Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Petronski
"Socrates=man" is false.

So you are claiming Socrates was not a man - you just don't know when to stop digging. Clearly you have never studied logic. What I presented to you was merely an abbreviated form of basic study of Aristotelian logic:

Here is an example

Socrates=man is absolutely true.

Your logic fallacy is that of equivocation.

Your logic was:

If Software=Firmware, than Firmware=Software must be true. That is fallacious logic - this can be demonstrated many ways

Ford=car - using your logic: car=Ford

Micheal Jackson = singer - using your logic: singer = Micheal Jackson.

This is Logic 101 - logic fallacy equivocation (which is part of the Fallacy of Ambiguity)

Your use of "a" is actually the solution to YOUR logic flaw.

Firmware = software (it is A type of software)

Therefore you dove into the deep sea of logic fallacy when you claimed: if firmware=software therefore software=firmware. Your own statement exposed YOUR error.

Firmware=Software is true (Firmware is A type of software but not the only type software - so Software=Firmware is not true)

More examples:

C++ code=Software is true but Software=C++ code is not

Mac=Computer is true but Computer=Mac is not true

Firmware=software is true but Software=Firmware is not true.

Socrates=man is true. (was true) but man=Socrates is not true (Socrates a member of the group but not the only member)

BTW: if Socrates=a Man then Socrates sure as shinola = man. Another example: Bush=President is true but President=Bush is NOT ALWAYS true (the logic is faulty because it is not always true, not that it is false - that was your second error)

Note: a Venn diagram will expose your logic error in regards to firmware and software.

The funniest part of this is all you have done is explain why your own logic is faulty.

544 posted on 03/14/2005 10:15:00 AM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies ]


To: Last Visible Dog
So you are claiming Socrates was not a man

No. I am stating that the set "Socrates" and the set "man" are not the same. Socrates was A man. Socrates does not define the term man. Socrates is a member of the set Man. In defining the term "man," Socrates is necessary, but not sufficient. To equate them means that one is completely defined by the other, with nothing needing to be added or removed. That is not the case.

547 posted on 03/14/2005 10:38:32 AM PST by Petronski (If 'Judge' Greer can kill Terri, who will be next?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies ]

To: Last Visible Dog
(the logic is faulty because it is not always true, not that it is false - that was your second error)

I left out an important word: (the logic is faulty because it is not always true, not that it is ALWAYS false - that was your second error)

548 posted on 03/14/2005 10:41:40 AM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies ]

To: Last Visible Dog
(the logic is faulty because it is not always true, not that it is false - that was your second error)

You did not catch your mistake - that was your third error. You have not corrected your mistake - your fourth error. You are FLAWED! You are IMPERFECT. You ARE error! Correct your error! Correct your error!

549 posted on 03/14/2005 10:45:23 AM PST by SlowBoat407 (Say NO to pax islamica)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson