I know what false syllogism is and some examples of it, like:

I know what false syllogism is and some examples of it, like:
-Some cats are pets
-Some pets are dogs
-Some dogs are cats
>Obvious false syllogism.

Now to what i believe is a fail in describing a false syllogism in pic related.

Can't decide who i hate more
>the woman, for getting the question right for the completely wrong reasons,
>or nigger, for thinking he's right for thinking this question is an example of false syllogism.

1. This (incorrectly) written example of false syllogism:
>If some men are doctors and some doctors are tall, does it follow that some men are tall?

2.How this question of false syllogism should be written to be correct:
>If some doctors are men and some doctors are tall, does it follow that some men are tall?

In the 2. example:
- All tall doctors could be women

In the 1. (wrongly written) example:
- The doctor set is specified. It does contains men. It specifies no other cross-section with non-men sets,
Therefore we can assume:
> ∀X ∃y ∀z [z ⊂ x => z ∈ y].
X are doctors, Y are men and z is being tall.
z∈y => men contain tall => some men are tall.

Any other opinion from you guys?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Syllogistic_fallacies
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>Any other opinion from you guys?
I think you're getting upset over nothing.

Anyway, what makes you think the woman got the answer right for the wrong reasons? You worked it out, didn't you?

>I think you're getting upset over nothing.

I just participated in a thread, where people called me mentally ill and thick retarded fuck...

...for thinking like that, i sort of wanted a neutral opinion from the sanest board on Veeky Forums.

It's still Veeky Forums, you thick retarded fuck.

I've had people treat me far worse on this board. It has a similar clustering of outcomes as anywhere else, it's just presented differently.

As a rule you shouldn't try to reason with anyone who believes that thinking in terms of, and presenting through, the concept of mental illness is a meaningful way to have any kind of kind of discussion. It's a waste of time.

I'm drunk on kava and phenibut. The above paragraph doesn't quite make sense, but you get the picture.

Just because it doesn't specify that there are female doctors, doesn't mean that you can assume there are no female doctors. There could be female doctors, so this would still be false.

>The doctor set is specified. It does contains men. It specifies no other cross-section with non-men sets
no, you thick fucktard.

We know nothing about the set of doctors other than that it non-trivially intersects the set of men.

The first example of tall doctor men is written entirely equivalently to your example, OP. Ie
>If some cats are pets, and some pets are dogs, does it follow that some cats are dogs?

you switch the order of dogs and cats in the last statement, but the order here doesnt matter as its an equality statement.

Are you serious dude? It's false, and that's only the start of your problems.

Furthermore, your second "correctly" written example does not follow the method you outline in the OP, tho neither is actually incorrect.

If the second example is "correct", then the OP should have read
>Some pets are cats
>Some pets are dogs
>Some cats are dogs

As you can see, the order doesnt really matter here because the logical infallacy works either way, whether it is set A that is partly included in set B, or the other way around.

A clearer way to outline the fallacy is to point out that it lies in the incorrect assumption that if Set A and Set B overlap with Set C, then Set A and Set B must themselves overlap.

indeed.
>some men are doctors
is logically equivalent to
>some doctors are men

both meaning that the sets of doctors and men non-trivially intersect:
[math]\mbox{men} \cap \mbox{doctors} \neq \mbox{empty}[/math]

of course we're assuming here that both the set of men and the set of doctors themselves aren't empty to begin with

>"If some men are doctors and some doctors are tall, does it follow that some men are tall?"
it's a contingency, it's neither

logically, the question asks if you can make that assumption. You cannot, because the answer may be yes or no.

The use of a clearly defined sets like cats and dogs helps to outline the negative example, but it is cheating in a sense because we have additional information, just as using unclear sets like tall male doctors is using our apriori knowledge against us, in the hopes that you answer yes on the exam.

A sterile question would use arbitrary set names that include no further information. Set A, B, and C.

>doesn't mean that you can assume there are no female doctors

Your argument is:
>doctor set could be incomplete
My argument:
>since the doctor set is specified, it is complete.

The doctor set is defined. Was it defined with females in it? No. Therefore I cannot assume they're in it.
You could say maybe there are female doctors, but the information about the doctor set does not define any presence of females in that set, or give any information that it's incomplete.

>We know nothing about the set of doctors
As far as the provided information goes, it's defined as containing some elements of the set of men.
Does it contain elements from other sets apart from men? No, because that was not specified.

>As you can see, the order doesnt really matter here

The order matters significantly to me and this is why:
>some doctors are men
Considering this as an assumption, it means some doctors are not men
>some men are doctors
This means, that some men are doctors, some are not.

As far as i'm concerned, i cannot randomly extend the definition of doctors beyond the definition that i was given.
If you were to additionally say, "some doctors are not men", it would mean that doctors could have other non-male elements in their set, but the definition DID NOT give that option. The definition ended at "some men are doctors".

>1. doctors ∩ men ≠ O
>2. doctors ∩ men ≠ O
>3. (U - men) ∩ doctors = {}
(U=universal set)
As i said before, i cannot extend the definition of doctors, to contain elements outside the set of men. At the very least not with the first example i've posted.

>>since the doctor set is specified, it is complete.
yes, not only do you say
>some men are doctors, and some doctors are tall
implies that some men are tall, you actually say that
>some men are doctors
implies that ALL doctors are men.

you are what we in the business call "literally retarded".

Which implication areally you arguing?

>some men are doctors
Clearly, not all men are doctors. There's no information about whether or not non men are doctors. Any implication will be false because the premise is true, the conclusion can be false.

>some doctors are men
Clearly, some doctors are non men.
Implications will also be false for the same reason above

>The doctor set is defined.
It is NOT defined. It is described. 'Some fruits are red' is not a definition of red. 'Some bachelors are single' is not a definition of single. Both of these are true statements but fail to define red or single.

>You could say maybe there are female doctors, but the information about the doctor set does not define any presence of females in that set, or give any information that it's incomplete.
You are adding the assumption that it's complete to the problem. The question can be answered without this assumption and in fact demands that we don't make such an assumption, since it asks whether the conclusion follows from the premise. The answer yes does not follow from the premise given, it follows from the assumption you made.

>Does it contain elements from other sets apart from men? No, because that was not specified.
Lack of specification has no bearing on its truth value.

>>some doctors are men
>Considering this as an assumption, it means some doctors are not men
No. If all doctors are men then it is true that some subset of doctors are men. So it does not mean that. You are using colloquial assumptions that are not logical.

>>some men are doctors
>This means, that some men are doctors, some are not.
Same problem. If all men are doctors, this statement is true.

>As far as i'm concerned, i cannot randomly extend the definition of doctors beyond the definition that i was given.
No one is asking you to. No one is "extending the definition", only keeping in mind that NO DEFINITION WAS GIVEN.

OP is mentally ill and thick retarded fuck.
/thread

If some A are B and some B are C it does not follow that some A are C.

Some A might be C but you can't determine that from the information given.

That's all this is.

>some men are doctors
>therefore all doctors are men

>some monkeys are pets
>therefore all pets are monkeys

>some women are fat
>therefore all fat people are women

>OP is retarded
>therefore every retarded person is OP

>implies that ALL doctors are men.
According to the description provided, yes. Since you call me retarded, i will not waste my time going to great lengths explaining you why i'm right.

>Clearly, not all men are doctors. There's no information about whether or not non men are doctors.

There's no information whether or not non men are doctors. YES! EXACTLY!
It is understandable, to demand there exist sets like women for example, but it is not understandable to propose their elements inside the "doctor set", unless you were to reverse the word order and say "some doctors are men". Then it's possible, to assume other (non male) elements inside that set.
As it stands, a description "some men are doctors" can not give you any indication, that women are a set that would intersect with the doctor set. It's just not given.
Women don't exist in this scenario. Or if they do, the definition of "doctors" gives us no evidence that women or any other non-male set could contain elements within the doctor set.

>It is NOT defined.
What are you on about? A doctor set is defined as sharing elements with the set of men, hence:
>doctors ∩ men ≠ O
It is also true that some doctors are tall,
> doctors ∩ tall ≠ O
That's the complete definition of the scenario, based on which we have to base our inquiry. There are no women doctors,
therefore
> doctors ∩ women = {}
and anything else for that matter. There can be no other element both in doctor and in a different set than men. That just wasnt defined as possible.
>You are adding the assumption that it's complete to the problem.
Why is that an assumption? Anything written is not an assumption. Only things not mentioned are an assumption. Like female doctors.
It's an assumption, that doctors can be female. They can, but that's not specifically written down, therefore, an assumption.
>Lack of specification has no bearing on its truth value.
It has a bearing on what we can assume from the information, that we are given. Doctors could be non-male, but that is not an information, or a possibility that we are given.
>No. If all doctors are men then it is true that some subset of doctors are men.
This example here, is reversed in word order. In this example, it means that some doctors are men, the rest are something else. Only in this situation, can you assume, that doctors contain elements outside the set of men.
> only keeping in mind that NO DEFINITION WAS GIVEN.
Then you didn't read the definition of the doctor set. Again, it is contained in men. It contains tall people, but we cannot be sure it is contained in anything else than men, so that's irrelevant, because it's only an assumption.

The answer is yes because at the bare minimum, you can define "some tall doctors" as "some tall men" so even if the entire population is short, there are some tall doctors, so there must be "some tall men."

>Some A might be C but you can't determine that from the information given.
You can determine, that some A are not anything else, but B or C, because there being anything else than B or C is an assumption.
>some men are doctors
>therefore all doctors are men
Exactly, because the existance of any other doctors would be an assumption outside the specified question.

>because the existence of anything else is an assumption.

I know you're bothered because of the flaming on that other site, but you need to take a step back and acknowledge that you can neither assume all doctors are men nor can you assume that no doctors are women.

The statement is ambiguous, and no further conclusions can be made from it.

To prevent this, the question should state the complete set explicitly or implicitly through other given assumptions.

This is exactly the same as those retarded order of operations questions

>Exactly
but that contradicts your own very first example ITT which you yourself gave to show what a wrong syllogism looks like. Let me quote you

>I know what false syllogism is and some examples of it, like:
>-Some cats are pets
>-Some pets are dogs
>-Some dogs are cats
>>Obvious false syllogism.

but according to your own (made up) rules of reasoning, we now have the even stronger conclusion that ALL dogs are cats.
Dont believe me? here it is:

>Some cats are pets
therefore, according to you, ALL pets are cats

>Some pets are dogs
therefore, according to you, ALL dogs are pets

now all dogs are pets, which are all cats. Therefore, according to (fucktarded) you, we arrive at the beautiful (and even more fucktarded than the original false) conclusion
>all dogs are cats

please kill/castrate yourself to protect the human genepool.
Thank you for your cooperation

I answered no, but I see what you're saying; the set of doctors was not defined to contain women, only men; you must be right. Interesting problem.

You can't make these assumptions based on the given information. Personal experiences and knowledge do not apply when asked a simple "if" question. You're an idiot.

>Exactly, because the existance of any other doctors would be an assumption outside the specified question.

There's a difference between "some doctors are not men" and "it's possible that some doctors are not men".

Samefag

Sorry you're the only one here that thinks you're right.

Quit while you're less far behind

nah, just some other user.

It's an interesting problem; I've never taken a class in set theory, so the answer isn't obvious to me. Some of you are saying it's ambiguous and some are saying otherwise. OP is taking the autistic approach about the problem not stating that women can be doctors. I see his point is all. Doesn't mean he's right. It's an interesting problem either way.

>OP is taking the autistic approach about the problem not stating that women can be doctors
It's not autistic (by which you must surely mean "pedantic").
Instead, it's just plain wrong.
The problem doesn't state whether some doctors are female, but it certainly doesn't exclude the possibility.
There is no point.

>the existance of any other doctors would be an assumption outside the specified question
Yes but it is an assumption that is not specifically discounted by the question.

But that's the thing, it's not interesting. It's a misinterpretation.

You can easily prove that
"Some men are doctors"
Is different than
"All doctors are men"

Since we can all agree there is a distinction, equating them is pointless.

Hopefully op takes set theory, fails the test, argues with the professor and gets belittled. It's the only way he'll learn.

All doctors are men (given some men are doctors) unless you are given the axiom that some doctors are not men.

Semantics, you would still require an axiom of the nonzero probability that some doctors are not men.

All pets are not cats because some pets are dogs, which were included axiomatically. This leads to a contradiction.

No doctors are women is implicit from the axioms. Just because the axioms are wrong doesn't mean the propositions created under them are not logically consistent.

You still haven't answered why you are assuming that she got it right for the wrong reasons.


To put it in language you may understand, you are making the following statement:

"Some people get this problem right for the wrong reasons. This woman got this problem right. Therefore, she got it right for the wrong reasons."

Is that logically sound?

That is logically consistent. However, the consistency is not a proof of the axioms. If the axioms are not rigorous, then the propositions that follow are not rigorous either.

yeah this. I took philosophy at community college and even I know this.

He assumed the majority of people are stupid and that the stupid choice is no. Answering yes (and thus being right) will most likely be an accident.

He's not just assuming some people get the problem right for the wrong reasons; he's assuming most people who get the problem right got it right for the wrong reasons. Therefore, she probably got it right accidentally. This is logically sound, but you can attack his axioms if you'd like.

You have two options, either all the tall doctors are women, or some are. But from what is given, you can't be sure of either of these.

op samefagging it up.

hey op, if you're such a faget, how come I fucked your mom last night?

also, you seem to like the word "axiom". Please, DO tell which axiomatic set theory you are presupposing, in which
>some men are doctors
is equivalent to
>all doctors are men

>All doctors are men (given some men are doctors) unless you are given the axiom that some doctors are not men.
That's just wrong.

>All pets are not cats because some pets are dogs
You seem to be rather bad at this. Is English your first language?
Your statement should read:
"Not all pets are cats because some pets are dogs."
Which means something completely different than what you wrote.

also:
>woman can't be right
>no doctors are women
>etc.
You've got some lady issues, OP?

OP is either a master troll or sub-80 IQ, it's hard to tell in this thread.

I dont really understand where you are getting at

anyway

>If some men are doctors and some doctors are tall, does it follow that some men are tall?
correct answer: no.
>>If some doctors are men and some doctors are tall, does it follow that some men are tall?
correct answer: no

>The doctor set is specified.
no. it does not say all doctors are men

The statements are not equivalent. However, all doctors are men when there are no members of the set doctors that are not members of the set of men. There are no members given that are of the set doctors which are not of the set men, and you must create a third axiom to create such an element. Women do not exist when you are only given that some men are doctors, and some doctors are tall.

I meant not all pets, sorry.

I'm not the OP but we could change the axioms to

1. Some women are doctors.
2. Some doctors are tall.

If that would make you more comfortable.

You must show that there exists a member of doctors that is not a member of men, if you wish to prove that not all doctors are men.

>You must show that there exists a member of doctors that is not a member of men, if you wish to prove that not all doctors are men.
Granted, this does not make it a "fact" that all doctors are men until otherwise is proven.

>The statements are not equivalent
I see. Your mother cried, you know? I tried to be gentle but she wouldnt hold still

Also, since you conveniently ignored my main question, I will repeat it here:
what axiomatic set theory are you using in which the statement
>some men are doctors
implies that
>all doctors are men

>I'm not the OP
I find it hard to believe that two people could be so wrong about this.

> if you wish to prove that not all doctors are men.
Nobody's trying to prove that some doctors MUST be women, the point is that some doctors MIGHT be women.
We can't even disprove "some men are tall".
The only point is that we can't prove "some men are tall" from the original two statements.
THAT'S IT, NOTHING MORE.

>I find it hard to believe that two people could be so wrong about this.
You haven't been exposed to humans for very long have you?

> acknowledge that you can neither assume all doctors are men nor can you assume that no doctors are women.

Before you begin assigning the given elements to the correct sets, you cannot assume neither men (elements) or women (elements) to be doctors.
When the question is finnished, we know that some men are in fact doctors.

Therefore:
-saying that some men are doctors is consistent with the given information
-saying that some women are doctors is only an assumption without any confirming evidence from the given information. It's in the same league as an assumtion that some women can be men. It's an assumption without confirming evidence from the given information. But it's an assumption, we can discredit it easier, because it makes less sense, but it is no worse of an assumption than "some women are doctors"

> acknowledge that you can neither assume all doctors are men nor can you assume that no doctors are women.
I mean, i rewrote the question so that we can assume, that all doctors aren't men as:
>some doctors are men (instead of "some men are doctors").
This way, "non-male doctors", could in fact be a given information, not just an assumption.

>therefore, according to you, ALL pets are cats

From the given information at the beginning, this reasoning would be incorrect, because it is clear from the information, that some pets are also dogs, therefore all pets cannot be cats, this is given from the information. It's basic stuff, whereas "some doctors are not male" is only an assumption from the information given, not an actual part of the information, because information only provides evidence, that men can be doctors. As it goes for females, you would have to guess them to be doctors. Just because information doesn't outright deny the possibility of women doctors, doesn't mean they simply can be doctors in this case.

If I give a following set A = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}
You could argue, that "10" should be inside the A set, but the set i have written is finnished business, as far as the "given information" is concerned.

Ofcourse A isn't a set that would not allow the possibility of containing 10, but just because 10 COULD be in the set, doesn't mean it is, according to the information i was given

>There's a difference between "some doctors are not men" and "it's possible that some doctors are not men".

And both of them would be a better way to write the question than "some men are doctors".

It's not a fucking assumption that the set of doctors may not have been fully specified by the statements given. It's an assumption that the set of doctors IS fully specified by the statements given. You're making the assumption here.

>The problem doesn't state whether some doctors are female, but it certainly doesn't exclude the possibility.

Ofcourse female set isn't axyomatically incompatible with the doctor set. This means, that the question can be logically consistent if it provides information, that some doctors are not men, or that some doctors are female.
Generally speaking, ofcourse we can account for females to exist, but even if females were possible elements, to be included in the doctor set; in the end, they just weren't. So one would really have no grounds to argue, that women are a part of that set, just because they could be.

>Yes but it is an assumption that is not specifically discounted by the question.

It's still just an assumption. Bush could be respomsible for 9/11. That's a possible assumption (because let's say, it's not impossible). But the official US report (completely biased as it may be), gives no information, that would link Bush to 9/11, therefore if someone considers the official report, the terrorists did 9/11, because that's what information gave us. Bush could've done it, but the official report makes no connection between bush and 9/11

It does not imply that.

All doctors are men is derived from some men are doctors, AND there are no members of doctors which are not also members of men.

Women do not exist when you are only given that some men are doctors, and some doctors are tall. I'm not sure what part of this is hard for you to understand.

> It's an assumption that the set of doctors IS fully specified by the statements given

Just think for a second how stupid your statement is.

By that logic, a set of men might also not be fully specified, because it's a possibility, that it could consist of "tall non-doctors".
"male tall non-doctors" are just as a possibility as "female doctors". Both are possible, both are not specified in the statement.

>Women do not exist when you are only given that some men are doctors, and some doctors are tall. I'm not sure what part of this is hard for you to understand.
Let's go to online-IQ-test tier problems for you:

Some floops are gloops
Are all gloops floops?

If you answered "yes", you are a fucking moron.

>AND there are no members of doctors which are not also members of men.
where, except in your head, does it say that?

>"male tall non-doctors" are just as a possibility as "female doctors".
Bingo! Keep thinking about this and you might get it. See

The possibility of tall non-doctors and male tall non-doctors are both given by the statement "some" which allows for the construction of those sets (which could be empty or non-intersecting) with any combinations of the elements of "men" "tall" and "doctors".

Absolutely affirmative.

Where does it say there exists a member or the possibility of a member of doctor that is not a member of men? Nowhere? So you must create such a member or possibility outside of the information given. That is not logically consistent and such propositions are facile.

"Some" is usually defined as "at least one" in formal logic.

>Some floops are gloops
>Are all gloops floops?

I can post examples of false syllogisms all day too. (pic related). I know what it is, and i can recognize it. Debase my arguments if you're so clever, don't invent new examples that aren't even compatible with the situation.

>The possibility of tall non-doctors and male tall non-doctors are both given by the statement "some" which allows for the construction of those sets (which could be empty or non-intersecting) with any combinations of the elements of "men" "tall" and "doctors".

While "male tall doctors" are implied by the statement, "male tall non-doctors" aren't. They're only a possibility, not a fact, like "male tall doctors".

I recall a statement by Kant that no matter how much a stupid person gets educated, his native intelligence will always be revealed under the clinquant guise of his education

kek'd

p good insult at OP

nice samefagging

you cant fight me with reasons, so you resort to insults and other ad hominem attacks, and I get it, you're frustrated, because you can't, so you lash out with samefagging.

You can't reason with someone {u} who can't into logic

I try and disect the sentence structure, explaining in very simple terms for the average Veeky Forums-browsing crowd, while you're shouting obscenities and quoting voltaire trying to appear smart or something, which means it's really you, who can't into logic.

>What are you on about? A doctor set is defined as sharing elements with the set of men, hence:
That describes the set, it does not define it. This is clear since that description would apply both to a set which is only made up of men and a set which contains men and non-men. Any conclusion following from that description must be true in both cases. You can't just assume it's the former.

>That's the complete definition of the scenario
No, that's the information we have, not all the information.

>There are no women doctors
This is an assumption which does not follow from the premises, because the premise would be true regardless of the existence of women doctors. Why do you keep ignoring this?

>That just wasnt defined as possible.
The premises don't "define" what's possible, they describe some truths. The fact that some men are doctors does not imply that female doctors are impossible. This is clear unless you are completely oblivious to reality. In reality, some men are doctors. This is a fact. But this does not imply that female doctors are impossible. They are existent and therefore possible.

>Why is that an assumption? Anything written is not an assumption.
Where is it written that the description of doctors is complete? It's not written anywhere, you're just assuming it. It's either complete or incomplete. Any conclusion must be true in both cases.

>Only things not mentioned are an assumption.
You seem very confused. No one is assuming that women are doctors in this scenario. They may or may not be. You are assuming they aren't when we don't know.

>It's an assumption, that doctors can be female.
Either the set contains females or it doesn't. Saying the set may have females does not imply we know which. Saying the set cannot contain females implies we know the set doesn't contain females. Therefore only the latter is an assumption about the set. How do you know the set does not contain females?

>Any other opinion from you guys?
OP retarded

>It has a bearing on what we can assume from the information, that we are given.
You should not be assuming anything from the information given, you should be deducing. There is no way to deduce that the set of doctors does not contain females from the information given. It does not preclude that in any way. It would be true if the set of doctors contained females. It would be true if the set of doctors did not contain females. So it cannot imply either. How is this hard to understand?

>Doctors could be non-male, but that is not an information, or a possibility that we are given.
We are not told that doctors cannot be non-male. Yet you assume it. Your argument is hypocritical.

>This example here, is reversed in word order. In this example, it means that some doctors are men, the rest are something else. Only in this situation, can you assume, that doctors contain elements outside the set of men.
This doesn't reply to what I said. 'Some doctors are men' is true if all doctors are men. Therefore you can't say that it implies the opposite.

Fact: 'all doctors are men' -> 'Some doctors are men'
Your argument: 'Some doctors are men' -> 'not all doctors are men'
Conclusion: 'all doctors are men' -> 'not all doctors are men'

This is a contradiction, therefore you argument is false.

Any conclusion must be true in all possible worlds in which the premises are true. To say otherwise is to make an arbitrary choice of what context the premises are in.

>Then you didn't read the definition of the doctor set.
No definition was given you quack.

>but we cannot be sure it is contained in anything else than men, so that's irrelevant, because it's only an assumption.
I'm not saying we can be sure it contains anything else, only that it's possible. Why can't you describe the basic facts of the argument correctly? If you don't understand the argument, you have no business arguing about it.

Oh, and by the way OP, your argument is literally what comes up in the dictionary when you look up "syllogistic fallacy":

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Syllogistic_fallacies

Fact: all men are doctors -> some men are doctors
OP: some men are doctors -> all doctors are men
Conclusion: all men are doctors -> all doctors are men

This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent, thus OP's argument must be false.

cats = men
pets = doctors
dogs = (individuals who are) tall

literally plug this into your original example, realize it is an equivalent statement to the one in your picture, then kill yourself.

Why is sci so easy to troll.

knew it kek

See my posts above. I'm not going to bother explaining this to you like a grade-schooler.

>kill yourself
Not even going to bother with a response.

Not me, by the way.

if mirrors aren't real, does it follow that all eyes aren't real?

This can't be true because of reasons. False hope gives time to a new find which couldn't have immaculated at any rate, to make one let alone.

>This is a contradiction, therefore you argument is false.
Yes, but also wrong. You could try to find what needn't should have one to be in this argument, because I know what is logic to be defined at against to summer's heat wind and log of found objects. Thus is it true that all doctors can be found? Ostensibly, the argument must not be incorrect at odds.

Find Out.

none of the sets are defined as an explicit subset of the other sets so you cant say that "some men are tall". all that is specified is a union of two sets having a non-null set

Find someone.

Not true.
Firstly, none of the sets defined of the other sets as an explicit subset are.
Secondly, in saying "some men are tall", a non-null set had by a specified union of two sets the others so you can't say

mate you esl? you are literally making no sense

You can't even respond. You know you're wrong.

Find yourself.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Syllogistic_fallacies

For instance, from the premises some A are B, some B are C, people tend to come to a definitive conclusion that therefore some A are C.[14][15] However, this does not follow according to the rules of classical logic. For instance, while some cats (A) are black things (B), and some black things (B) are televisions (C), it does not follow from the parameters that some cats (A) are televisions (C). This is because in the structure of the syllogism invoked (i.e. III-1) the middle term is not distributed in either the major premise or in the minor premise a pattern called the "fallacy of the undistributed middle".

You can't even respond. I know you are wrong, that's why we're found.

Know why that you're wrong. False logic can't be corrected as such, in whereas this argument would lead. A logical subset, in english semantices, from which we have begun. This thread would have been approved. Could have been at any rate, found by us. Not me to you, per se, but upon another. Within these are we finding new explicit areas. The classical rules of logic, for instance, in either the distributed fallacy, or syllogicstic premises being presented from you. I can't begin to find such a way that these logical inconsistencies would have been an absolute finding.

Find yourself.

>This is clear since that description would apply both to a set which is only made up of men and a set which contains men and non-men.
Ofcourse. Description applies to men and non-men. The doctor set is described to contain men elements, and it is described not to contain any other non-men elements. Existance of female doctors are only a guess that isn't specifically contradicted by our information, as opposed to the male set, which is actually defined to contain doctors. Female set isn't defined to contain doctors. It's an imaginary set, that could in an imaginary situation contain doctors.
Until female doctors are specified to exist, they're simply an assumption, just like "all men could be women" or "all men non-doctors could be tall". Each of these alters the final answer, but none of these are specified.

>No, that's the information we have, not all the information.
Any other information than the information we are given is non-existent, so you cannot assume a factual reality based on non-exisent assumptions unless the information itself is extended to include previously non-existent information, in which case, they become the information we have or information that isn't imaginary anymore.

>>There are no women doctors
>This is an assumption which does not follow from the premises
There is a great difference between:
-defined as possible to exist (needs to be considered in problem-solving)
-possible to exist (available to be used as an additional condition)
Women doctors are possible to exist, they're just not defined as such, because that just cannot be implied from the information.

Part 2.

>The premises don't "define" what's possible, they describe some truths.The premisses define what's possible. And they can describe some truths, if that's how you want to put it.
You need to establish a basis for them to exist, before they become an implication from some truths. You can only go as far establishing the mere existance of an empty set "non-men". Anything more than that is neither defined nor truth.

>Where is it written that the description of doctors is complete?Because any possibilites that aren't defined or logically implied from the definitions/truths are imaginary for that example with its specific definitions / or truths if that's what you want to call it.

> No one is assuming that women are doctors in this scenario. They may or may not be. You're assuming the possibility (may/may not) of female doctors. That would simply be an assumed implication, not an assumed truth.

>Either the set contains females or it doesn't.You constructed a complete new implication on god knows what basis. You're defining females, whereas we don't even know if females exist. We also don't know if they even contain elements. Don't construct new information. A non-defined possibility is not an information.

>There is no way to deduce that the set of doctors does not contain females from the information given

Is the existance of female doctors or females for that matter defined as a possibility? We only know about the existance of a non-men set. It's an empty set unless specified or implied from the information otherwise.

>We are not told that doctors cannot be non-male. Yet you assume it. Your argument is hypocritical.

We are said that doctors are not non-male. There's a big difference between »cannot« and »are not«.
I'm arguing »could, but is not«, you think i'm arguing »could not, is not«
You could arbitrarily extend the definition of doctors and alter the information, but as soon as the extension is provided, the example is completely changed and is no way the same as it was before the introduction of new »some doctors are non-male« information.

>This doesn't reply to what I said. 'Some doctors are men' is true if all doctors are men. Therefore you can't say that it implies the opposite.

All doctors are men, because doctors don't have any described elements outside the set of men.
Just because doctors could theoretically have been defined as »could be females also«, doesn't mean they have been defined as »could also be females«, therefore females just lingers as an undefined set that could contain doctors, but doesn't.
Therefore, females could be doctors (if the set was described this way), but aren't (because the set was described without them being contained in it).

>No definition was given you quack.
How many times do I have to repeat myself? They're defined as containing at least one tall element, like males are defined as containing at least one doctor.

>I'm not saying we can be sure it contains anything else, only that it's possible.
The possibility is still no other than an assumption. Simply replacing the word order of one truth would provide the DEFINED possibility of there being a possibility non-male doctors. But only after it's altered like i've shown.

>Fact: all men are doctors
No. There exists at least one man, who is not a doctor.
> all doctors are men
Yes. Female doctors are not a defined possibilit, it's only a possibility, that could be defined, but sadly wasn't.

>We are said that doctors are not non-male.
You're still going around the same circles OP.
Just delete the thread in shame, then go back to /b/ and download more pictures of underage boys in drag.

>We are said that doctors are not non-male.
This just doesn't follow from:
>some men are doctors

>This just doesn't follow
The only thing that doesn't follow is "female doctors" even existing, EVEN JUST AS A POSSIBILITY

And another thing,
>go back to /b/

Yeah, so many of you are so worked up over nothing.

I'm playing a devils advocate, it doesn't matter if I even believe i'm true, the only thing that matters are arguments against my position. If you're so easily agitated thinking that i'm serious, just save your nerves and don't argue.

You could achieve a lot more with a nice rebuttal than an ad-hominem attack. But it's a free world, do as you please, but I just sense the frustration, therefore i simply advise to calm down a bit, and argue with a clear head.

...

>You could achieve a lot more with a nice rebuttal than an ad-hominem attack
I used both, but I wouldn't expect you to notice (or follow).
Meanwhile, your only response to my rebuttal is your pseudo-calm kindergarten-teacher response:
>i simply advise to calm down a bit, and argue with a clear head.
...which is a passive-aggressive ad-hominem itself.

This is a representation of:
>some doctors are male

not
>some males are doctors.

Your diagram is disproved by the first truth:
"some men are doctors", which assumes at least one male to be outside the doctor set.

then stop crying about it, and explain why my response to you is wrong ()

Oops sorry, you're right. I didn't read it properly. Fixed now.

>>the woman, for getting the question right for the completely wrong reasons,
Why wrong reasons?
The distinction between a syllogism and a false syllogism is easy for anyone educated in logic. A syllogism similar to false syllogism is still a syllogism, and she knew it.

Actually made me laugh.