What if….it rains on my wedding day?

25 Sep

Saturday, it POURED in the Asheville area of Western NC. 

Normally we hike, my husband and I.  But as we went to bed Friday night, Mike gloomily looked up from checking his Weather Bug app and announced, “ 90 % chance of rain!”

So we did a field trip into the Big City of Asheville and walked around in the rain, stopping in at Topps for shoes and sampling good food at Black Bird Café.

On our way home in driving rain, I casually mentioned to Mike, “Pity the poor couple who planned a lovely Fall Wedding OUTDOORS!”    

Come to find out, a colleague at work WAS part of the bridal party in what was to be an outdoor wedding.

“ Hors de question!”  out of the question, as it turned out.

So here’s the syllogism:

If it rains, then we’ll have to move the wedding indoors

It’s raining,

Therefore, we must move the wedding indoors

This is called a conditional syllogism, part of the class of hypotheticals.

We test the validity of hypotheticals differently.

The major premise is the complex one, the “if/then statement” .

The normal categorical proposition that follows the IF – in this case, It rains

is called the Antecedent.  And the proposition that follows the THEN – in this case, we’ll have to moved the wedding indoors is called the consequent

There are 4 possibilities for arranging the minor premise and the conclusion.  Two are valid and 2 are invalid because they assume too much.

Here are the valid ones , side by side, with their names

If it rains, then we’ll move the wedding indoors          If it rains, then we’ll move the wedding indoors

It’s raining                                                                                    We’re not moving the wedding indoors

Tf, we’re moving the wedding indoors                             Tf, it’s not raining

Affirming the Antecedent                                                      Denying the consequent

(Modus Ponens in Latin)                                                         (Modus Tollens in Latin)

To remember which segment to affirm or deny to be valid, I created a silly statement.

“ AA (alcoholics anonymous) meets in DC (Washington) is valid”     

So we can either affirm the antecedent or deny the consequent and have a valid conditional argument.

If however, we propose the other 2 possibilities, we are stuck with INVALID arguments.

If we DENY the antecedent we get the following:

If it rains, then we will move the wedding indoors

It’s not raining                       

Tf, we’re not moving the wedding indoors

This is not valid, because there are OTHER possible reasons one might be forced to move the wedding indoors.  There could be a snow storm…..the beach could have been eroded….the patio of the Historic Inn could have been double booked.

The other invalid version is this:

If it rains, then we will move the wedding indoors

We’re moving the wedding indoors

Tf, it must be raining

Again, there are a range of other reasons that might cause the wedding to moved indoors.  We don’t have enough information to conclude that rain is the decisive factor.

The ONLY fact we had was this:  That if rain came, the wedding WOULD FOR SURE be moved indoors.  No other contingency plans were described in the syllogism.

Listen next time you hear an “if-then” statement and see if you can determine if it’s valid.

By the way, the bride owes a hearty thanks to her bridal party who pulled off the herculean task of last minute decorating inside!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: