Talk:Deductive reasoning
|
|
Where you say, using the example of "all ravens are black birds", I think that this is a little confusing, if you think about it,(which I'm sure you're hoping your readers will-for what is the point of writing something that nobody thinks about)because surely the nominal part of the sentence black birds in the semantic interpreation that the author is trying to get across is that the color is important, that is the focus, is it not? The blackness of the bird, is it not? The thing that is confusing is that there is a category of bird that is called a black bird not talking about the color but focusing on a category or taxinomy of a particular bird which obviously was named such because it is black but that is not the point. You wouldn't say all ravens are red hens or even chickens because in fact hen is only the female variety but I hope you get what I mean. It is in fact, is it not?, redundant (redundant language use) to say bird at the end because surely all people know that a raven is a type/category/taxonomy of bird so I think that the examlple here should go all "ravens are black". I think this is more acurate and will prevent possible misunderstanding which we don't want surely. I hope you don't think I'm just being hopelessly pedantic but accuracy is, is it not by connotation pedantic? katobolic kivi
It's only just occured to me that perhaps the use of raven and blackbird is actually quite semantically similar is it not? That would or possibly could make the argument tautological, could it not?
I'm hoping to lift examples of logic and reasoning from the talk boards where the discussions demonstrate various types of logic. --DennisDaniels 19:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)