Perhaps we should be embarrassed for you, Lawrence. A deductive syllogism NEVER goes beyond its premises. The conclusion is always only a setting out of the premises. Deduction never gets you new knowledge. It merely clarifies what is already contained in the premises. For new knowledge you need induction -- but induction sacrifices certainty.
Andreas was pointing out that you committed the error of four terms. A proper syllogism can have only three terms (major, minor and middle). If you use a word twice in your syllogism but it doesn't have the same meaning both times, you have added a fourth term and, thus, committed a formal fallacy.
US in Canada Lawrence Helm wrote:
I was embarrassed for you, Andreas. What you provided was in the form of a Syllogism but it wasn’t one. It wasn’t an argument. It is like saying that Saddam had brown hair and a mustache; therefore he was a brown-haired mustachioed individual. The term “therefore” implies a conclusion drawn from premises. But no conclusion is called for because brown-haired mustachioed doesn’t go beyond brown-haired and having a mustache. You could say “in other words” for what you have in the form of a conclusion is synonymous with what you have in the form of premises.
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
