Talk:Enthymeme

message: The 2nd example is not logically valid. Evercat 21:22, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed now. Evercat 21:24, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Not logically valid

message: The "Misuse" example doesn't seem to be logically valid, regardless of whether or not it is funny.
:It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the nature of an enthymeme, either. It's just a non sequitur. Removing it on these grounds. 82.92.119.11 17:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he meant to say: All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Therefore, all men are Socrates. Poromenos 17:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bentsen/Quayle 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mark Twain example 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Good page! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrect Example 

message: 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)
thread_title:  popular usage 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citation Not Needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dead Link 

message: Is "enthumiem" a proper pronunciation?  I was thinking it was "en-thuh-meem" or something. --Ajkochanowicz (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enthumiem 

message: 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)
replies: text: Wikipedia is "there" for anyone to edit.  If you have a reliable source, and can provide a citation for whatever it is you want to say, you should just go ahead and write it.  Add your sense of the word enthymeme, and how or who uses it that way, to the article and see what happens in the grand emergent process that is Wikipedia.  N2e (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

text: On the substance of your assertion however, I might phrase it differently.  It isn't so much that a "precise definition of enthymeme" even exists; rather it is what one, or what several, senses of enthymeme are used in various literatures, and can be supported by verifiable, reliable secondary source citations of that usage in that particular literature.  Hope this helps.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this really an enthymeme? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Semantic tableaux?!? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New editor, feedback?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re: Substantial Revision