Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the validity of the 'star test' for syllogisms as introduced by Harry J. Gensler. Participants explore the implications of the test in determining valid conclusions from given premises, specifically examining examples and counterexamples related to syllogistic reasoning.
Discussion Character
- Exploratory
- Debate/contested
- Conceptual clarification
Main Points Raised
- One participant questions the validity of the conclusion 'some B is C' from the premises 'all A is B' and 'all A is C', suggesting it may be valid despite the star test indicating otherwise.
- Another participant points out a potential fallacy related to the Undistributed Middle Term, questioning the accuracy of the premises as stated.
- A participant explains the mechanics of the star test, noting that the test requires each capital letter to be starred exactly once and that there should be exactly one starred letter in the conclusion.
- One participant speculates that the lack of a necessary existence of A could explain the invalidity of the conclusion.
- Another participant provides a concrete example using 'Ford', 'vehicle', and '4 wheels', suggesting that the conclusion could be valid in this context.
- A different example involving 'fairies', 'things that have wings', and 'things that have magic wands' is presented, highlighting that the existence of A affects the validity of the conclusion.
- One participant acknowledges a realization that the emptiness of A is a critical factor in the discussion.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express differing views on the validity of conclusions drawn from the premises based on the star test. There is no consensus on whether the conclusions presented are valid, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of the star test.
Contextual Notes
Participants note that the validity of conclusions may depend on the existence of the subject A, which introduces uncertainty into the application of the star test.