Reply With QuoteI haven't studied logic, but would guess that a bovine is, by definition, a mammal, so you don't need the "mammal" bit. "The cow is a bovine" is a correct statement. So is "The bull is a bovine" - but that's a separate issue.
I'm still playing with the logic tutor and on the second self quiz re definitions this question came up:
A COW is a bovine mammal.
a) no genus
b) too broad
c) too narrow
d) nonessential
e) circular
f) negative
g) unclear (vague, obscure, metaphorical)
You had to tick the accurate criticism of the above and I ticked (b) because a cow is a FEMALE bovine mammal - but the logic tutor said the correct answer is (e).
I don't mind being wrong but I'd like to know why if I am - or has the tutor missed the existance of bulls?
I haven't studied logic, but would guess that a bovine is, by definition, a mammal, so you don't need the "mammal" bit. "The cow is a bovine" is a correct statement. So is "The bull is a bovine" - but that's a separate issue.
Anthony G Williams
Home page
Does the "circular" bit mean that "a bovine mammal is a cow" would also be correct? Because it isn't.
That's not a logic question. It relies on specific knowledge about the meanings of the categories cow, bovine and mammal.Originally Posted by Floppit
Be skeptical of the things you believe are false, but be very skeptical of the things you believe are true.
Colloquially if you had cattle of both sexes you'd call them cows.
Looks like complete bullocks to me
"I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer" - Zaphod Beeblebrox
"This post may be edited to make it more wrong" - skb
"Ignorance is no basis for rewriting the laws of physics" - Pebble
"I am a scientist, with a beard to prove it. This makes me an authority on nothing other than the growing and maintenance of facial hair" - skb
Bovine describes the species of cattle, which is itself by definition a particular sort of mammal. That a cow is a mammal is therefore part of the meaning of the word bovine. So to say a cow is bovine includes the fact that it is a mammal. I'd say the full statement was tautologous rather than circular. I don't see the circularity.
..more seriously its circular reasoning because its supporting a premise by repeating the premise in a stronger way. The statement may as well say " A cow is a cow"
skb
"I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer" - Zaphod Beeblebrox
"This post may be edited to make it more wrong" - skb
"Ignorance is no basis for rewriting the laws of physics" - Pebble
"I am a scientist, with a beard to prove it. This makes me an authority on nothing other than the growing and maintenance of facial hair" - skb
It's making a factual statement about the relationship between the meanings of the words "cow", "bovine" and "mammal", which would provide information to anyone unfamiliar with one or more of the words. It might be redundant to anyone who knows already what all of these words mean, but that could apply to any statement saying something that the listener already knows.
To call this a logic question reminds me of the Mensa books of "IQ questions", which are full of stuff which is not about IQ at all, but about general (and often culture-specific) knowledge.
Forget this logic tutor - it clearly doesn't know what logic is.
Be skeptical of the things you believe are false, but be very skeptical of the things you believe are true.
Floppit,
I think the reason why the quizmaster has ruled out circularity is this:
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/phil.../ch3/index.htm
That said, I think the section on definitions in that site is narrow and unhelpful. The criticism of circularity given above overlooks the fact that apparently circular definitions can be useful in practice. For example, one piece of UK legislation defines " blind" as meaning " so blind as to be unable to perform work for which eyesight is essential". The parliamentary draftsman has deftly picked out the type and degree of blindness that the official is to take notice of. Whether circularity is vicious depends on context and purpose.A circular definition tells us how a concept relates to itself, but not how it relates to other concepts or to reality. Such a definition doesn't go anywhere; it just moves in a circle.
Example:
Suppose we define "ownership" as the legal relation between people and the things they own. Because this definition uses the word "own," it defines the concept OWNERSHIP in terms of itself.
More generally: have a look at material on truth-tables, Venn diagrams, predicate logic and quantifier logic. Try different sites until you find one that suits you.
The style as we like is the humdrum.
Seems like tautology is unavoidable in this definition: 'A cow is a bovine' simply doesn't work.
–adjective 1.of or pertaining to the subfamily Bovinae, which includes cattle, buffalo, and kudus.2.oxlike; cowlike.3.stolid; dull.
–noun 4.a bovine animal.
If not bovine mammal, bovine animal suffers from the same problem.
The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature cures the disease. Voltaire
Lord Muck - it didn't rule out circularity - it said it was circular.
The section was about definitions - this is the 'blurb' that went with it. Each Rule is a hyper link to a further explaination.
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/phil.../ch3/index.htmRules for Definitions
Logicians have identified six rules for constructing a type of definition that is suitable for general purposes.
A definition should:
1. Include a genus and a differentia. 2. Be neither too broad or too narrow. 3. State the essential attributes of the concept's referents. 4. Avoid circularity. 5. Avoid negative terms. 6. Avoid vague, obscure, and metaphorical language.
I had 'got' that large chunks of this rely on some prior knowledge but I don't mind that, I still like the new ideas and not knowing things is something I can put right.
Matt - I would disagree that people who own cattle call them all cows. I've worked on farms and they call bullocks bullocks and bulls bulls! When refered to collectively it's cattle.
The statement had a genus and a differentia, mammal and bovine/cow but I would argue (perhaps because of their other examples, granted) that they are not one in the same because a cow is female where as a bovine can be any age or sex. In their example of a definition too broad they use:
That seems to me the same as including bulls as cows.Example:
Humans are two-legged animals.This definition is too broad because the defining phrase "two-legged animal" includes birds as well as humans.
Luckily I don't expect web site perfection in the first place - I just wanted to know whether I was going daft!
Last edited by Floppit; 9th April 2009 at 09:15 PM.
I haven't got as far as tautology, but I will.
Sorry, Floppit. I should have made my point clearer. The quizmaster does indeed say that it is circular. My point is that circularity of the sort he seems to have in mind needn't be a vice in a definition.
The style as we like is the humdrum.
not all cows are bovine.
female seals are called cows, yet they are phocidae not bovine. They are both mammalian though.
De omnibus dubitandum
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks