Logic (2016)
Lecture 42: Syllogistic Figures and the Validity of Arguments

Transcript
================================================================================

But is man always white? Is man necessarily white? Well, he's necessarily black, right? Well, no, not every man is black. If man is necessarily white, every man would be white. If man is necessarily black, every man would be black. But every three is half of six, right? It isn't necessarily half of six, right? So, we're taking class examples for A, B, and C. Can you think of an A and a B, such that no A is a B? Well, it's not too hard to think, right? You can take an animal, right? And we'll say no animal is a tree, right? Now, I've got to find two examples for C, where neither one is a tree, but one is always an animal and one is never. Can you think of something that is never a tree, but is always an animal? No. Oh, gee, very good, very good. Now, can you think of an example of something that is never a tree, but never is an animal either? A stone, okay. Now, to make sure I make no stupid mistakes, you just check your work, right? Have I satisfied the two conditions? Are these examples, when they're substituted in to that form, do you have true statements? Because you want to make sure that you have good matter. There's no problem with matter, just nothing follows, that's all. Okay? So, no animal is a tree. No A is a B. No animal is a tree? Yeah. Okay. No sea is a B. No dog is a tree. No stone is a tree. I have satisfied condition number one. Well, these statements are true when you put these examples in, right? Now, do I have the second condition? Do I have one example where every C is an A? I mean, I just tell us to encycl the one that is every C is A, right? And do I have one example where no C is A? Yeah. Underline that for a stone, right? Now, what does that prove? Well, if even once the universal affirmative is true, then once any negative is false, right? It's false that no dog is an animal. It's false that some dog is not an animal. So, no negative conclusion is what? Always true. And if none is always true, no negative conclusion is necessarily true, right? Now, I have one example where no stone is an animal. And could any affirmative be true in that case? Or be true always, I mean. Because if no stone is an animal, you have one example where the universal affirmative is false. Every stone is an animal, a particular affirmative is false. Some stone is an animal. So, this knocks out any affirmative statement as being true always. This knocks out any negative statement as being true. Together, they knock out any conclusion that's got to be affirmative or negative, right? There's none that's always so. Because there's nothing that's necessarily so, right? So, argh! Okay? It's gone, right? So, we don't have a sojism here. We don't have one here. What about the other one that has a universal negative and a universal affirmative but reversed here, right? Universal negative below and the universal affirmative above, right? You have every a is b. No c is b, right? Now, there's any conclusion necessarily that c is a subject and a is a predicate. Well, I'm not going to fill around this thing because I know you can't convert these in computers out. You're just going to lose power, right? Well, let's move this one over and we get no b is c, right? And move this down here and you get every a is b. Now, if no b is c and every a is b, right? Then no a is what? Yeah. I didn't ask if there was any conclusion that a is a subject and c is a predicate. There's anyone that c is a subject and a is a predicate. But I can convert again. Wow. Because that converts to no c is a. But I have to convert twice to see the necessity, right? So now I get, what, two ways in the second figure of concluding, right, that no c is a, right? This form here and this form here. But here I have to convert once to see that something does follow, right? Here I have to convert twice, right? But now, so there's one way of concluding a universal affirmative. There are three ways of concluding a universal what? Negative, huh? Let's look at the third figure, huh? Actually, in college, right? I had blackboards all around the room. And he worked all around. We're already following around in the room. He's thinking of being in a black room, you see? In the third figure, huh? You have two universal affirmatives. The middle term is the what? Subject in both ways. Every b is a. I got a universal affirmative here. Every b is a. But is anything said to be a b? Not yet. Now, could I get something to be said to be a b? Yeah. I could convert this, but it what? Loses power, right? And it drops to some c is a b. Every b is an a. And whatever is a b must be an a, yeah? Instead of all. And you're told only that some c is b. So all you can conclude from two universal affirmatives in the third figure is what? Some c is a, yeah? If you can't get a universal affirmative conclusion from two universal premises, how the hell are you going to get it from the other one, right? We can go through all sixteen of them, but I mean, we can go through all sixteen of them. So all you can get in the third figure you'll find out is what? Particulous, yeah. Now, let's take another example here. No b is an a. And every c, excuse me, every b is what? C, right? Well, you can try to be said and done. If no b is an a, whatever is a b is not an a. But you're not told that anything is a b, are you? But you can convert the universal affirmative, right? But it loses power, right? So you get some c is b. If no b is an a, whatever is a b is a b. that B is not an A, but you're told only that some C is B, right? The conclusion is that some C is what? Is not an A. You can't get a universal conclusion there, right? You can get a what? Particularly, right? So Aristotle called these three figures the first, second, and third, right? Because the first figure is more powerful than the second into both universal affirmative and universal negative, right? The second figure can't do only universal negative, right? Among universal properties and crucians. The third figure can't even do any universals. Because when you convert, you get back less manifest, right? Now if you have a reverse of this here, you have every B is A, and B is C. But you can't try for the set of all, because the set of all requires two affirmatives, right? How about then, though B is C? And if we said to be a B, right? So you can turn this around and say sum A is B at all. You don't need to get a part of it. You lose power, right? Sum A is B. No B is what? C. So you get sum A is not C. But you can't get a conclusion when C is a subject, and A is a predicate, because you can't convert the particular what? Negative, right? So all you get is particular conclusions there. What about no B is A, and no B is C? Two negatives, I say to the kids, you know, if your parents are both negative, you won't have to be the children. Yeah, no problem. Yeah, no problem. Can you just... Well, you can't even get the set of none out of these two, because the set of none requires one affirmative, right? The set of none is that if no B is A, then whatever is a B is not an A, right? So you've got to have something affirmative. But we show it's invalid by finding examples for A, B, and C. It's satisfied in two conditions. And when you substitute them into this form, the premises are true. So there's no difficulty in the math, right? But in one case, you have one example where every C is A, which knocks out any negative as being true always, and therefore any negative as being true necessarily. And in one example, where no C is A, it knocks out any affirmative. So can you think of an example for A and B, such that no B is A? No stone is an animal. Can you think of something that is, that a stone is not, but that is always an animal? Oh, yeah, that's not too hard. We'll circle that, right? Can you think of something that is not a what? It's not a stone nor an animal. It's not a tree. I'm kind of stupid sometimes. I make stupid mistakes. So let's check and see if we satisfy both conditions. No B is A. No stone is an animal. That's true. No B is C. No stone is a dog. True. No stone is a tree. I have satisfied condition number one, but to the second condition, I've got to satisfy. I have one example of C and A, where every C is an A. I'm in a circle here. That knocks out any negative as being always the case. And therefore none of them are necessarily the case, right? I have one example where no C is A. And that knocks out any affirmative as being always so. And also I'm using kind of the if-then-so-jus-a-right and saying, if something falls necessarily, then it's always so, right? But nothing is always so, therefore nothing falls necessarily. So I love that if-then-so-jus-a-right. I'm so happy with this scene that I think of Augustine's word out of those words, huh? God menace for himself, and our hearts are rest until they rest in thee. But you can make an instant statement out of it. He menace for himself, our hearts are rest until they rest in him. So you find out there's a reason why Aristotle calls him the first, the second, and the third figure, right? That if it's valid in the first figure, the set of all and the set of none will apply to it just as it stands. In the second figure, in the third figure, you can see something following necessarily by what? Conversion, yeah. And so it's not just obvious, right? And when you convert, you get back to the first figure, right? So the first figure rightly is placed first. But then you also find out in the first figure you can have universal affirmative, universal negative conclusion. But in the second figure you can have only, what? Negative conclusions. And the third figure, you can only have particular conclusions, right? Because of falling off, right? So you, you know, Aristotle, before and after. Kind of like Shakespeare said, right, huh? He's somebody who could look before and after. He could see the before and after, you know. See this, huh? And notice, huh, you couldn't prove by examples that a form is valid, right? Because everybody can prove by induction, right? If something isn't so, it's just or not. Because examples wouldn't even show that it's always so, right? It's always necessarily so, right? But one black man can just prove this racist who says it's necessarily white. So I thought that's a boy from, from, from, from, from, from, from Minnesota, right? It's in town, right? So they bring father, read over to the house there on Christmas, you know, and so on. They had, you know. They had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know, they had, you know In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen. God, our enlightenment, help us, God, to know and love you. Guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds. Lord, illumine our images and arouse us to consider more quickly. St. Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, help us to understand what you have written. Father, Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen. It came from the heart we heard in California, right, huh? You know, in 1922, my father sold our house in Lemon Grove, in Yorba Linda, and we moved to Whittier, right? He did roustabout work in the oil fields, but although it paid well, this physical labor offered no challenge to a man of his ambition, intelligence, and light imagination. Early on, my father could see that even though there were still very few automobiles, and only one paved road in the area, the horseless carriage was an idea whose time was about to come. He borrowed $5,000 to buy some land on the main road connecting the growing towns of Whittier and La Habra. He cleared the lot, put in a tank and a pump, and opened the first service station in the eight-mile stretch between the two towns. The enterprise was an almost instant success. And he soon opened a general store and market, huh? He added a small counter for my mother's home-baked pies and cakes. One of her specialties was angel food cake. She insisted it was at its best only when she beat fresh outdoor air into the batter before putting it into the oven. I remember her standing outside the kitchen door in the chilly pre-dawn air, beating the batter with a big wooden spoon. The grocery business expanded rapidly, and had it not been for the illnesses that struck our family, right, we would have been modestly well-off by the standards of those times. The Nixon Market, and that was the name of the Nixon Market, was a mom-and-pop operation, right? The whole family worked in the store, right? In addition to waiting on the customers and keeping the accounts, inventory had to be taken, orders placed, and the shelves kept stocked. The store had to be cleaned and swept each night and sprayed for flies each day, right? Now, you guys think you've got a rough time here, right, huh? When I was older, I took over the fresh fruit and vegetable buy. Each morning, I got up at 4 in order to be at the 7th Street Market in Los Angeles by 5 o'clock. I chose the best fruits and vegetables, bargained with the farmers and wholesalers for a good price, and then drove back to East Whittier to wash, sort, and arrange the produce in the store, and be off to school by 8. Now, do you guys get up at 4? Go to the market, yeah? It was not an easy life, but it was a good one, centered around a loving family and a small, tight-knit Quaker community. Yeah, there were Quakers. With those who were willing to work hard, California in the 1920s seemed to place in time of opportunity, right? So you can get up the hard way, you know, huh? Now, his wife, huh? You know, he married her own, huh? This thing of her. Her mother died of cancer when Pat, that's his wife, was only 13. And Pat had to take her place, cooking and keeping house for her father and brothers. About the time she graduated from high school, the long years in the mine, that's how her father worked, took their toll, and her father became ill with silicosis, huh? Pat gave up her plans for college and nursed them until his death two years later. With her father gone and her brothers away at college, she was now completely on her own. Because she had to work her way through college and it describes all her jobs and so on, you know? You know, that's kind of a marvelous thing there, right, huh? Now, one of his brothers died very young, you know, and his name was, what, Arthur, right, huh? And he's got part of the essay he wrote as a freshman in college, right? Where he talked about Arthur and his last days and so on, right? Okay? But notice what he's saying in his little essay, he's a freshman in college. That's for an English composition course, right? Now, you've got an little essay, okay. There's a growing tendency among college students to let their childhood beliefs be forgotten. You know about that, huh? Sounds familiar. Yeah. Especially, we find this true when we speak of the divine creator and his plans for us. I thought that I would also become that way, but I find that it's almost impossible for me to do so. And he tells the story of his little brother's death or near the death, you know? Two days before my brother's death, he called my mother into the room. He put his arms around her and said that he wanted to pray before he went to sleep. Then, with closed eyes, he repeated that age-old child's prayer, which ends with these simple, yet beautiful words. If I should die before I awake, I pray thee, Lord, my soul to take. I've never heard that prayer before. I don't know who wrote that. I don't know where it came from. There is a grave out down the hills, but like the picture, it contains only the bodily image of my brother. And so, when I am tired and worried, and I'm almost ready to quit trying to live as I should, I look up and see the picture of a little boy with sparkling eyes and curly hair. I remember the childlike prayer. I pray that it may prove true for me as it did for my brother Arthur. You know, that's very good, you know? When he became vice president, right? He says, January 20th, 1953, that's when he was vice president with Eisenhower, yeah. January 20th, 1953, the day of my first inauguration as vice president was mild and sunny. For the swearing-in ceremony, my mother brought two Bibles that had been in the Newhouse family for several generations. That night, we had a small family dinner at home before the inaugural balls. While the others were all talking about the great events of the day, my mother quietly took me aside and gave me a small piece of paper at which she had written a message for me. No one else saw her give it to me, and I did not read it until I was alone later that night. I put it in my wallet, and I have carried it with me ever since. To Richard, you have gone far, and we are proud of you always. I know that you will keep your relationship with your maker, as it should be. For after all, that, as you must know, is the most important thing in this life. That's interesting, huh? That's interesting, you know? I don't think the Quakers knew too much of Christ's exactly, I mean, he was, you know, with his divine or not. But I mean, it was kind of interesting, you know, things, huh? But it kind of came a good way, you know, huh? Kind of, like, And he said, horrible things, you know, they're wrong. And I don't know, was he quoting, I forget, was he quoting Johnson, I think, maybe, you know, somebody had said, he says, politics is worse than war, he said. He says, in war you die only once, he says. In politics you die many times, you know. Maybe until you're crucified in the press, you know. You really are. Maybe you're crucified in the press, or get crucified in the election or something, you know. And that kind of struck me, it's worse than war. But he's war, I don't know, I'm doing it by a different name, you know. Okay, I'll actually listen to the memoirs. I'll show you. Do we need to review a little bit, or what is a statement? Yeah? It's a genus. You know, reactives take in signifying by custom because that's kind of the definition of speech and name, right? It's a vocal sound signifying by custom, right? And the one has no parts that signify by themselves, huh? And the other has at least two parts, right? More than one part that signifies. So we talked about, what, definition, right? And we talked about, what, statement in there both what speech is. But you define them by their, what, end or purpose, right? So the definition signifies what? What a thing is, yeah. And the statement signifies the true or the false, right? Now sometimes I define a definition as speech making known what something is. And that's purpose there, right? Or speech bringing out what something is, right? There's a difference there between the definition and the statement in this regard, huh? See, would I define the statement also as speech making us know the true or the false? It signifies the true or the false, right? And if you understand the opposition of contradiction, you know that either Father Michael is sitting or Father Michael is not sitting, right? One must be true and the other must be, what, false, right? And I know that much. Do I know which one is true and which one is false? By the statement itself? By the statement itself. Yeah. The statement doesn't make anything known, does it? So the question arises, how do you know whether a statement is true or false, right? And I always give an example in class, you know, and I ask the student, you know, what's an odd number? What's an even number? They seem to know what that was in some way. Kind of define it a little bit. Then I ask them, you know, what is a perfect number? And no one, of course, knew it, right? And I give them the Euclid's definition that a perfect number is a number equal to the sum of everything that measures it evenly. And then I give example six is measured by one and two and three, but not by four or five. And one plus two plus three are six. So, okay. So I've made known to them who did not know what a perfect number was. I've made known what a perfect number is by the definition of a perfect number, huh? But by giving you a statement about, you know, what's your name now? Hmm? Patrick? Patrick is sitting? Patrick is not sitting. I know they can't both be true. They can't both be false. One is true and one is false. But how do I know which one is true and which one is false? Yeah. That's one way that you know, right, huh? Okay. I would say that Patrick is what? Sitting is true right now. It may not be true at another time today, but right now it's true, right? See? But in the other way besides senses, huh? What's in the other way? Well, now you're getting to the question a little bit of belief, right, huh? You see, George Washington is the first president of the United States. George Washington is not the first president of the United States, right? I would say that George Washington is or was the first president of the United States. But this is kind of a belief, isn't it, on my part? Yeah. I don't know it the way I know that Patrick is sitting, right? Right. Yeah. You're named after the order or what? Merrin or something? After the saint Merrin. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. He's not the original. He throws his way around, though, with the name Merrin, right? Well, the kid will let me. Despite his stature. So Merrin is sitting, right? I don't believe that. I know it through my senses, right? Okay. What about something like, you know, a whole is more than one of its parts? If you know what a whole is and what a part is and what the sum is, then it's itself, a parent itself. Yeah. Yeah. It's known to itself, right? It's known to its parts, right? Now, sometimes they call a statement like a whole is more than one of its parts. A statement known to itself, right? You've got to be careful what that means, a statement known to itself. Because you don't mean that you prove that statement to that statement. That would be very bad logic, right? You'd prove anything about that, right? But it's known, you might say, to its what? Parts, right? It's known to the, in some cases, the first act of reason, right? So, or I know that, for example, that a square is a quadrilateral. That's true. Or I know it's true that a square is not a circle, right? But it's by knowing what a square is and what a circle is that I can see this, right? That doesn't mean I can always, you know, know that a statement is true. Okay? Triangles, angles are equal to two right angles. Well, I know what two right angles means. I know what triangle means. But do I see just knowing those two? See? Well, there's got to be another way, which is what? By reasoning it, right? Reasoning it, right? Reasoning it from statements like the whole is more than the part. Okay? So you go back. So we have at least three ways, right? Of coming to know which of the two opposed statements, the affirmative negative is true, and which one is what? False. False. Either by the senses, right? Or by the what? Understanding the terms, what they are. Or by what? Reasoning, right? Okay? Now, if you believe that I'm 81, do you really know that I'm 81? Not strictly speaking, no. Yeah, yeah. If God revealed it, you'd know it for sure, right? But if you just did it because you think I'm a trustworthy person or something, right? See? And even if I'm trustworthy, I might still be mistaken, right? Remember when my father died, and there was, when was my father born, and there was these things for the settlement and so on, and there were two tapes, you know, from the town of Parkers Prairie, Minnesota, you know? I mean, there was some Confucius, the date was 92 or 93 or something, you know? 1982 or something. So, those three ways in general, right? That's interesting, huh? You know the rule of two or three or both, right? Thomas divides logic into three parts, according to the three acts of reason. And understanding what something is, understanding the true or the false, and reasoning, right? And he divides in his Premia the logical works of Aristotle as to which one of those parts they belong, right? So, the categories belongs to the logic of the first act, understanding what something is. Because Jane will tell you what something is, and so on. The Peri Hermeneus is about, what, the statement, right? So, it pertains to the logic of the second act. And all the rest of the books, like the prior and posterior analytics, and the book on places, and its clarifications, and even to some extent the rhetoric, insofar as to the argumentative in it, right? They pertain to the third act of what reason, right? You know, sometimes they distinguish, you know, the trivium and the quadrivium, right? And then they distinguish rhetoric and logic, right? Well, to be more precise... Well, to be more precise... Well, to be more precise... Aristotle says that rhetoric is a, what, paraphouism, which means like offshoot is the way you kind of translate that Greek word. It's an offshoot of logic insofar as the rhetorician does use some arguments, although they're kind of weak. And it's also an offshoot of political studies and so on insofar as he uses things that pertain to politics, right, and so on. So it's kind of a mixed science in a sense, right? But there is some part that you might say that deals with some kinds of arguments, the end of the name, I think you're talking about that a little bit, and the example, you know, the argument from one singular to another singular, the same kind. So Thomas divides logic into three parts, logic in the first act, second act, third act, right? That makes very good sense, right? Yeah, yeah. But now, when I was at Leval there, when I was a first-year student at Leval, right, we were studying the Isagoge, right, of Porphyry, right, which is the first book in logic, right? And Thomas doesn't have any commentary or acquisition of it, so we used, what, Albert the Great, right? So you get Albert's division of logic in there, too, right, because in the beginning he does. And he divides logic into what? Two. And kind of nice the way he does it. He says, what do you need logic for, anyway? He didn't say it quite that way, but if you knew everything, you wouldn't need logic, would you? So you need logic to come to know what you don't know. Well, there's two kinds of unknown, right? The simple unknown and the complex unknown. So it might be unknown to you what a perfect number is, and that would be an example of a simple unknown, right? It might be unknown to you what the soul is, right? And that would be a, what, simple unknown. Or it might be unknown to you that the human soul is immortal, and that would be a complex unknown, right? So he divides logic into two parts, the art of defining, which is the way of coming to know the simple unknown, and the art of, what, reasoning, the way of coming to know the, what, yeah, yeah. So what Thomas calls the logic of the second act, right, huh, which is about statement, right? He includes that in the art of reasoning, because in reasoning, you're reasoning from two or more statements to another statement, right? So statement belongs to the logic of the, what, art of reasoning, right? So who's right, Thomas or Albert? They're both, they're both, yeah, yeah. I mean, so I sometimes give as my rule of two or three, the rule of two or three, or what? Both, yeah, yeah. And I always take the example from my, one of my famous teachers here, Aristotle, right, who praises Homer, you know, as teaching all the Greeks how to make a good plot. And then a good plot is not about everything that happened to Barnabal or somebody, right? But it's about a course of action as a beginning, a middle, and a, what, end. So he divides the plot into a beginning, middle, and end. Homer, tattam, this is the way to, you know, to construct your plot, huh? And, but then later on in the same book, Aristotle says that the plot can be divided into tying the knots and the untying the knots. So now Aristotle himself is dividing it into two. Was Aristotle right when he divided it into three and wrong when he divided it into two, or vice versa? He's having a good day one day. It's good to do it both ways, right, huh? Or I'd like to example you know when we say that it's very important in logic to distinguish between a name set of many things univocally, right, with the same meaning in mind, right, and a name set of many things with more than one meaning in mind, right? So you have a distinction of two, univocal and what? Equivocal, right? Now you can follow that up with a second distinction, which is a distinction of equivocal. And there's names that are equivocal by chance, huh? I'm always telling my student who comes on Wednesday night, Richard, that he has the same name as my brother, Richard, right? But there's no real, yeah, they probably don't know each other exists. And no one looked at the two of them and said, hey, maybe so much I'll let people give them the same name, right? You know, you know, and they're both a little bit tall, you know. I don't think that's the reason why they're both called Richard, you know. And I think my brother Richard is called Richard because my mother's father was named Richard. And then there's a name that's equivocal by what reason, which is a big fuss about, right? So now you're dividing your name and the set of many things into two, and then one of those is subdivided into two, right? Anything wrong with that? But sometimes Thomas comes along and he says, now when one name is said of many things, sometimes it's said of many things with exactly the same meaning when said of each one of them. And sometimes it's said of them with meanings that are partly the same but partly different. And sometimes they call the names that are said with many meanings that have no connection, right? We call them simply equivocal period, right? And then we get this new name and not a death to the middle. But it's the same as the, you know, name equivocal by reason, which I assume is fine. Should you divide name, set of many things into two or three? Will be the question on your exam. Can you pass? Exactly. No, I said, should you divide it into two or three, right? I was thinking, you know, kind of a playful question, right? Let's see what you guys will answer to this question now. Is God a philosopher? He's the word of truth. He's the word of salvation. The word philosopher comes from philosophy, which means lover, right? And Sophia, which is what he's a lover of. It means a lover of wisdom, right? Now, if that's what you mean by philosopher, if that's what you mean, if philosopher means a lover of wisdom, then God is what? He's a lover of wisdom, right? And therefore, there should be, as Aristotle says, you know, there should be a reason for friendship between us. And we're both lovers of wisdom, right? Now, I think it would confuse people if you said that God is a philosopher, right? And so you want to put in a couple of the modern philosophers. I think the modern philosophers are not really lovers of wisdom, huh? The last President Bush was asked who his favorite philosopher was, he said, Jesus Christ. And media wasn't overdue about that. Jesus Christ was a lover of wisdom, yeah. Right? Yeah. But now, you see, if you go back to the origin of the word philosopher, right, huh? The legend says that Pythagoras, when he discovered these wonderful theorems, like the Pythagorean theorem, etc., someone said, called him wise, right? And he said, don't call me wise. God alone is wise, huh? So, in the full sense, only God is wise, as Aristotle says, right? You call man wise, it's in a very diminished sense, right? In a very few men, right? But even those are, you know, not wise, not a goddess, right? So it's in the humility on the part of Pythagoras, right? He says, don't call me wise. God alone is wise, right? It's kind of a good lesson for us, right? Because a philosopher needs that one that loves wisdom, but he needs what? Humility, right? And pursuing wisdom, so far as man can do so, right? You know, Thomas talks about how pride is a cause of error, right? You know, Thomas talks about how pride is a cause of error, right? You know, Thomas talks about how pride is a cause of error, right? You know, Thomas talks about how pride is a cause of error, right? You know, Thomas talks about how pride is a cause of error, right?