Lindsay Lohan: Validly, A Non Strong Minded Individual

P1:  Some people identicle to Lindsay Lohan are people who are bulimic.
P2:  All people who are bulimic are non strong minded individuals.

C:  Therefore, some non strong minded individuals are people who are identicle to Lindsay Lohan.


Would be set up as:
P1:  Some p are b.
P2:  All b are n.
C:  Some n are p.

Diagramming the universal "All b are n." first would be:

Then the particular "Some p are b":

This proves this IAI - 4 syllogism valid because the conclusion "Some n are p" is diagrammed as follows:

The Snapping Turtle

I got nothing to post this week, so ill just do a couple of these things into categorical propositions.

"This guy likes to have pizza for breakfast."
Would translate into:
All people that are identicle to this guy are people who like to have pizza for breakfast.


"Ive seen that turtle climb a chain link fence."
Would translate into:
Some turtles are creatures able to climb chain link fences."

Really though, check it out.

He looks like a snapping turtle.
Would translate into:
All turtles that look similar to him are snapping turtles.

Santa was good to me, but Ive outgrown my toy trucks

So I was thinking about stuff.  More specifically, about having stuff.


Here it goes.

Ok, lets say you have 5 apples, like the ones below.
o-  o-  o-  o-  o-

Saying you have 5 apples also means that if someone were to ask if you had 3 apples you could tell them yes.
o-  o-  o-           o-  o-
^Three apples.  Also two more

But you could not say that you have 6 apples, because you do not have 6 apples.

Therefore, if Santa is bringing you 10 toy trucks for Christmas, he is also bringing you 2 toy trucks.

The opposite is not necessarily true.  Just because Santa is bringing you 2 toy trucks for Christmas does not say anything about the possibility of him bringing you 10, or even 3, toy trucks.  But he is definately bringing you one toy truck.

From the apple example, if you were to ask someone if they have 5 apples, and they truthfully say yes, then you can assume at least two things.  (1.) That person has 2 apples; they also have 1, 3, 4, and 5 apples.  (2.) You cannot say anything about the number of apples above that number that they said they have.


-Not having stuff is a little different than having stuff.

Lets say you need 5 apples for an apple pie recipe and you do not have 5 apples.
That would be like saying that you have -5 apples.

But what if you have 3 apples for that recipe.  Well...you still dont have 5 apples, nothing changes there.
But because all you need is 2 apples for the recipe, so you could say that you have -2 apples.

Saying that you have -2 apples also means that you have have -5 apples.  This is because if you dont have 2 apples, then you dont have 5 apples, or 10 apples for that matter.  But you cant be sure of the opposite.  Saying that you have -5 apples does not mean that you have -3 apples.  (Saying that you do not have 5 apples does not mean that you do not have 3 apples.)


Its the same thing for being $10 in debt.  Just because you do not have $10, does not mean that you do not have $8.  But if you do not have $10, then you do not have $15.

If you were to ask someong if they had $10, and they truthfully said that they did not, then two things could be assumed.  (1.) That person does not have any amount above the number they said they did not have, whether it be $20, $100, or any amount above or in between.  (2.) You cannot say anthing about the amount they have below the number you asked for; they could have $8, $3, any amount inbetween 0 and the amount you asked if they had, or nothing at all.

Its still a Sheep

The Aristotelian standpoint can be summarized as stating that "universal propositions about existing things have existential import".
-This is easily proved true because it is saying that universal propositions that imply the existance of something known to exist, have implied the existance of that thing.


The Boolean standpoint states that "a universal proposition does not imply the existance of any term it contains".

I have deduced logically that these two things, while being compared on the same scale, should not be considered "different approaches".  This is because of the two ways to view the proposition in question:

1.  The Boolean way looks at all propositions in standard form.
Take the books example of: 'All trucks are vehicles'
This is the equivilant of saying that 'All T are V' (this means nothing - see below).
This statement in standard form, because it could be talking about anything (substitution instances), is actually implying nothing about the terms it contains because it is not looking at them.

2.  The Aristotelian way then takes this proposition and removes it from the standard form we turned it into and forces us to have prior knowledge of the subject.
'All trucks are vehicles'.
From here, we are being asked to take the term given and compare it with our own personal store of information.  Yes, we know that a 'truck' is a thing, because we have seen one.  Therefore, we can say that the existance of 'trucks' has been confirmed (not so much implied).

Take a proposition that has no existential import:
'All unicorns are one-horned animals'
All we need to do is look at the subject term 'unicorns'.  We know that unicorns do not exist, because we have prior knowledge of them being magical creatures.
Therefore, this proposition has no existential import.



On a completely unrelated note, I find the term 'unicorn' to be an ambiguous classification for a creature.
This is because I was thinking about a unicorn (the species) haveing two horns.  Is it still a unicorn?  I think it is, just as a unicorn with no horn would still be a unicorn.

After all, a sheep with only one horn is still a sheep.

The bane of existance

I remember a profile picture update from Jason, a buddy of mine on facebook, that I truely feel needs to be mentioned.

The update went as follows:
-"That rooster with its glowing eyes has been the bane of my existance for over a year."

The backstory for this is fairly straightforward in that he used to live in an appartment near Umass, Amherst.  Down the street from his place was a farm that housed a very adventurous rooster who would wander the stretch of road to Jasons yard and "make rooster noises all morning".

This is a picture of the guilty party (the rooster is the one on the left):

Might as well put his update (categorical proposition) into standard form.

quantifier:               that
subject term:           rooster
copula:                    is
predicate term:        the bane of my existance

The copula im not 100% on, and I dont know whether or not leaving out "for over a year" was a good move for the predicate term.

Let me know.

Thumbs Up for Conservation

For starters, 'thumb' means 'tree'.


P1:  Tropical rainforests store huge amounts of carbon dioxide both above and below the ground in their thumbs.

P2:  Large amounts of CO2 (a greenhouse gas) are released into the atmosphere by either the decomposition or burning of large numbers of these thumbs.

P3:  CO2 makes the biggest contribution to the enhanced greenhouse effect.

P4:  The greenhouse effect is responsible for increased temperatures on Earth's surface (global warming).

C:  The thumbs of tropical rainforests should be left alone so as to prevent global warming from the greenhouse effect.


Can someone help me evaluate this argument?


Heres the source:
http://kanat.jsc.vsc.edu/student/callahan/mainpage.htm#climate

Sandscrit, the first written language

My post for this week is this - short and sweet.

Im basically begging the question about ...I donno...the existance of modern religions.

Here it is:

If God told people to write down his word (his law, if you will), then why did it take him so long to do it.

Wouldn't the bible have been first written in sandscrit, the first written language?



I feel like this proves a fallacy in the argument that God actually narrated for the people his word to be written down and obeyed.