 |
| Feeling chipper |
Today I finally gripped the bull by the horns got out my chip cutter and had some home grown oven chips.The outcome was surprisingly good, with fairly crisp chips downside was the time (over 30 minutes) and the fact that they stuck slightly - method was from BBC website. Not sure if oil was insufficient or temperature of pan not hot enough at onset -could be that chips were not dry enough. Will persevere. If you have advice let me know (Potatoes were Maris Piper).
Big Idea Number 41 Syllogisms
Syllogism is the term used to describe a formal logic argument.
The Syllogism uses a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two given or assumed propositions these are the premises. The premises will each share a term with the conclusion, and it will also share a common or middle term not present in the conclusion.
Here is an example of a Conditional syllogism from the Fibonicci web site.
Major premise: If Johnny is eating sweets every day, he is placing
himself at risk for diabetes.
himself at risk for diabetes.
Minor premise: Johnny does not eat sweets everyday
Conclusion: Therefore Johnny is not placing himself at risk for
diabetes.
diabetes.
And here is an example of a disjunctive syllogism from the same source
Major premise: Either the meeting is at school or at home.
Minor premise: The meeting is not at home.
Conclusion: Therefore the meeting is at school.
Minor premise: The meeting is not at home.
Conclusion: Therefore the meeting is at school.
The third type of syllogism is a categorical syllogism The basic for this syllogism type is: if A is a part of C, then B is a part of C (A and B are members of C). An example of this syllogism type will clarify the above:
Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
Both premises are known to be valid, by observation or historical facts. Because the two premises are valid, the conclusion must be valid as well. Be aware that this conclusion is based on logical reasoning and thus it doesn’t have to represent the “truth” always.
