Talk:Enthymeme

Philosophy: Logic Stub‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dead Link

The link pointed to by "Extensive bibliography of enthymeme in scholarly literature" at the bottom is a dead link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.232.127 (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Free trade is good"

If enthymemes are arguments, how is this an enthymeme? It's just an assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.156.66 (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. The argument is implied within the statement. Free trade is not inherently and logically good. Instead a whole series of values and implied arguments are contained within the statement. This as a maxim would only work with an audience already assuming a certain set of values. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etherfire (talk • contribs) 23:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. By this logic, any sentence that expresses a proposition would count as an enthymeme. In fact, "Free trade is good" is not an argument, it's a just a claim.

"Aristotle stresses that the sentence “There is no man among us who is free” taken for itself is a maxim, but becomes an enthymeme as soon as it is used together with a reason such as “for all are slaves of money or of chance (and no slave of money or chance is free).” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/#enthymeme

Further, enthymemes are intended to be deductive arguments, not "incomplete" or "less than 100%." This whole section is spurious.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.177.75 (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enthumiem

Is "enthumiem" a proper pronunciation? I was thinking it was "en-thuh-meem" or something. --Ajkochanowicz (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really an enthymeme?

This article needs something about the fact that the precise definition of enthymeme is under question. For example, in Jeffery Walker's "The Body of Persuasion: A Theory of the Enthymeme" he suggests that the definition of the enthymeme as a syllogism lacking a premise is incorrect--at least as far as Aristotle's definition would suggest. Instead, he suggests that an enthymeme is an argument that is socially embedded and deals with uncertainties. There is a little of this here but I think it needs to be elaborated on. Etherfire (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)etherfire[reply]