Talk:Enthymeme: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by 72.225.219.97 - "→popular usage: " |
No edit summary |
||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
Agreed. This has nothing to do with enthymeme as an argument style. Request for deletion? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.225.219.97|72.225.219.97]] ([[User talk:72.225.219.97|talk]]) 20:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Agreed. This has nothing to do with enthymeme as an argument style. Request for deletion? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.225.219.97|72.225.219.97]] ([[User talk:72.225.219.97|talk]]) 20:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Citation Not Needed == |
|||
This section "Many enthymemes may fit into two broad categories.[citation needed] |
|||
The implied premise is obvious |
|||
The implied premise is dubious" |
|||
Does not need a citation. It is not exhaustive as it is not an exclusive statement. The two categories offered are clearly categories. The cognitive information is not conveyed here but below, this is merely good communication and therefore, in my opinion, needs no citation. Too Lazy to Log In. [[Special:Contributions/70.69.191.94|70.69.191.94]] ([[User talk:70.69.191.94|talk]]) 20:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:31, 3 November 2009
![]() | Philosophy Stub‑class | |||||||||
|
The 2nd example is not logically valid. Evercat 21:22, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Fixed now. Evercat 21:24, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Misuse?
The "Misuse" example doesn't seem to be logically valid, regardless of whether or not it is funny.
- It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the nature of an enthymeme, either. It's just a non sequitur. Removing it on these grounds. 82.92.119.11 17:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I think he meant to say: All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Therefore, all men are Socrates. Poromenos 17:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Bentsen/Quayle
Uh, it had nothing to do with whether Quayle was a "great man" or not, only that he had implicitly compared himself to Kennedy.204.161.5.90 15:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Mark Twain example
The Mark Twain example is not valid, unless one considers that absence of proof for a hypothesis is equivalent to proof of its opposite. The premises there is no law against composing music when one has no ideas whatsoever and Wagner has no ideas do not lead to the conclusion the music of Wagner is perfectly legal, because there may be other factors which render it illegal (in Turkmenistan, for instance, it is illegal simply by virtue of being Opera). See Association fallacy and Reductio ad Hitlerum for further discussion and examples of this kind of logical fallacy. DES 13:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Good page!
I just wanted to leave a note to say that as a regular visitor to wikipedia - and minor contributor of spelling corrections - this page is 10/10. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.101.232.82 (talk) 08:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
Incorrect Example
The example with O.J. and Johnny Cochran, as it is fleshed out in the article, is not an enthymeme. It has 3 premises and therefore is not even a syllogism. It is a good example of an argument with implicit premises, but doesn't belong in an article on enthymemes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pleebloo (talk • contribs) 14:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
popular usage
I'm not expert on Facebook, but the popular usage section appears to be completely irrelevant to the topic. The 'enthymeme' referenced appears to owe nothing but its name to the incomplete syllogism. Eris Discord | Talk 00:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. This has nothing to do with enthymeme as an argument style. Request for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.219.97 (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Citation Not Needed
This section "Many enthymemes may fit into two broad categories.[citation needed] The implied premise is obvious The implied premise is dubious"
Does not need a citation. It is not exhaustive as it is not an exclusive statement. The two categories offered are clearly categories. The cognitive information is not conveyed here but below, this is merely good communication and therefore, in my opinion, needs no citation. Too Lazy to Log In. 70.69.191.94 (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)