Poll: Reasoning

[NQ6U]

Fish live in the sea.
Sharks live in the sea.
Therefore, sharks are fish.


Man (or Woman) up and tell us how you voted, and why.

[KG4CGC]

In this case yes, but, you left out, "who cares."

[N2CHX]

Makes as much sense as "People live on land, lizards live on land, therefore, lizards are people."

[NQ6U]

In this case yes, but, you left out, "who cares."

I originally included “What?” but then took it out because I figured that, in this place, everybody would have chosen that. I know I would have.

[VE7DCW]

In this case yes, but, you left out, "who cares."

It must be one of those "little whinny bitch" type of day things going on...... :mrgreen:

[KG4CGC]

It must be one of those "little whinny bitch" type of day things going on...... :mrgreen:

You sir, have planted the mallet directly upon the spike.

[K7SGJ]

You sir, have planted the mallet directly upon the spike.


And, that's one in a row for him.

[K7SGJ]

The reasoning is correct because sharks do not have testicles like an octapussy, therefore they are fish.

Walleye think this is sound reasoning, I may have to clam up and not be such a crab.

[KB3LAZ]

Makes as much sense as "People live on land, lizards live on land, therefore, lizards are people."

I don't know about that but you could say that some people are lizards. I have met a few in my lifetime.

[K7SGJ]

This "FISH" poll is going downhill way too fast.

I think it's time for a minnow pause.

[VE7MGF]

that's not phunny

[NA4BH]

I will perch in my chair, scratch my cods, and roe over this.


I think it has to do something with live births.

[NA4BH]

It's like asking what the last 3 words in the Doors song Touch Me, or the first 4 words of Carly Simon's song Your So Vain.

[K4PIH]

Other things live in the Ocean that are not fish. Which reminds of this reasoning:

How many animals are in a pair of panty hose:

14 is the correct answer

One Ass
Two Calves
Ten little piggies
And a fish no one can find

[KC2UGV]

From a purely logical stance, given the two premises, the conclusion is sound. This would, of course, only be accurate in the bounded set provided.

[WØTKX]

What? :shock: :chin:

[K7SGJ]

What? :shock: :chin:

I think what he said is, he has no fucking idea.

[KC2UGV]

What? :shock: :chin:


I think what he said is, he has no fucking idea.

In a bounded sense. You are only given 2 premises, so imagine for a moment that's all the information you have. In this case, it would be true. You know that all fish live in the sea. You know sharks live in the sea. That's it, you know of only one species of fish: Sharks. So, given the bounded set you're working with, it's a logically valid conclusion.

Now, open the bounded set to all marine life, and the logical conclusion drawn the the new set of premises ie, crabs live in the sea. Crabs are not fish. Dolphins live in the sea. Dolphins are not fish. Sharks live in the sea. You cannot conclude in that set of premises that sharks are fish, unless you are given another premise.

[N2CHX]

In a bounded sense. You are only given 2 premises, so imagine for a moment that's all the information you have. In this case, it would be true. You know that all fish live in the sea. You know sharks live in the sea. That's it, you know of only one species of fish: Sharks. So, given the bounded set you're working with, it's a logically valid conclusion.

Now, open the bounded set to all marine life, and the logical conclusion drawn the the new set of premises ie, crabs live in the sea. Crabs are not fish. Dolphins live in the sea. Dolphins are not fish. Sharks live in the sea. You cannot conclude in that set of premises that sharks are fish, unless you are given another premise.

WTF? Uhhhh no. Just no. You're contradicting yourself by adding additional information to your "bounded set", i.e. that sharks are a species of fish. You have to break it down further than that: You don't know WTF a fish or a shark is. All you know is that they both live in the sea. Therefore, you cannot conclude that sharks are fish. They are both simply things that live in the sea and that's all you know. Sorry, but you're wrong here.

EDIT:

Hint: replace "fish" with jazigimos and "sharks" with blazingilas. No one has any clue what a jazigimo or a blazingila is, outside of the fact (according to the information given) that they both live in the sea.

[K7SGJ]

In a bounded sense. You are only given 2 premises, so imagine for a moment that's all the information you have. In this case, it would be true. You know that all fish live in the sea. You know sharks live in the sea. That's it, you know of only one species of fish: Sharks. So, given the bounded set you're working with, it's a logically valid conclusion.

Now, open the bounded set to all marine life, and the logical conclusion drawn the the new set of premises ie, crabs live in the sea. Crabs are not fish. Dolphins live in the sea. Dolphins are not fish. Sharks live in the sea. You cannot conclude in that set of premises that sharks are fish, unless you are given another premise.


El wrongo. amigo. ALL fish don not live in the sea. Some live in streams, lakes, and other fresh water locations. I even had one in a bowl once. After some time, it wound up in a different kind of bowl.

[WØTKX]

Thank you Kelli. ;)

http://www.heartofwisdom.com/homeschoollinks/wp-content/uploads/syllogistic_reasoning_penguin_logic.jpg

[KC2UGV]

WTF? Uhhhh no. Just no. You're contradicting yourself by adding additional information to your "bounded set", i.e. that sharks are a species of fish. You have to break it down further than that: You don't know WTF a fish or a shark is. All you know is that they both live in the sea. Therefore, you cannot conclude that sharks are fish. They are both simply things that live in the sea and that's all you know. Sorry, but you're wrong here.

EDIT:

Hint: replace "fish" with jazigimos and "sharks" with blazingilas. No one has any clue what a jazigimo or a blazingila is, outside of the fact (according to the information given) that they both live in the sea.

True... I stand corrected on here.