’ve always thought that the person with real authority doesn’t advertise it, as a stupid means of

intimidation. The person with real authority is in the business (or “bidnezz,” as we termed it, in West

Texas) of giving things away. And not bragging about it.

“Appeals to the Mob.” Well, we’re all mature enough to recognize that simply and only because a

group of people get together and agree on something amongst themselves, with no real factual basis

involved, that this kind of subjective consensus “doesn’t make it so.”

“Appeals to Emotion.” A close cousin of the “Mob” problem. Emotion is a defining component of

who we are as homo sapiens, to be sure. But if “emotion” gets out of control, problems will ensue. For

example, my present wife of 20 years (wonderful marriage) was preceded by three other marriages (not

so wonderful). Need I say more?

3

“Ad hominem Attacks.” Ad hominem is Latin for “against the person” (roughly translated.) This is the

classic problem with attacking the messenger, in an attempt to obscure or discredit the message. Now,

in the following, please know that I am not “taking sides,” politically. But it is the case that much of

what President Trump has to say is immediately discarded, with ridicule and scorn, simply because he

said it. He just might be right in what he remarks about on Issue XYZ, but simply because he said it

leads many to throw his remarks into the trash.

Best wishes to all of you.

Ashley and I will assemble the next exam, tomorrow.

-Dr. Stewart & Ms. Thibodeaux

The Center for Philosophical Studies at Lamar University

* * * * *

4