# Re: Do you think 12:00pm is noon or midnight?

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 01:31:02 -0700, jenny_b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Jul 21, 3:49 pm, jenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jul 21, 11:20 am, zookumar yelubandi <zooku...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

jenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jul 19, 11:07 am, zookumar yelubandi <zooku...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
jenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
[...]
How would we get from 11:59 a.m. to 12:01 p.m if 12:00 p.m. was
notnoon? And, likewise, how would we get from 11:59 p.m. to
12:01 a.m if 12:00 a.m. was notmidnight?
[...]
"affirming the consequent"
If A, then B.
B.
Therefore, A.
If its raining, then it's cloudy.
Its cloudy,
Therefore it's raining.

Are you saying:
If we are in the middle of the period 11:59AM - 12:01PM, then it's
12:00PM.
It's 12:00PM.
Therefore, we are in the middle of the period between 11:59AM -
12:01PM
.... and we don't know we are in that period because 12:00PM can be
noonormidnight?

No. Here is what I'm saying:
[A]= 12:00noonequal to 12:00PM
[B]= 12:01PM
What?
Where did he say 'noonis 12:00PM' exists therefore 12:01PM exists?

My, you are obtuse.

"... if 12:00 p.m. was notnoon..."

You spend so much time saying how logical and precise you are and you
can't format your statement to fit your claim that Gordon was
affirming the consequent.

Indeed, his statement, which is not in the *format* of the
logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, can nonetheless be reduced
to said fallacy by actually recognizing what was said. He is arguing
that if 12:00 PM was *not*noon, then the given transit from 11:59 AM to
12:01 PM would *not* be possible. That is the same as saying the given
transit is only possible if 12:00PM isnoon. More concisely, if 12:00
pm isnoon, then given transit. Since we can represent the given
transit by its *endpoint* , 12:01 PM, we have thus restructured the
original statement into the format of the logical fallacy in question.

If 12:00 PM isnoon,
then given transit (representable by endpoint).

... which is identical to the following ...

If 12:00noonequal to 12:00 PM,
then 12:01 PM
(which, of course, is the first part of the logical fallacy of
affirming the consequent)

NO NO NO. That is begging the question.

In short, his statements are packaged in a different format
from the official format of affirming the consequent, but they are

People rarely speak in official formats of logic. It is the job of the
person analyzing it to do that.

unmistakably a respresentation of said logical fallacy.

No. You are not describing an error of affirming the consequent, but
one of begging the question.

It's circular reasoning at its finest. Indeed, one can replace
Affirming the consequent is NOT the same as circular reasoning!!!

True. Mea culpa. ATC is deductive reasoning: from B, we can
deduce A.

[A] with [A']= 12:00noonequal to 12:00AM, and get an equally circular
logic result (which, indeed, was my counterexample to Gordon's
fallacious reasoning).
This is circular reasoning:
God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is infallible
because it is the word of God.
Or, 'begging the question' (commonly called circular reasoning):
The universe could only be created by a god, therefore god exists.

Yup. There is bi-directional flow in circular reasoning.

Affirming the consequent does not have the feature of an unproven
premise being restated as a conclusion.

I'm aware of that. Gordon's argument suffers from
self-reference not from circular reasoning.

You clearly are not aware of that, as you continue, in the very next
sentence, to make the same mistake. Circular reasoning uses 'self
reference' to support conclusions. Affriming the consequent does not.

However, the differences
are minor and subtle; they're certainly not as great as you pretend them
to be.

They are COMPLETELY different things.

In circular reasoning, there are two unanchored points, either

There are two in the example I gave you, that's not the definition.

of which can be the antecedent. In affirming the consequent, there's
one unanchored point, and it *is* the antecedent (which goes on to
affirm the consequent).

Again. WRONG. What does it take to get accross that with affirming
the consequent there isn't a problem with a premise itself? It's
raining. That's NOT disputed. I stated that before, and you replied
that you knew that, but yet you continue. You are saying the premise
is "12:00pm isnoon" and the premise is incorrect, and the next
statement (or none) supports the premise - THAT is begging the
question.

To the extent an unproven premise is stated in the conclusion of
Gordons statement, your statement that Gordon's argument is fallacious
because of it is Argumentum ad Logicam.

Perhaps. But that doesn't ignore the fact that Gordon's
argument is, indeed, affirming the consequent. See above. In any

Again, you are describing what you believe is the error of begging the
question, not the error of affirming the consequent.

event, I have since exposed Gordon's statement to be the inelegant,
"badly put" statement that it is with my apple, mango, orange bin
metaphor. You claimed that Gordon's fallacious statement was "nicely
put".

It was.

Gordon was simply saying that you cross into PM at some point, and
that switching, callednoon, happens at 12:00PM for practical purposes
(or if you prefer YOU can say 12:00.00000000000000000000000000000001
PM) and from here you get to 12:01PM, and that it doesn't make since
to go from 12:00AM to 12:01PM in the span of a minute.

The above begs a lot. My "double-bin" metaphor doesn't require
*any* begging.

Youthinkhe's saying something else? I commented on your metaphor at
the end of this post.

You are concerned with "coupling," but youthinkthe insanity of going
from 12:00AM to 12:01PM makes more "coupling" sense than does
12:00.xPM = 12:00PM as x approaches 1/infinity.

The insanity can be removed by employing a step function. There
is considerable hysteria in your argument. The reality is that 12:00 AM
can *safely* , *rationally* , *intuitively* , *sanely* exist alongside
12:01 PM. This is not a case of bringing Matter (12:00 AM) dangerously
close to antiMatter (12:01 PM), thereby jeopardizing the future of the
solar system and beyond. A mere step function can render the six-degree
jump to a brave new interval, twice daily. Indeed, this jump could just
as easily be effected between "11:59 AM" and "12:00 PM" (as per your
instructions). Oooooh, the insanity!! ;^)

Indeed? Are you now saying you could just as easily apply your step
function to just go from 11:59AM to 12:00PM??

Again, the fruit bin metaphor eloquently describes the problem
of placing a mango in either the mango bin or the orange bin, neither of
which are present at the loading area. Here, the mango bin doesn't
exist; and the orange bin had been displaced by the apple bin some
twelve hours before, and won't be in place again at the loading area
until the apple bin is removed, and that only happens *after* the Post
Meridiem arrives, and not *as* it arrives). Since the only bin at the
loading area when the mango arrives is the apple bin; it makes rational
sense to toss the mango into the apple bin. Not a perfect match; but
an available fit nonetheless. Ergo, the logical basis for 12:00 AM.
12:00 M would have been best, of course, but we only have the two bins.

-zookumar-

You create a metaphor that doesn't physically match the problem, then
you create a problem physically moving the pieces of your metaphor if
11:59AM->12:00PM, and you use that so say 11:59AM->12:00AM. Not being
very logical... (BTW, "after" the PM arrives is too late. Also, why
do you restrict your metaphor to one bin in the loading area? You've
had 12 hours to set the other one next to it. Or, in the case on a 12
hour analog clock, nothing is getting moved. You use this restriction
of your device to support your argument regarding that which your
metaphor does not accurately represent. Your metaphor also involves
instantaneously switching out the bins in the loading dock. It makes
more rational sense to have the orange bin sitting next to the apple
bin, and when 12:00 is reached to smoothly move to the orange bin,
thereby eliminating any nonsense of '12:00AM' going to 12:00.0000001PM
in an immeasurable instant.)

...and you really should look up what 'begging the question' and
'affirming the consequent' are, as you are completely wrong about was
'affirming the consequent' is. (Further above, in case anyone else is
interested...)

Well, Zookumar started a new subject "Affirming the Consequent or
Circular Reasoning." There is one reply:
-----------------------------------------------------
From: monty <monty@xxxxxxxxxx>
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Affirming the consequent or circular reasoning?
Message-ID: <0b1da3hae8vj3u6k6e4vhrt36ntc6q3gll@xxxxxxx>
References: <MYOoi.63623\$xk5.33231@edtnps82>

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:18:52 GMT, zookumar yelubandi
<zookumar@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

A = [transit from 11:59 AM to 12:01 PM]
B = [12:00 pm is noon]
C = [arbitrary assignment]

If [transit from 11:59 AM to 12:01 PM],
then [12:00 PM is noon];
[12:00 pm is noon],
therefore [transit from 11:59 AM to 12:01 PM]

Good ROMulans, what kind of fallacy is this exactly? First I
argued it was affirming the consequent; then uncertainty crept in, and I
argued it was circular reasoning; but could it not be, in fact, both ACT
and CR?

I mean, if B is a consequence of A, then are you not, indeed,
committing the ACT fallacy? After all, B could be a consequence of C.

And if B is a consequence of A, then are you not begging the
question when you state that A is a consequence of B? IOW, are you not
committing the CR fallacy through mutual self-reference?

I'm sure I'm missing something here. Anyone have the solution?
Is the misstep due to that B is *not* a consequence of A? Indeed, that
it is a consequence of C and is being incorrectly portrayed as a
consequence of A?

-zookumar-

I read Jenny's reply to your post under the subject "Is 12:00pm noon
or midnight," which this is regarding. What she said about the correct
name of your argument is correct.

The original statement was "How would we get from 11:59 a.m. to 12:01
p.m if 12:00 p.m. was not noon?" - which was a reply to the above
stated subject.

Any attempts to arrange/rearrange your arugment to make the problem
you speak of be "affirming the consequent," which you originally
identified it as, will be met with failure. Any obscuration will be
readily reduced to "begging the question" by anyone familiar with the
basics of critical thinking. (This is not to say there isn't a valid
reason 12:00pm is noon, but simply there are no agruments explicitly
present that support it. As was pointed out, the author may have been
implying arguments that 12:00PM is noon, which he may believe is
obvious, but those arguments are a seperate matter.)

zookumar is still going on about how logical he is... And still
doesn't get confirming the consequent vs. begging question, as is seen
by his recent post under the alternate thread mentioned here.

.

## Relevant Pages

• Re: Do you think 12:00pm is noon or midnight?
... logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, ... My "double-bin" metaphor doesn't require ... the fruit bin metaphor eloquently describes the problem ...
(rec.org.mensa)
• Re: Do you think 12:00pm is noon or midnight?
... logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, ... to said fallacy by actually recognizing what was said. ... "badly put" statement that it is with my apple, mango, orange bin ...
(rec.org.mensa)
• Re: Do you think 12:00pm is noon or midnight?
... logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, ... original statement into the format of the logical fallacy in question. ... the fruit bin metaphor eloquently describes the problem ...
(rec.org.mensa)
• Re: Some of my blog entries
... Science and logic - especially the fallacy of affirming the consequent. ... for which the theories make conflicting predictions. ...
(talk.origins)
• Re: Are all creationists liars?
... that only "atheists" advocate this position. ... affirming the consequent, ... Liberals employ deceit, and so does groups like the KKK. ...
(talk.origins)