This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Enthymeme article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JalilDixon93.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The 2nd example is not logically valid. Evercat 21:22, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The "Misuse" example doesn't seem to be logically valid, regardless of whether or not it is funny.
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)
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)
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).
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, and it doesn't imply any 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 based on statistics or "less than 100%." The whole section entitled "Maxim, or a less-than-100% argument" is spurious and should be deleted.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.177.75 ( talk) 05:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The fact that this incorrect and misleading "Free trade is good" example has not yet been deleted--despite that it has been shown to be in direct contradiction of the professionally-researched Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online--says a lot about how much the people in charge of this page care about its upkeep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicktar ( talk • contribs) 21:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
ENTHYMEMES ARE ARGUMENTS. All of them. Everything that is an enthymeme is an argument. I don't know what an "enthymic statement" is, unless it is an enthymeme, and if it is, it's an argument.
An argument is a set of claims, some of which are meant to support the others. By itself, the sentence "Free trade is good" is not an argument, and therefore not an enthymeme. This example is false, and bound to mislead information-seekers about the actual meaning the word enthymeme. I realize that example appears in an article from something called "The Post-Autistic Economic Review." I presume those in charge of deleting spurious wikipedia pages realize that not every source is reliable.
On the other hand,the section cited on this talk page from the SEPO (which actually is a reliable source) explains the difference between maxims (claims taken to be true) and enthymemes (arguments with unstated premises), and makes it clear that claims alone do not qualify as enthymemes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicktar ( talk • contribs) 20:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Is "enthumiem" a proper pronunciation? I was thinking it was "en-thuh-meem" or something. -- Ajkochanowicz ( talk) 23:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
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
Even if (and that's a big IF) Beth actually has an argument from modal logic showing that even arguments with "incorrect logical inferences" count as enthymemes, that detail is about four orders of magnitude more arcane than the average Wikipedia reader needs to be able to define the word "enthymeme."
For some reason, the Wiki page for this very simple concept continues to be fly-paper for amateur obscurantists. How would a layperson read this page and come away with an accurate or even coherent idea of what the word means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.179.223 ( talk) 02:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a university student majoring in communications rhetoric. For my rhetorical process class we had to choose a rhetor or rhetorical term and contribute to the wikipedia page. I just added information to this page. If I could get any feedback on both the content and the formatting (it's my first time editing a wikipedia page) that would be very helpful! Mlevin48 ( talk) 03:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I've revised the article to make it more readable and to reflect more accurately the state of scholarship on the enthymeme. Even if subsequent editors change my revision, I suggest you follow the structure I have established, where I discuss different types of enthymeme. The article's previous state reflected an abortive attempt at following this structure, I hope I have suitably refined it. Here are the specific changes I have made and my justifications for them. Major changes
Minor changes
I hope you find these changes suitable. I welcome any subsequent edits to refine what I have written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhaetor ( talk • contribs) 06:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it's very strange that Wikipedia editors are putting politics (e.g. whose version gets published) before the value of the content of the article. What changes do you object to N2e?
Rhaetor (
talk) 17:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)rhaetor
Given no response to my previous reply N2e, I've reverted to my revision, which as you admit is likely worth making. We cannot gain consensus if no one speaks and in the meantime misinformation is being propagated by the article. Additionally, WP:BRD is a suggestion, not a rule, as I'm sure you know. Please do not continue to troll this page for your own ego's sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhaetor ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Enthymeme article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JalilDixon93.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The 2nd example is not logically valid. Evercat 21:22, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The "Misuse" example doesn't seem to be logically valid, regardless of whether or not it is funny.
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)
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)
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).
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, and it doesn't imply any 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 based on statistics or "less than 100%." The whole section entitled "Maxim, or a less-than-100% argument" is spurious and should be deleted.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.177.75 ( talk) 05:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The fact that this incorrect and misleading "Free trade is good" example has not yet been deleted--despite that it has been shown to be in direct contradiction of the professionally-researched Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online--says a lot about how much the people in charge of this page care about its upkeep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicktar ( talk • contribs) 21:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
ENTHYMEMES ARE ARGUMENTS. All of them. Everything that is an enthymeme is an argument. I don't know what an "enthymic statement" is, unless it is an enthymeme, and if it is, it's an argument.
An argument is a set of claims, some of which are meant to support the others. By itself, the sentence "Free trade is good" is not an argument, and therefore not an enthymeme. This example is false, and bound to mislead information-seekers about the actual meaning the word enthymeme. I realize that example appears in an article from something called "The Post-Autistic Economic Review." I presume those in charge of deleting spurious wikipedia pages realize that not every source is reliable.
On the other hand,the section cited on this talk page from the SEPO (which actually is a reliable source) explains the difference between maxims (claims taken to be true) and enthymemes (arguments with unstated premises), and makes it clear that claims alone do not qualify as enthymemes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicktar ( talk • contribs) 20:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Is "enthumiem" a proper pronunciation? I was thinking it was "en-thuh-meem" or something. -- Ajkochanowicz ( talk) 23:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
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
Even if (and that's a big IF) Beth actually has an argument from modal logic showing that even arguments with "incorrect logical inferences" count as enthymemes, that detail is about four orders of magnitude more arcane than the average Wikipedia reader needs to be able to define the word "enthymeme."
For some reason, the Wiki page for this very simple concept continues to be fly-paper for amateur obscurantists. How would a layperson read this page and come away with an accurate or even coherent idea of what the word means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.179.223 ( talk) 02:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a university student majoring in communications rhetoric. For my rhetorical process class we had to choose a rhetor or rhetorical term and contribute to the wikipedia page. I just added information to this page. If I could get any feedback on both the content and the formatting (it's my first time editing a wikipedia page) that would be very helpful! Mlevin48 ( talk) 03:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I've revised the article to make it more readable and to reflect more accurately the state of scholarship on the enthymeme. Even if subsequent editors change my revision, I suggest you follow the structure I have established, where I discuss different types of enthymeme. The article's previous state reflected an abortive attempt at following this structure, I hope I have suitably refined it. Here are the specific changes I have made and my justifications for them. Major changes
Minor changes
I hope you find these changes suitable. I welcome any subsequent edits to refine what I have written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhaetor ( talk • contribs) 06:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it's very strange that Wikipedia editors are putting politics (e.g. whose version gets published) before the value of the content of the article. What changes do you object to N2e?
Rhaetor (
talk) 17:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)rhaetor
Given no response to my previous reply N2e, I've reverted to my revision, which as you admit is likely worth making. We cannot gain consensus if no one speaks and in the meantime misinformation is being propagated by the article. Additionally, WP:BRD is a suggestion, not a rule, as I'm sure you know. Please do not continue to troll this page for your own ego's sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhaetor ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)