Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

How Traditional Running Shoes Shut Down Your Hamstring

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by DaVinci, Apr 6, 2010.

  1. RobinP

    RobinP Well-Known Member

  2. RobinP

    RobinP Well-Known Member

    I found it difficult to get past the fact that both sets mentioned members of parliament.Struggled to think about theives and composers. Didn't find the answer immediately obvious. Only thing that struck me was that composers might not refer to composers of music, other manuscripts perhaps? To be honest, I couldn't draw any conclusions from the 2 statements.

    Am I going to feel really stupid when I get the answers?

    Robin
     
  3. Possibly ;)

    But don't feel bad. I've been giving that lecture for 5 years and no one has got it yet.

    I'll PM you so as not to spoil it for anyone else.
     
  4. Lab Guy

    Lab Guy Well-Known Member

    All Belgians (B) are Singers (S) B = S
    No Singers (S) can Drive (D) S ≠ D

    ∴ No Belgians (B) can Drive (D) ∴ B ≠ D

    All sailors (Sa) eat pork (P) Sa = P
    Nobody who eats pork (P) sings (Si)well P ≠ Si
    ∴ No sailor (Sa) sings (Si) well ∴ Sa ≠ Si

    All members of parliament (MP) are theives (T) MP = T
    All members of parliament (MP) can compose (C) music MP = C
    ∴ In parliament, all theives can compose music ∴ MP = C = T
    No meaningful conclusion can be drawn!
     
  5. You are mistaken. With algebra. Although that's a nice way to get around the bias.

    Try a ven diagram. That might help ;)
     
  6. Here you go. This should make the answer obvious.

    [​IMG]
     
  7. All members of parliment theiving, singing bastards is what I logged to write and it does not matter if they are from Belgium.
     
  8. JB1973

    JB1973 Active Member

    All members of parliament are theives
    All members of parliament can compose music
    What statement can be made about theives and composers?


    no statement can be made about theives and composers cause your talking about members of parliament?

    Here you go. This should make the answer obvious.
    honest??

    Born To Run” is a great resource

    i've just spat tea all over my keyboard. damn keys are sticking. gonny bill McDougall for a new one.

    cheers
    JB
     
  9. Very Wrong.:eek: I've Pm'd you the answer to put you out of your misery.
     
  10. Lab Guy

    Lab Guy Well-Known Member

    Logically there is no solution because it is not a valid syllogism.



    Syllogisms


    Disciplines > Argument > Syllogisms



    Syllogisms are arguments that take several parts, typically with two statements which are assumed to be true (or premises) that lead to a conclusion. This takes the general form:

    Major premise: A general statement.
    Minor premise: A specific statement.
    Conclusion: based on the two premises.

    There are three major types of syllogism:

    Conditional syllogism: If A is true then B is true (If A then B).
    Categorical syllogism: If A is in C then B is in C.
    Disjunctive syllogism: If A is true, then B is false (A or B).
    Also of note for syllogisms is:

    Categorical propositions: Statements about categories.
    Enthymeme: a syllogism with an incomplete argument.
    Modus Ponens: If X is true then Y is true. X is true. Therefore Y is true.
    Modus Tollens: If X is true then Y is true. Y is false. Therefore X is false.
    Set Theory: The basics of overlapping groups.
    Syllogisms are particularly interesting in persuasion as they include assumptions that many people accept which allow false statements or (often unspoken) conclusions to appear to be true. There is a difference between truth and validity in syllogisms. A syllogism can be true, but not valid (i.e. make logical sense). It can also be valid but not true.



    Conclusions have to be based on the premises presented in the syllogism. Non-parliamentarians were not mentioned and therefore need not be taken into consideration. Now, if you want to get creative and move beyond the boundaries of Platonic logic that's fine, but don't take a goat, dress it in funny clothes and call it a pig.

    Steven
     
  11. OOOOOO

    Get you with your Syllogisms and your fancy city ways!

    Your source, presumably, http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/syllogisms/syllogisms.htm

    An interesting site. But not exhaustive. Allow me to fill in a few gaps.

    Technical bit ahead


    There are more than 3 types of syllogism. 19 Valid ones in fact if, I5 of which are clear and 4 of which are disputed.

    You suggest perhaps that this syllogism commits the existential fallacy because it presupposes all the classes have members? Well I guess you could, but the 4 disputed types of syllogisms are only invalid in very specific circumstances. In others they ARE valid. They are only invalid if there is an "empty set"

    The one I've posed is a Darapti syllogism. It is thus valid provided all the groups are occupied... which in this example they clearly are.

    Here's an exerpt from a website on such things


    Technical bit Ends

    So the conclusion you can reach is simply this

    "some Liars compose music."

    Although if you want to be REALLY anal about it you could Add

    "provided there are some MPs"

    Other examples of such might be

    All my posts are odd
    All my posts are annoying
    Some odd posts are annoying.

    Which is logically valid provided you also accept that I've made posts.

    So there.

    To be honest though, I'm more interested in the Cognitive psychology bit of this than the pure logic and philosophy bit. ;) But thanks for making me look all this stuff up again.

    Regards
    Robert
     
  12. RobinP

    RobinP Well-Known Member

    I'm not that up on where to get smileys but do you think we could create one which has something flying completely over my head?

    Robin
     
Loading...

Share This Page