Tag Archives: Vitamins

But I want all of them!

6 Jul

can't have your cake Having recently devoured and imbibed the philosophy of minimalism, I picked up another book along the same lines to garner new tips for eliminating stuff.  But Joshua Beck’s recent book, The More of Less….surprised me. Besides new ways of thinking about why we spend money,  I came away with the surprising goal of reducing our purchases in order to create a travel fund.

So here I am, a month out from reading Beck’s book. After some truthful examination of our budget, the only category that has actual flab and can afford trimming is the groceries ‘pot’.  From that line item we fund food for the two of us and our pair of cats, cleaning supplies, wine, and vitamins.

Like with any new project, the initial energy released by setting this goal lasted about two weeks.  Then came the ‘surprising’ realization that I had been operating at cross purposes. How so?  Apparently I hold 3 values equally and that won’t work if I want to squeeze money from groceries.  I EQUALLY want:

  1. to build up a travel fund
  2. to eat organic meats
  3. to buy high-quality vitamins

Brick wall moment!  I can’t have numbers 2 & 3 AND pare down groceries to save for trips. So the past few days I’ve wrestled with the values that support numbers 2 & 3.  Forced to prioritize what I consider important has been good exercise.

As I wrestled with rank-ordering priorities I reviewed some previous decisions that had brought us to this point.  A little background:

We switched to buying and preparing organic meats and eggs after I saw the documentary Food, Inc  Since that film, antipathy against the industrialization of food sourcing has set in. Philosophical reasoning primarily fueled this shift and it was then easy to add the health benefits of organic foods to shore up the argument.  My husband joined me in abandoning all non-organic meats and meat products.

Aligning our food prep around these new principles has posed no additional effort.  I enjoy cooking and we eat out rarely.  Once a year we select a high-end, farm-to-table type restaurant for our anniversary.  Yet right from the outset our commitment to organic meat wasn’t monolithic. When on the road to visit family and friends, we continued to eat in casual chain restaurants.  These occasions together with being guests in others’ homes were times of non-organic dining.

So given that I have compromised somewhat since my initial gung-ho ‘no more industrial meats for us!’ cry, maybe we could go back to eating non-organic foods.

What about the vitamins?  We took grocery store/pharmacy-brand vitamins for years, resulting in (anecdotally) very few colds or at worst, quick recoveries. But to ‘afford the organic meats’ I opted to eliminate them, reasoning that healthier meats would provide what vitamins offered.  As our stock of supplements dwindled, winter arrived and we both succumbed to some ‘health problems’.  I suffered my longest bad cold ever and my husband fell ill with heart palpitations caused by multiple factors, kicked off by a cold. Anxiety connected with the erratic heartbeats caused literal sleep-less nights, ‘les nuits blanches’ as the French call them – white nights.  But God worked a healing after 3 months of numerous doctors’ visits, testing and much prayer and Mike’s sleep patterns readjusted.

We resumed vitamins, based on some advice from a nurse who also had suffered heart palpitations.  She directed us to higher quality supplement companies.  What do you know, the better the vitamins, the pricier they are!

So here I am, having to make a choice between the two priorities that cannot coexist together with my new desire to reduce grocery spending and make room for a travel fund. I won’t go into why that is important; suffice it to say that whether the savings allows us to vacation well or simply offers us flexibility in future jobs, this reasoning process has been useful.

Critically THINKING through what I want and the labor to explain logically my thought process has clarified my mind.  I haven’t used logic explicitly, but I have identified my pre-suppositions and values that have been leading me to where I am mid-summer.

Finally, let me point out that I am very much like everyone else in the human race:  when we decide that we want something, even if it’s an irrational outcome, we seek to shore up that decision with rational arguments.  So here’s my ace in the hole:

Matthew 15:11 – It is not what goes into the mouth that makes a person unclean. It is what comes out of the mouth that makes a person unclean.

No, I don’t like supporting big industry meat.  Yes, I prefer the idea of encouraging small quality farms that are committed to healthy and humane raising and slaughtering practices.  But I want a travel fund more!

Vitamins DO make a difference – creating our first valid syllogism

9 Sep

So, have you taken your vitamins yet?  Are you convinced that some taking of supplements is a habit that improves one’s health?

Last time we set out our conclusion by identifying 2 of the 3 necessary terms.  And we narrowed down our quantifier to SOME vitamin taking, not ALL.

Today we need to finish fleshing out the syllogism by adding a 3rd term.

You will most likely think that our syllogism doesn’t communicate a strong and complete case in support of the conclusion.  You will be right!  This syllogism is just a 1st step.  The 2 premises that we write will simply show your thinking process, how you are arriving at that first conclusion.  An entire argument involves a series of syllogisms.  By focusing on just this ONE LITTLE step, we are staying ‘ honest’ in our reasoning.        

Think about Math Teachers whose litany rings in our memories, “You must show ALL your work to get full credit!”  

Here is our conclusion from last time, properly labeled:

I statement – Therefore, some taking of supplements (Su) is a habit that improves one’s health (Pu)

By the end of our session, we had established the following information about our syllogism:

  • S term of the syllogism (aka Minor Term)  = taking of supplements
  • P term of the syllogism (aka Major Term)  = a habit that improves one’s health

Today we have to come up with our 3rd term (Rule 1), which will be the M or middle term.  This term will LINK the other two terms (major & minor terms), enabling a conclusion.

After playing around with some terms to determine the IDEAL one, I think I found the one that can link the other ideas.  What we are talking about are those daily activities that make a difference in one’s health.   Thus I chose the following for a Middle Term:

Doctor-endorsed daily practices

Next I had to choose the affirmative quantifier.  Did I intend the term to be UNIVERSAL as in ALL or particular as in SOME?

For argument’ s sake, let’s suppose that I happen to think that ALL doctor-endorsed daily practices are habits that improve health (we’ll talk about TRUTH later)

Here is what our syllogism looks like:

All  doctor-endorsed daily practices (Md)  are habits that improve one’ s health (Pu)

Some taking of supplements(Su)  is a doctor-endorsed daily practice(Mu)

Tf, some taking of supplements (Su) is a habit that improves one’s health (Pu)


Let’s go through our checklist to see if the syllogism is at least valid.  Remember that we haven’t even addressed the truthfulness of each premise.

1. 3 and only 3 terms? YES
2. Does the Middle term illicitly show up in the conclusion? NO
3. If a term is distributed in the conclusion, is it Distributed at least one other place NA (both terms in the conclusion are Undistributed)
4. Middle term Distributed at least once? YES (in Premise # 1)
5. Are Premises 1 & 2 negative? NO
6. If Premises 1 & 2 are affirmative, is our conclusion also affirmative? YES
7. If either of the 2 premises negative, is the conclusion also negative? N/A

Therefore, we have written a VALID syllogism!  Yay!

Once you have a valid syllogism, THEN you can look at the truth/falsity of each premise.  But that’s another discussion!

The takeaway?   Those little quantifiers REALLY make a difference.  Be precise with your words.

Do you take vitamins? Creating an argument in support

4 Sep

Food supplements – to take or not to take, voici la question!

Last time we analyzed an argument by applying the 7th rule for checking a syllogism’s validity.  We showed that if one of the 2 premises is negative, then the conclusion MUST be negative as well.

I asked you to think of how you would argue FOR the position that taking vitamins makes a qualitative positive difference in one’s health.  If we are to formulate an argument in its correct form, we need to comply with ALL 7 rules for validity.

Here they are again in a summary list:

Every syllogism to be valid (that is correctly formed), must abide by all seven rules:

  1. Has 3 and only 3 terms
  2. No middle term in the conclusion
  3. If a term is ‘distributed’ in the conclusion, it must be ‘distributed’ in one of the premises
  4. The middle term must be distributed once.
  5. No conclusion can be drawn from 2 negative premises
  6. If the 2 premises are affirmative, the conclusion MUST be affirmative as well
  7. If one of the 2 premises is negative, then the conclusion MUST be negative as well.

On to constructing OUR argument.  Remember, that when we formulate a syllogism, we start with our conclusion and work backwards.

Here is our hypothetical conclusion in ordinary language:

  • Therefore, taking supplements improves one’s health

Before we go any further, we have to add a quantifier and rewrite the proposition so that a copula appears.  First we reflect  – Do we  intend to defend the assertion that ALL taking of supplements improves one’s health or just SOME taking of supplements?

To be on the safe side, it is more truthful and easier to defend an I proposition, or SOME taking of ‘vits’.  After all, some vitamins might be so poorly made NOT to be efficacious.

Next , in order to uncover the copula, we need to ‘tweak’  our second term resulting in:

Therefore, some taking of supplements is a habit that improves one’s health

Now 2 of the allowed 3 terms pop up clearly.

We can label them and determine the distribution based on our ‘DUDU & UUDDs’ chart.  Remember that a term IN FRONT of the copula is in the subject position and a term which FOLLOWS the copula is in the predicate position.  We determine the TYPE of proposition by the quantifier (All, Some, No, Some…not)

Type of Proposition Subject position Predicate position
A (All) D U
I (Some) U U
E (No) D D
O (Some….not) U D

Another reason for starting to create or analyze a syllogism ‘bottom up’, that is to say WITH THE CONCLUSION, is that the minor term (represented by S FOR THE ENTIRE SYLLOGISM) is always the term that precedes the copula in the conclusion and the major term (represented by P FOR THE ENTIRE SYLLOGISM)  always follows the copula in the conclusion.

Here is our conclusion properly labeled:

I statement – Therefore, some taking of supplements (Su) is a habit that improves one’s health (Pu)

So as we end this discussion, we have the following information about our syllogism:

S term = taking of supplements

P term = a habit that improves one’s health

Next time, we will come up with our 3rd term (see rule 1) which is the M or middle term.

Until next time, keep thinking!

To take vitamins or not, that is….not the question today

2 Sep

Imagine that your office mate has just asserted the most ridiculous conclusion that you have ever heard: that taking vitamins is a waste of time and money!    

    VERSUS ………….    

You, who pop a handful of carefully selected ‘food supplements’ SWEAR by the efficacy of these expensive pills.  After all, how many sick days have YOU taken in the past five years?

But before you give her a piece of your mind, calm down and ask her to explain her claim.  Remember that she who advances a proposition, a claim, a conclusion, an assertion MUST give her evidence, her reasons, her method of arriving at this thought.  If you want some help, click on the link here for a resource by Greg Koukl.  Great Book to Help who does what in an argument

After listening to your office mate, you realize that before you can even GET to thinking about the truth or falsity of her conclusion, you have to guide her in formulating her reasons.  After some coaxing, here is what she has offered:

  • Food provides enough vitamins and minerals to stay healthy
  • No manufactured vitamins can provide the same quality of benefit found naturally in food.
  • Therefore, taking vitamins is a waste of time and money

Your friend obviously needs some help in identifying her terms and organizing her argument into syllogisms that are built on 3 terms each.

But before you pull out your pencil and start sketching logic charts, we can just refer to Rule # 7 to show that her argument is invalid:

What is the quality of premise # 1 (‘food provides enough…’ )?   It is AFFIRMATIVE

What is the quality of premise # 2 (‘no manufactured…’)?  It is NEGATIVE

Rule # 7 of the Seven Rules for Testing Validity states that if one of the 2 premises is negative, then the conclusion MUST be negative.  Your friend has NOT stated a negative conclusion but the AFFIRMATIVE statement that ‘Taking vitamins is a waste of time and money’

Since the argument is invalid based on Rule # 7, you’re off the hook from giving your 2 cents worth.  But spend some time helping her tease out her reasons and re-articulating them and then checking to see that is what she means.  She’ll gain respect for you as a gentle friend and maybe SHE might see some holes in her reasoning.

Meanwhile play around with what YOU believe about vitamins and craft YOUR argument following the 7 rules.

Here they are in summary.  Next time we’ll build an argument about vitamins that is VALID.

Every syllogism to be valid (that is correctly formed), must comply with all seven rules:

  1. Has 3 and only 3 terms
  2. No middle term in the conclusion
  3. If a term is ‘distributed’ in the conclusion, it must be ‘distributed’ in one of the premises
  4. The middle term must be distributed once.
  5. No conclusion can be drawn from 2 negative premises
  6. If the 2 premises are affirmative, the conclusion MUST be affirmative as well
  7. If one of the 2 premises is negative, then the conclusion MUST be negative as well.

Keep thinking!