Quote:
Quote by: tommy5x  Quote:
Quote by: Anmon Quote:
Quote by: gallo A philosopher once instructed me:
Half a loaf is better than nothing.
Nothing is better than heaven.
ergo --------------------------------------
Half a loaf is better than heaven.
You and Tommy seem to be making the same logical error as the above syllogism. By the way, the syllogism is valid. | the logic here is truly astounding, I hope when I die now, instead of going to heaven and paradise, I go to half a loaf instead. | It's valid only by pedantic grammatical interpretation. |
You guys are correct. I messed it up. That is not a valid sylogism. I should have said:
Nothing is better than heaven.
Half a loaf is better than nothing.
ergo--------------------------------
Half a loaf is better than heaven.
There! Now the sylogism is valid. Notice that I make no claim that it is rational or true, only that it is a valid syllogism. It has the form:
B=A
C=B
ergo
C=A
Why don't one of you point out where the error is. Can either of you point out the logical error? Which is, by the way, the error I was pointing out in a previous post.