The syllogism goes back to at least Aristotle. It is useful and forms a basis for a system in logic that is both obtuse and intricate but useful as an introduction to logical thinking as a process. The link below is to the Wiki article on syllogism which outlines broadly the history and the valid forms of various syllogisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
I thought about syllogisms recently because of a book that I was perusing once again:
The 776 Stupidest Things Ever Said. The book came out in 1993, years before the 2+2 Politics forum even existed -So obviously it has been superseded tenfold but that is not the
Raison d'être of this OP.
Back to the book; two entries captivated my eye and reminded me that I needed to study up on syllogisms to better understand what I was reading. The examples follow (I am assuming complete accuracy of the book):
From a resolution made by councilmen, Canton, Mississippi, Mid-1800’s
1. Resolved, by this council, that we build a new jail.
2. Resolved, that the new jail be built out of the materials of the old jail.
3. Resolved, that the old jail be used until the new jail is finished.
British Admiralty instructions dealing with the storage of warheads and torpedoes.
It is necessary for technical reasons that these warheads should be stored with the top at the bottom, and the bottom at the top. In order that there may be no doubt as to which the top is and which the bottom, for storage purposes, it will be seen that the bottom of each head has been labeled with the word TOP.
I wanted to turn the above statements into syllogisms but had that empty feeling in my stomach that comes at times of ineptitude and embarrassment at unable to fulfill my prescribed duty. I gave a try at the second example and came up with this:
1. The top should stored at the bottom
2. The bottom is labeled as the top
3. No one can now mistake the top for the bottom
Perhaps it can be improved and made more colorful and flamboyant. Which leads me to my last comment.
As an aside to all the silliness above, I note the general lack of colorful language and/or metaphors in most syllogisms and view it as a valid criticism of the formal syllogism. For instance the example provided below is much more expressive and lively:
1. Tom Cowley demands that David Sklansky apologize to 'someone', including, we can reasonably assume, even a random herd of sheep.
2. David Sklansky does not apologize.
3. Tom Cowley is pissing into the wind and should become a sheepherder.
Last edited by Zeno; 10-08-2014 at 12:07 AM.
Reason: Typos
