Sir Humphrey and the Politician's Syllogism

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Mostly for fun.

Ancient lore has it that Sir Humphrey was shocked ( but not, of course, surprised) to hear Hacker propound the following syllogism:

Something must be done.

This is something.

Therefore, this must be done.


Was Sir Humphrey right to be shocked? And, if he was, why?

[Pebble]

Premature generalisation.

[Drop Bear]

Mostly for fun.

Ancient lore has it that Sir Humphrey was shocked ( but not, of course, surprised) to hear Hacker propound the following syllogism:

Something must be done.

This is something.

Therefore, this must be done.


Was Sir Humphrey right to be shocked? And, if he was, why?

Sir Humphrey would not be at all shocked by the syllogism,as he used them all the time.

He would be appalled by the subversive premise.--This is a man who made Margaret Thatcher look like a rabid Socialist..

[Connie]

Though this doesn't exactly answer your question, the public service as depicted in the Yes Minister/Prime Minister series would have been appalled at the prospect of having to do anything.

[Drop Bear]

Though this doesn't exactly answer your question, the public service as depicted in the Yes Minister/Prime Minister series would have been appalled at the prospect of having to do anything.

Yes, thank you Bernard. (I thought that's what I said)

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Yes, thank you Bernard. (I thought that's what I said)

Ah, but Bernard would have drawn attention to Hacker's use of the word something.
Bernard ( bless him!) was good with the little words.

[ZERO]

Mostly for fun.

Ancient lore has it that Sir Humphrey was shocked ( but not, of course, surprised) to hear Hacker propound the following syllogism:

Something must be done.

This is something.

Therefore, this must be done.


Was Sir Humphrey right to be shocked? And, if he was, why?

Perhaps if the "something" is a bad idea it would be worse than doing nothing?

I can imagine Sir Humphrey going into a long monologue using phrases like "fullness of time", "weighty deliberation", "special committee" and "checks and balances". Which I suppose is another way of saying do nothing, however it would generate a lot of unneccessary work for a lot of un-needed civil servants.

Since this is in the critical thinking and logic forum could one say Hacker is fallaciously Denying the Consequent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_consequent


Do I win?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

[...]could one say Hacker is fallaciously Denying the Consequent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_consequent

I'm not following your thinking here, Zero. Denying the Consequent is a valid form. ( Or are you joking? If so, you win lots of points )

Anyway, on the main question...
I'd like to get a notion of what people might think is wrong with this Syllogism. As I see it, it's abuse of the little word something. It looks as if it's being treated as if it were supposed to refer to something or other, as in:

Grendel must be avoided

This is Grendel

Therefore, this must be avoided.

But that isn't how something works.

Mind you, that's just my thought. If there are other ways of setting out what's wrong with the Syllogism, I'd be happy to hear them.

[ZERO]

I'm not following your thinking here, Zero.

That would be because I'm completely wrong.

Denying the Consequent is a valid form.

As I now know having taken the time to actually read the link I posted. As you can see I am out of my depth with this stuff. (Most stuff here in fact.)

( Or are you joking? If so, you win lots of points )

Is it too late to claim I was joking?
Lord help me when Croyden Bob finds this thread!

[Croydon Bob]

Lord help me when Croyden Bob finds this thread!

I might have let you off but as you've spelt "Croydon" wrong, I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger.

And how do you think that a cat is going to help you?

[skbuncks]

Mostly for fun.

Ancient lore has it that Sir Humphrey was shocked ( but not, of course, surprised) to hear Hacker propound the following syllogism:

Something must be done.

This is something.

Therefore, this must be done.


Was Sir Humphrey right to be shocked? And, if he was, why?

Hmmm, how about fallacy of the undistributed middle?

skb

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Hmmm, how about fallacy of the undistributed middle?

skb

I think you may be onto something here: this is about quantification, not predicate logic.
But I'm not sure your idea works just as it stands. From your link:

Specifically, the structure of this example results in affirming the consequent.

However, if the latter two statements were switched, the syllogism would be valid:

1. All students carry backpacks.
2. My grandfather is a student.
3. Therefore, my grandfather carries a backpack.

As I see it, we can't do any such switching in either of Hacker's premisses.

"( What) must be done is something" and

"Something is this"

are hardly English.