All horses are dogs?

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The undistributed middle

All horses have four legs and all dogs have four legs, so all horses are dogs. (205).

Neither horses or dogs occupy the entire class of four-legged creatures. (205). See archives for my Langer, symbolic logic articles on 'class'.

Pirie:

'The 'middle' which carelessly omitted to get itself distributed is the term which appears in the first two lines of a three-line argument, but which disappears in the conclusion. The classic three-liner requires that this middle term must cover the whole of its class at least once. If not, it is undistributed.

All men are mammals. Some mammals are rabbits, therefore some men are rabbits.

(Even though the first two lines are correct, the middle term 'mammals' never once refers to all mammals. The middle term is thus undistributed and the deduction invalid. . . .

The standard three-liner (called a 'syllogism') works by relating one thing to another by means of a relationship they both have with a third. Only if at least one of those relationships applies to all the third thing, do we know that it is certain to include the other relationship.' (205-206).

Logically fallacious

'Fallacy of (the) Undistributed Middle (also known as: maldistributed middle, undistributed middle term)

Description:

A formal fallacy in a categorical syllogism where the middle term, or the term that does not appear in the conclusion, is not distributed to the other two terms.

Logical Form:

All A's are C's.
All B's are C's.
Therefore, all A’s are B’s.

Example #1:

All lions are animals.

All cats are animals.

Therefore, all lions are cats.'

To avoid a fallacy,  the first two premises must both relate to the third premise, the conclusion. (206). 

The classic syllogism

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore Socrates is mortal.

My recent example

What exists as necessary is good.

God exists as necessary.

Therefore, God is good.

Philippians: On suffering

From extra parking lot, near TriCity Church (Northview Community Church, church plant)

Philippians 1:21

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

To Live Is Christ

21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.

Ralph P. Martin explains and provides interpretations:

Paul is stating that if he dies and glorifies God, it is the Apostle's gain. Martin (79). Paul reasons that besides his entrance to heaven and a heavenly reward, his martyrdom will produce promotion for the gospel message. (79).

In a sense, Paul will be closer to Jesus Christ and God, because the Apostle would exchange this temporal realm for the heavenly realm of Paradise, that Paul had experienced for a time, previously. (2 Corinthians 12: 4).

It honours Christ, to die for the triune God and the gospel, but Martin is correct, martyrdom serves as an historical promotion for the work of Jesus Christ.

Jon Courson opines in his Bible commentary series that the Apostle Paul will be happier to be with Jesus Christ, as will all saints when they die in Christ. Courson (1277). A different human focus, other than a gospel focus, will find a person less than ultimately satisfied. Courson (1277). I reason this supports the idea that the heavenly realm will be a more blessed state for those in Christ, than will be this present temporal, fallen, realm. Indeed the ending chapters of the Book of Revelation support this idea.

Hewlett reasons that Paul's life is bright (1443) because the gospel which saves people, is contrary to death. Being in a disembodied state, Paul will be conscious and free from sin and suffering. Hewlett (1443). If Paul remains he can still assist those in the Church in the earthly realm. Hewlett (1443).

Philippians 1:29-30

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

29 For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake, 30 experiencing the same conflict which you saw in me, and now hear to be in me.

Martin opines that the type of suffering Paul is discussing is not a mark of divine punishment, but is a sign of divine favour. Martin (92). It is an aspect of divine grace to suffer obediently in Jesus Christ. Martin (92). Martin connects salvation by grace through faith (Ephesians 1-2) as a gift from God and to endure the pain and suffering associated with this gift. Martin (92).

Of course Christians can suffer for disobedience (1 Peter 2, as example), but that is not the context here.

Courson writes that it is a privilege to suffer for Christ. Courson (1277). Obedience in suffering by the Church demonstrates allegiance to the Biblical God. Courson (1277).

Again, it could be viewed as promotion for the gospel, for the Church, that like the Apostle Paul, were willing to suffer for Jesus Christ and the gospel, even unto death.

Hewlett reasons it is a privilege to suffer for Christ. Hewlett (1444). This could be tied to the concept of honour in suffering and in martyrdom.

This privilege and honour is culminated at the judgement seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5). Honour will occur in judgement and in the enhanced, everlasting blessings for citizens within the Kingdom of God.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

HEWLETT, H.C. (1986) 'Philippians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

MARTIN, RALPH P. (1987) Philippians, Grand Rapids, IVP.

RYKEN, LELAND (2015) Literary Introduction to the Books of the Bible, Crossway, Wheaton, Illinois.

All human beings die: God does not exist?

Today

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Unaccepted enthymemes

An enthymeme argument is one where a stage of it is accepted by both parties. (203) A fallacy can occur when this stage is not accepted within an argument. (203).

One makes a general statement and makes it known his/her specific case falls under that general rule. (204-205).

Based on Pirie (205):

I am late. The traffic was horrible.

(My house is next door and I walked here. The walking traffic was just fine. The second premise does not support the first.)

Frank just died of cancer. God does not exist.

(God's existence is not based on the circumstances of human beings. In this present realm, all human beings eventually die. This is supported by Genesis 1-3, the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. The second premise does not support the first.)

One could state, fallaciously:

All human beings die. God does not exist.

Tu quoque

University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2004

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Tu quoque means 'you also'. (201). This fallacy is committed by the claim that the proponent is guilty of what he/she accuses the opponent of. (201).

This fallacy does not adequately deal with the subject under discussion. (202). Premises and conclusions do not reasonably deal with and resolve the subject under discussion. The truth or falsehood of the discussion is avoided and instead the background of the proponent, making the argument, is attacked by the opponent. (202).

As well, the opponent may attempt to demonstrate inconsistency in the proponent's position, again without dealing without reasonably resolving the issue. (202). The previous views of the proponent are claimed to be inconsistent with present views. (202).

This appears to be a form of ad hominem and Logically fallacious agrees:

Logically fallacious

Ad Hominem (Tu quoque) argumentum ad hominem tu quoque (also known as: “you too” fallacy, hypocrisy, personal inconsistency)

Description:

Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument.

Logical Form:

Person 1 is claiming that Y is true, but person 1 is acting as if Y is not true. Therefore, Y must not be true.

My example:

Proponent: You should consider abandoning your Hostess, Twinkies and Ding Dong, diet.
Opponent: What do you know? You live a 'fatastic', 'flabulous' life!

Non-fallacious

Proponent: You should consider abandoning your Hostess, Twinkies and Ding Dong, diet.
Opponent: Yes, I should consider minimizing Hostess to Saturday afternoon snack.

The opponent should examine the truthfulness or falseness of the proponent's premise, regardless of the proponent's actions.

(I have not eaten Hostess since I was a child in the 1980's)