Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00715)

Mary Poppins:
>The Vietnamese Terror wrote:

>>>Mary P.:
>>>Premise: If A, then B
>>>Premise: A
>>>Conclusion: B  
>>>
>>>Although there may be all kinds of room for debate about the truth of the
>>>premises, I see no room for debate about the conclusion, assuming the
>>>premises are true.  Unless my logic is mistaken, which is always possible,
>>>if someone concluded something other than B from this syllogism, they would
>>>have been illogical.
>>>
>>>Thoa:
>>Let's take A=Johnny trips over the curb, and
>>B=Johnny falls
>>
>>Premise:  If Johnny trips over the curb, then Johnny falls
>>Premise:  Johnny trips over the curb
>>Conclusion:  Johnny falls
>>
>>But what if the conclusion is C=Johnny balances himself and does not fall?
>>You have left out the C possibility, which could logically happen.

>If these premises are true, Johnny could not balance himself and not fall.
>C is only possible if one of the premises is false.

Mary, what I was trying to say is that you cannot squeeze life and
astrallife into a cut and dry logic.  The problem with a cut and dry logic
is that you exclude other possibilities.  The logic equation above seems
self-evident.  You witnessed Johnny tripping over the curb and falling.  In
the conclusion, you are only repeating the consequence of what you have just
seen.  Duh!  The danger comes when people jump to conclusions based on their
premises which may seem self-evident and which may be false.  Johnny did not
trip, he skipped.  Johnny did not fall, he did a cartwheel.  Even Einstein's
long accepted equation of E=Mc**2 was proven inaccurate.  What you said is
true of the logic.  However, that logic is almost useless when there can be
endless variations of the premise, some so similar to the original premise
that you end up mistaking it for the original premise, and therefore,
mistaken premises, mistaken conclusion.

The American Terror (I was naturalized)