When Aristotle called syllogism X6yos, he meant that it is a combination of premises involving a conclusion of necessity.
Nevertheless, deduction or syllogism is not independent of the other processes of inference.
Aristotle's analysis of the syllogism showed man how to advance by combining his thoughts in trains of deductive reasoning.
Moreover, the study of analogical and inductive inference is necessary to that of the syllogism itself, because they discover the premises of syllogism.
As then the reasoning of the syllogism was the main problem of Aristotle's logic, what was his analysis of it?
The formal thinking of syllogism alone is merely necessary consequence; but when its premises are necessary principles, its conclusions are not only necessary consequents but also necessary truths.
Aristotle's was a logic which steered, as Trendelenburg has shown, between Kantian formalism and Hegelian metaphysics; it was a logic which in the Analytics investigated the syllogism as a means to understanding knowledge and science: it was a logic which, starting from the psychological foundations of sense, memory and experience, built up the logical structure of induction and deduction on the profoundly Aristotelian principle that " there is no process from universals without induction, and none by induction without sense."
But as yet he had only glimpses of a logical method which should invigorate the syllogism by the co-operation of ancient geometry and modern algebra.
Because the crossing of terms in a syllogism requires it.
Logically regarded, the origin of all teaching and learning of an intellectual kind is a process of induction (Enraywyi) from particulars to universal, and of syllogism (ovXXoyco-p5s) from universal to further particulars; induction, whenever it starts from sense, becomes the origin of scientific knowledge (bruiriran); while there is also a third process of example (1rapaSeiyµa) from particular to particular, which produces only persuasion.
The Posterior Analytics, on demonstrative syllogism, or science; 5.
then Aristotle himself regarded rhetoric as partly science and partly dialectic, perhaps he would have said that his works on reasoning are some science and others not, and that, while the investigation of syllogism with a view to scientific syllogism in the Analytics is analytic science, the investigation of dialectical syllogism, in the Topics, with its abuse, eristical syllogism, in the Sophistici Elenchi, is dialectic. At any rate, these miscellaneous works on reasoning have no right to stand first in Aristotle's writings under any one name, logic or Organon.
To be perfect he thought that all inference must be reduced to syllogism of the first figure, which he regarded as the specially scientific inference.
Bacon, like Aristotle, was anticipated in this or that point; but, as Aristotle was the first to construct a system of deduction in the syllogism and its three figures, so Bacon was the first to construct a system of induction in three ministrations, in which the requisites of induction, hitherto recognized only in sporadic hints, were combined for the first time in one logic of induction.
Aristotle's logic has often been called formal logic; it was really a technical logic of syllogism analysed into linguistic elements, and of science rested on an empirical basis.
But the same passage relegates conceptions and their combinations to the De Anima, and confines the De Inter pretatione to names and propositions in conformity with the linguistic analysis which pervades the logical treatises of Aristotle, who neither brought his psychological distinction between conceptions and their combinations into his logic, nor advanced the combinations of conceptions as a definition of judgment (Kcp16cs), nor employed the mental distinction between conceptions and judgments as an analysis of inference, or reasoning, or syllogism: he was no conceptual logician.
The science of inference again rightly emphasizes the formal thinking of the syllogism in which the combination of premises involves the conclusion.
Whately defined it as "a conditional syllogism with two or more antecedents in the major and a disjunctive minor."
In analysing the syllogism, he first says that a premiss is an affirmative or negative sentence, and then that a term is that into which a premiss is dissolved, i.e.
It is not necessary in every proposition, but it is necessary in the arrangement of a syllogism, to extricate the terms of its propositions from the copula; e.g.
At the same time, there are three species of syllogism, scientific, dialectical and eristical or sophistical; and in consequence there are different ways of acquiring premisses.
Nor does the process of acquiring the premisses of eristical syllogism, which is fallacious either in its premisses or in its process, differ, except that, when the premisses are fallacious, the dialectical interrogations must be such as to cause this fallacy.
Hence, as science and dialectic are different, so scientific induction and syllogism must be distinguished from dialectical induction and syllogism.
But it is by a different process of sense, memory, experience, induction, intelligence, syllogism, that science becomes knowledge of real causes, of real effects, and especially of real essences from which follow real consequences, not beyond, but belonging to real substances.
Otherwise, logical ground remains logical ground, as in any noncausal syllogism, such as the familiar one from " All men are mortal," which causes me to know that I shall die, without telling me the cause of death.
Inference from universal to particular by Syllogism, descendendo.
He holds - on grounds of fact and science - to the mechanical orderliness of nature, but claims that the Weltanschauung thus suggested may be reinterpreted in view of those undying human aspirations which MacTaggart dismisses to instant execution (unless they can dress themselves in syllogism).
ratiocinari, to use the reasoning faculty) is classified from Aristotle downwards as deductive (from generals to particulars) and inductive (from particulars to generals); see Logic, Induction, Syllogism.
He is, perhaps, most suggestive in his emendations of the syllogism.
The first adumbration was forced upon him in the former work by his theory of opposition; the complete appearance in the latter work by his theory of syllogism.
Hence, without his saying it in so many words, Aristotle's logic perforce became a logic of deductive reasoning, or syllogism.
With regard to inference, he remarked that a universal judgment means by " all," not every individual we know, but every individual absolutely, so that, when it becomes a major premise, we know therein every individual universally, not individually, and often do not know a given individual individually until we add a minor premise in a syllogism.
On the one hand, having reduced categorical judgments to an existential form, Brentano proposes to reform the syllogism, with the results that it must contain four terms, of which two are opposed and two appear twice; that, when it is negative, both premises are negative; and that, when it is affirmative, one premise, at least, is negative.
In order to infer the universal affirmative that every professor is mortal because he is a man, Brentano's existential syllogism would run as follows: There is not a not-mortal man.
On the other hand, if on the plan of Sigwart categorical universals were reducible to hypotheticals, the same inference would be a pure hypothetical syllogism, thus: If anything is a man it is mortal.
Thus, in order to infer that some wise men are good from the example of professors, Brentano's syllogism would be the following non-sequitur: There is not a not-good professor.
So Sigwart's syllogism would be the following non-sequitur:- If anything is a professor, it is good.
Sigwart does not indeed shrink from this and greater absurdities; he reduces the first figure to the modus ponens and the second to the modus tollens of the hypothetical syllogism, and then, finding no place for the third figure, denies that it can infer necessity; whereas it really infers the necessary consequence of particular conclusions.
But the crowning absurdity is that, if all universals were hypothetical, Barbara in the first figure would become a purely hypothetical syllogism - a consequence which seems innocent enough until we remember that all universal affirmative conclusions in all sciences would with their premises dissolve into mere hypothesis.
But in a hypothetical syllogism of the ordinary mixed type, the first or hypothetical premise is a conditional belief, e.g.
But even Sigwart's errors are outdone by Lotze, who not only reduces " Every NI is P " so " If S is M, S is P," but proceeds to reduce this hypothetical to the disjunctive, " If S is NI, S is P L or P 2 or 1 33, " and finds fault with the Aristotelian syllogism because it contents itself with inferring " S is P " without showing what P. Now there are occasions when we want to reason in this disjunctive manner, to consider whether S is I n or P 2 or P 3, and to conclude that " S is a particular P "; but ordinarily all we want to know is that " S is P "; e.g.
Quasi-syllogisms. - Besides reconstructions of the syllogistic fabric, we find in recent logic attempts to extend the figures of the syllogism beyond the syllogistic rules.
An old error that we may have a valid syllogism from merely negative premises (ex omnibus negativis), long ago answered by Alexander and Boethius, is now revived by Lotze, Jevons and Bradley, who do not perceive that the supposed second negative is really an affirmative containing a " not " which can only be carried through the syllogism by separating it from the copula and attaching it to one of the extremes, thus: The just are not unhappy (negative).
The last supposed syllogism, namely, that having two affirmative premises and entailing an undistributed middle in the second figure, is accepted by Wundt under the title "Inference by Comparison" (Vergleichungsschluss), and is supposed by him to be useful for abstraction and subsidiary to induction, and by Bosanquet to be useful for analogy.
But to say from these premises, " God and metal are similar in what is signified by the middle term," is a mere repetition of the premises; to say, further, that " Gold may be a metal " is a non-sequitur, because, the middle being undistributed, the logical conclusion is the contingent "Gold may or may not be a metal," which leaves the question quite open, and therefore there is no syllogism.
Wundt, who is again followed by Bosanquet, also supposes another syllogism in the third figure, under the title of "Inference by Connexion."
The moment we stir a step further with Wundt in the direction of a more general conclusion (ein allgemeinerer Satz), we cannot infer from the premises the conclusion desired by Wundt, "Metals and fusible are connected "; nor can we infer " All metals are fusible, " nor "Metals are fusible," nor "Metals may be fusible," nor "All metals may be fusible," nor any assertory conclusion, determinate or indeterminate, but the indifferent contingent, "All metals may or may not be fusible," which leaves the question undecided, so that there is no syllogism.
What they really are in the inferences proposed by Wundt is not premises for syllogism, but data for induction parading as syllogism.
We must pass the same sentence on Lotze's attempt to extend the second figure of the syllogism for inductive purposes, thus: S is M.
Erdmann propose new moods of syllogism with convertible premises, containing definitions and equations.
Aristotle, indeed, was as well aware as German logicians of the force of convertible premises; but he was also aware that they require no special syllogisms, and made it a point that; in a syllogism from a definition, the definition is the middle, and the definitum the major in a convertible major premise of Barbara in the first figure, e.g.: The interposition of an opaque body is (essentially) deprivation of light.
It is the same with all the recent attempts to extend the syllogism beyond its rules, which are not liable to exceptions, because they follow from the nature of syllogistic inference from universal to particular.
To give the name of syllogism to inferences which infringe the general rules against undistributed middle, illicit process, two negative premises, non-sequitur from negative to affirmative, and the introduction of what is not in the premises into the conclusion, and which consequently infringe the special rules against affirmative conclusions in the second figure, and against universal conclusions in the third figure, is to open the door to fallacy, and at best to confuse the syllogism with other kinds of inference, without enabling us to understand any one kind.
The distinction, however, did not escape Aristotle, who saw that a progressive syllogism can be reversed thus: - 2.
Further, he perceived that the difference between the progressive and regressive orders extends from mathematics to physics, and that there are two kinds of syllogism: one progressing a priori from real ground (I) Some M is P.
These two kinds of syllogism are synthesis and analysis in the ancient sense.
- As induction is the process from particulars to universals, it might have been thought that it would always have been opposed to syllogism, in which one of the rules is against using particular premises to draw universal conclusions.
Yet such is the passion for one type that from Aristotle's time till now constant attempts have been made to reduce induction to syllogism.
Aristotle himself invented an inductive syllogism in which the major (P) is to be referred to the middle (M) by means of the minor (S), thus: A, B, C magnets (S) attract iron (P).
As the second premise is supposed to be convertible, he reduced the inductive to a deductive syllogism as follows: Every S is P. Every S is P.
In the reduced form the inductive syllogism was described by Aldrich as "Syllogismus in Barbara cujus minor (i.e.
Whately, on the other hand, proposed an inductive syllogism with the major suppressed, that is, instead of the minor premise above, he supposed a major premise, " Whatever belongs to A, B, C magnets belongs to all."
Reduction he defines as " the framing of possible premises for given propositions, or the construction of a syllogism when the conclusion and one premise is given."
Lastly, Wundt's view is an interesting piece of eclecticism, for he supposes that induction begins in the form of Aristotle's inductive syllogism, S-P, S-M, M-P, and becomes an inductive method in the form of Jevons's inverse deduction, or hypothetical deduction, or analysis, M-P, S-M, S-P. In detail, he supposes that, while an " inference by comparison," which he erroneously calls an affirmative syllogism in the second figure, is preliminary to induction, a second " inference by connexion," which he erroneously calls a syllogism in the third figure with an indeterminate conclusion, is the inductive syllogism itself.
This is like Aristotle's inductive syllogism in the arrangement of terms; but, while on the one hand Aristotle did not, like Wundt, confuse it with the third figure, on the other hand Wundt does not, like Aristotle, suppose it to be practicable to get inductive data so wide as the convertible premise, " All S is M, and all M is S," which would at once establish the conclusion, " All M is P."
Wundt's point is that the conclusion of the inductive syllogism is neither so much as all, nor so little as some, but rather the indeterminate "M and P are connected."
The question therefore arises, how we are to discover "All M is P," and this question Wundt answers by adding an inductive method, which involves inverting the inductive syllogism in the style of Aristotle into a deductive syllogism from a hypothesis in the style of Jevons, thus: - (I) (2) S is P. Every M is P.
He agrees with Jevons in calling this second syllogism analytical deduction, and with Jevons and Sigwart in calling it hypothetical deduction.
Hence induction cannot be reduced to Aristotle's inductive syllogism, because experience cannot give the convertible premise, " Every S is M, and every M is S "; that "All A, B, C are magnets " is, but that " All magnets are A, B, C " is not, a fact of experience.
The fact is that the uniformity of nature stands to induction as the axioms of syllogism do to syllogism; they are not premises, but conditions of inference, which ordinary men use spontaneously, as was pointed out in Physical Realism, and afterwards in Venn's Empirical Logic. The axiom of contradiction is not a major premise of a judgment: the dictum de omni et nullo is not a major premise of a syllogism: the principle of uniformity is not a major premise of an induction.
But this inference contains the tacit major, " What has a given colour, &c., is magnesium," and is a syllogism of recognition.
It is not syllogism in the form of Aristotle's or Wundt's inductive syllogism, because, though starting only from some particulars, it concludes with a universal; it is not syllogism in the form called inverse deduction by Jevons, reduction by Sigwart, inductive method by Wundt, because it often uses particular facts of causation to infer universal laws of causation; it is not syllogism in the form of Mill's syllogism from a belief in uniformity of nature, because few men have believed in uniformity, but all have induced from particulars to universals.
Bacon alone was right in altogether opposing induction to syllogism, and in finding inductive rules for the inductive process from particular instances of presence, absence in similar circumstances, and comparison.
There are, as we have seen (ad init.), three types - syllogism, induction and analogy.
Hence in a syllogism, a middle term, e.g.
As Aristotle puts it, the syllogism is directed " not to the outer, but to the inner discourse," or as we should say, not to the expression but to the thought, not to the proposition but to the judgment, and to the inference not verbally but mentally.
Bradley seems to suppose that the major premise of a syllogism must be explicit, or else is nothing at all.
But it is often thought without being expressed, and to judge the syllogism by its mere explicit expression is to commit an ignoratio elenchi; for it has been known all along that we express less than we think, and the very purpose of syllogistic logic is to analyse the whole thought necessary to the conclusion.
Aristotle, however, treats it as a dialectical rival to syllogism, and it influenced Galilei and Bacon in their views of inference after the Renaissance.
Plato's division is nevertheless neither syllogism nor exclusiva.
It is not syllogism because it is based on the disjunctive, not on the hypothetical relation, and so extends horizontally where syllogism strikes vertically downward.
Again it is not syllogism because it is necessarily and finally dialectical.
2 And the movement of disjunction as truly has a place in the scientific specification of a concept in all its differences as the linking of lower to higher in syllogism.
This is embodied in the group of treatises later known as the Organon 7 and culminates in the theory of syllogism and of.
In the well-known sentences with which the Organon closes 8 Aristotle has been supposed to lay claim to the discovery of the principle of syllogism.
In the course of inquiry into the formal consequences from probable premises, the principle of mediation or linking was so laid bare that the advance to the analytic determination of the species and varieties of syllogism was natural.
It is in the Topics, further, that we clearly have a first treatment of syllogism as formal implication, with the suggestion that advance must be made to a view of its use for material implication from true and necessary principles.
In any case, however, definition, syllogism, induction all invited further determination, especially if they were to take their place in a doctrine of truth or knowledge.
10 It is also, as Aristotle adds," middle in position in the syllogism that concludes to a universal affirmative."
Again, so long as we keep to the syllogism as complete in itself and without reference to its place in the great structure of knowledge, the nerve of proof cannot be conceived in other than a formal manner.
The forms of syllogism, however, are tracked successfully through their figures, i.e.
alone left standing, and the formal doctrine of syllogism is complete.
Syllogism already defined 1 becomes through exhibition in its valid forms clear in its principle.
Syllogism must indeed be objective, i.e.
Syllogism as formula for the exhibition of truth attained, and construction or what not as the instrumental process by which we reach the truth, have with writers since Hegel and Herbart tended to fall apart.
In the Posterior Analytics the syllogism is brought into decisive connexion with the real by being set within a system in which its function is that of material implication Posterior from principles which are primary, immediate and Analytics.
7 We are under the necessity then of revising the point of view of the syllogism of all-ness.
A formula such as the equality of the interior angles of a triangle to two right angles is only scientifically known when it is not of isosceles or scalene triangle that it is known, nor even of all the several types of triangle collectively, but as a predicate of triangle recognized as the widest class-concept of which it is true, the first stage in the progressive differentiation of figure at which it can be asserted.° Three points obviously need development, the nature of definition, its connexion with the syllogism in which the middle term is cause or ground, and the way in which we have assurance of our principles.
Of a non-self-subsistent or attributive conception definition in its highest attainable form is a recasting of the syllogism, in which it was shown that the attribute was grounded in the substance or self-subsistent subject of which it is.
In the scientific syllogism the interposition of the earth is the middle term, the cause or " because " (Sairt.), the residue of the definition is conclusion.
In the aporematic treatment of the relation of definition and syllogism identical as to one form and in one view, distinct as to another form and in another view, much of Aristotle's discussion consists.
The advance from syllogism as formal implication is a notable one.
The planets are near, and we know it by their not twinkling, 2 but science must conceive their nearness as the cause of their not twinkling and make the Arius in the real order the middle term of its syllogism.
Thirdly we have the limiting cases of this in the inductive syllogism 5ui 7riu'mw, 7 a syllogism in the third figure concluding universally, and yet valid because the copula expresses equivalence, and in analogy 8 in which, it has been well said, instances are weighed and not counted.
The Aristotelian theory of the universal of science as secure from dependence on its instances and the theory of linking in syllogism remain a heritage for all later logic, whether accepted in precisely Aristotle's formula or no.
The major premise of syllogism, says the Pyrrhonist, is established inductively from the particular ' 'Errt4 opcc. = " in " as in i raywyi 7, inductio, and - 40pa = - ferentia, as in 8eoopa, differentia.
Experience is appealed to as fruitful where the formal employment of syllogism is barren.
Rather a scientific process, which as experiential may be called inductive, but which is in other regards deductive as syllogism, is set up in constrast to syllogism YvI.
The syllogism is ineffective, belonging to argumentation, and constraining assent where what we want is control of things.
It is in virtue of this view of derived or mediate knowledge that Descartes speaks of the (subsumptive) syllogism as " of avail rather in the communication of what we already know."
Syllogism is not the synthesis which together with analysis goes to constitute the new instrument of science.
Syllogism is simply summation of propositions, its function being communication merely.
6 His psychological account of syllogism' is taken over by Locke.
1 Locke's logic comprises, amid much else, a theory of general terms 2 and of definition, a view of syllogism 3 and a declaration as to the possibility of inference from particular to particular,4 a distinction between propositions which are certain but trifling, and those which add to our knowledge though uncertain, and a doctrine of mathematical certainty.
without the necessity of a general premise, must be possible, and the possibility finds warranty in a consideration of the psychological order of the terms in syllogism.
As to syllogism specifically, Locke in a passage, 8 which has an obviously Cartesian ring, lays down four stages or degrees of reasoning, and points o ut that syllogism serves us in but one of these, and that not the all-important one of finding the intermediate ideas.
He is prepared readily to " own that all right reasoning may be reduced to Aristotle's forms of syllogism," yet holds that " a man knows first, and then he is able to prove syllogistically."
p. 182 (when he is preoccupied with syllogism), " I could make nothing satisfactory of Induction at this time."
This point of departure is noteworthy, as also is the treatment of the inductive syllogism as one in which the middle term is resoluble into a group or series (Reihe).
Syllogism is no instrumental method by which we compose our knowledge, but an ideal to the form of which it should be brought.
3 As to inference, finally, the ideal of the articulation of the universe of discourse, as it is for complete knowledge, when its disjunctions have been thoroughly followed out and it is exhaustively determined, carried the day with him against the view that the organon for gaining knowledge is syllogism.
The psychologist and the formal logician do indeed join hands in the denial of a real movement of thought in syllogism.
In the stage, however, of his process in which he is concerned with the notion are to be found concept, judgment, syllogism.
§ 181), and has the phantasy to speak of the definition of the Absolute as being " at this stage " simply the syllogism.
It is, of course, the rhythm of the syllogism that attracts him.
The concept goes out from or utters itself in judgment to return to an enhanced unity in syllogism.
Ueberweg (System § Ioi) is, on the whole, justified in exclaiming that Hegel's rehabilitation of syllogism " did but slight service to the Aristotelian theory of syllogism," yet his treatment of syllogism must be regarded as an acute contribution to logical criticism in the technical sense.
The syllogism of " all-ness " is convicted of a petitio principii (Encyk.
§ 190), with consequent lapse into the inductive syllogism, and, finally, since inductive syllogism is involved in the infinite process, into analogy.
" The syllogism of necessity," on the contrary, does not presuppose its conclusion in its premises.
Hegel's logic as a whole, however, stands and falls not with his thoughts on syllogism, but with the claim made for the dialectical method that it exhibits logic in its integral unity with metaphysic, the thought-process as the self-revelation of the Idea.
The view of inference with which he complements it is only less satisfactory because of a failure to distinguish the principle of nexus in syllogism from its traditional formulation and rules, and because he is hampered by the intractability which he finds in certain forms of relational construction.
The first were the speculative or logical philosophers, who construe the universe ex analogia hominis, and not ex analogia mundi, who fashion nature according to preconceived ideas, and who employ in their investigations syllogism and abstract reasoning.
Hitherto the mode of demonstration had been by the syllogism; but the syllogism is, in many respects, an incompetent weapon.
For a syllogism consists of propositions, propositions of words, and words are the symbols of notions.
This is clear from the use he makes of the Vindemiatio, from certain hints as to the testing of axioms, from his admission of the syllogism into physical reasoning, and from what he calls Experientia Literata.
also the passage from Valerius Terminus, quoted in Ellis's note on the above aphorism.) Of the syllogism he says, " I do not propose to give up the syllogism altogether.
In physics you wisely note, and therein I agree with you, that after the notions of the first class and the axioms concerning them have been by induction well made out and defined, syllogism may be applied safely; only it must be restrained from leaping at once to the most general notions, and progress must be made through a fit succession of steps."
In logic he is reported to have agreed with Eusebius, Iamblichus and Porphyry in asserting the validity of the second and third figures of the syllogism.
From simple judgments they proceeded to compound judgments, and declared the hypothetical syllogism to be the normal type of reason, of which the categorical syllogism is an abbreviation.
There is no evidence from Galen's own works that he did make this addition to the doctrines of syllogism, and the remarkable passage quoted by Minoides Minas from a Greek commentator on the Analytics, referring the fourth figure to Galen, clearly shows that the addition did not, as generally supposed, rest on a new principle, but was merely an amplification or alteration of the indirect moods of the first figure already noted by Theophrastus and the earlier Peripatetics.
Thus they amplified - the Aristotelian logic by the theory of the hypothetical and disjunctive syllogism, and added to the first figure of the categorical syllogism the five moods out of which the fourth figure was afterwards constructed.
This contains a reprint of the First Notions, an elaborate development of his doctrine of the syllogism, and of the numerical definite syllogism, together with chapters of great interest on probability, induction, old logical terms and fallacies.
There followed at intervals, in the years 1850, 1858,1860 and 1863, a series of four elaborate memoirs on the "Syllogism," printed in volumes ix.
the frequent risk of error in their conclusions, with or without the help of syllogism, the office of which, as a means of discovery, is here critically considered.
We cannot, however, find that he has furnished any substantial principles for its determination; indeed, he hardly seems to have formed a distinct general idea of the practical syllogism by which he conceives it to be effected.'
The whole doctrine of judgment, syllogism and method is a mixture of Aristotelian and Ramist notions.
100 a 25): UuXXoyta/JOS io-r io-rt V'yos Ev Tebevtwv 'TEpbv TWU Ka k tbcov Ei; avicyK9]s o'uµ13acva TW Taira Eivac, " a syllogism is an argument in which, certain things being posited (the premises), something other than the premises necessarily results from their being true."
(2) In point of fact, all logicians further confine the syllogism to arguments in which the terms are related as subject and predicate (or attribute in the widest sense).
Owing largely to the simplicity and symmetry of the syllogism it has been a commonplace of logic to make the syllogistic form the type of all thought.
The Deductive Syllogism.
The form of the syllogism is therefore: A is B Major premise C is A Minor „ .'.
If the middle term is the predicate in both premises, the syllogism is in figure II.: if the subject in both, figure III.
The distinction of moods is according to the quantity or quality of the propositions of the syllogism (universal, particular, affirmative, negative, in all the possible combinations).
A syllogism must contain three and three terms only.
The general criticism of the syllogism as a means of discovering truth is that it is a petitio principii, or begging of the question.
in extension, as meaning that all men have been investigated and found to be mortal, clearly it could not be used to make the new discovery that a particular group of men are mortal; the syllogism so understood is a petitio principii.
It remains true that in fact the conclusion is contained in the premises - this is essential to the validity of the syllogism - but the inference is a real one because it brings out and shows the necessity of a conclusion which was not before in our minds.
The term syllogism has been extended to cover certain forms of ratiocination which are not based on categorical propositions.
It has been defined as a syllogism in Fig.
The Inductive Syllogism, like the deductive, is first systematized by Aristotle, who described it as o E brawl/Cis ovXXoycaµos.
Discussions of the syllogism will be found in all textbooks on Logic, and the more elaborate syllogistic forms are discussed in the article Logic.
In logic Avicenna starts from distinguishing between the isolated concept and the judgment or assertion; from which two primitive elements of knowledge there is artificially generated a complete and scientific knowledge by the two processes of definition and syllogism.
Accordingly, the expositors of religious metaphysics, Ghazal" included, are the enemies of true religion, because they make it a mere matter of syllogism.
But average human nature does not take kindly to a syllogism, and theology had ceased to have any appreciable influence on popular religion.
The adjective "hypothetical" is used in the same sense, both loosely in contradistinction to "real" or "actual," and technically in the phrases "hypothetical judgment" and "hypothetical syllogism."
disjunctive syllogism, that H1 is true.
Modeling means rationalism: your system is as logically tight as any syllogism.
Note the following syllogism: Hubal was the chief deity of the Quraysh.
Let me explain why, in simple terms using a classical syllogism (or formal argument ).
Comparing this finding to a legal standard creates a syllogism.
Chapter Two considers the normative syllogism, a formalization of the process of (deductively) applying law to facts.
This type of argument is called syllogism and dates back to ancient Greece.
Tonight's homework: please look up " false syllogism.
demonstrative syllogism gives us the most certain knowledge, and is the part of logic toward which the other parts are directed.
Hence it does not follow, by disjunctive syllogism, that H1 is true.
That this process has a valid logical structure can be seen when we notice that it takes the form of an inverted syllogism.
6 The recluses of Port Royal seized it eagerly, discussed automatism, dissected living animals in order to show to a morbid curiosity the circulation of the blood, were careless of the cries of tortured dogs, and finally embalmed the doctrine in a syllogism of their logic, - No matter thinks; every soul of beast is matter: therefore no soul of beast thinks.
Bailey replied to his critics in a Letter to a Philosopher (1843), &c. In 1851 he published Theory of Reasoning (2nd ed., 1852), a discussion of the nature of inference, and an able criticism of the functions and value of the syllogism.
(2) Later logical analysis in the Prior Analytics of the proposition as premiss into subject, predicate and copula, for the purpose of syllogism; but without insisting that the original form is illogical.
In order to acquire the knowledge of the true and primary principles of scientific knowledge, and especially the intelligence of the universal essence of the subject, which is always true, the process of knowledge consists of (I) sense (a'lcO o s), which receives the essence as individual, (2) memory (uvi j), which is a retention of sensible impression, (3) experience (cµirecpia),which consists of a number of similar memories, (4) induction (brayw-y), which infers the universal as a fact (TO iTC), (5) intellect (vas), which apprehends the principle (apxit); because it is a true apprehension that the universal induced is the very essence and formal cause of the subject: thereupon, scientific syllogism (i rcnf µovucos vvXXoycvµos), making the definition (opeg ios) of this essence the middle term (TO, c Vov), becomes a demonstration (6.7rOSee es) of the consequences which follow from the essence in the conclusion.
In order to acquire the probabilities (Ta g vSoa) of opinion (SoEa), which are the premisses of dialectical syllogism, the process is still induction, as in science, but dialectical induction by interrogation from the opinions of the answerers until the universal is conceded: thereupon the dialectical syllogism (SeaXecrucen vvXAoycvµos) deduces consequent opinions in the conclusion.
" Analytics " is only applied to the Prior and Posterior Analytics, and " logical," which he opposed to " analytical," only suits the Topics and at most the Sophistical Elenchi; secondly, while he analyzed syllogism into premises, major and minor, and premises into terms, subject and predicate, he attempted no division of the whole science; thirdly, he attempted no order and arrangement of the treatises into a system of logic, but only of the Analytics, Topics and Sophistical Elenchi into a system of syllogisms. Nevertheless, when his followers had arranged the treatises into the Organon, as they called it to express that it is an instrument of science, then there gradually emerged a system of syllogistic logic, arranged in the triple division - terms, propositions and syllogisms - which has survived to this day as technical logic, and has been the foundation of all other logics, even of those which aim at its destruction.
Aristotle apparently intended, or at all events has given logicians in general the impression, that he intended to analyse syllogism into propositions as premises, and premise into names as terms. His logic therefore exhibits the curious paradox of being an analysis of mental reasoning into linguistic elements.
Sigwart, indeed, has missed the essential difference between the categorical and the hypothetical construction of syllogisms. In a categorical syllogism of the first figure, the major premise, " Every M whatever is P," is a universal, which we believe on account of previous evidence without any condition about the thing signified by the subject M, which we simply believe sometimes to be existent (e.g.
2 The real nexus underlying the thoughtprocess is to be articulated in the light of the voucher by intelligence as to the truth of the principles of the various departments of knowledge which we call sciences, and at the ideal limit it is possible to transform syllogism into systematic presentation, so that, differently written down, it is definition.
A formula such as the equality of the interior angles of a triangle to two right angles is only scientifically known when it is not of isosceles or scalene triangle that it is known, nor even of all the several types of triangle collectively, but as a predicate of triangle recognized as the widest class-concept of which it is true, the first stage in the progressive differentiation of figure at which it can be asserted.Ã‚° Three points obviously need development, the nature of definition, its connexion with the syllogism in which the middle term is cause or ground, and the way in which we have assurance of our principles.
More particularly "argument" means a synopsis of the contents of a book, the outline of a novel, play, &c. In logic it is used for the middle term in a syllogism, and for many species of fallacies, such as the argumentum ad hominem, ad baculum, &c. '(see' Fallacy).
Each syllogism of the series is called a "prosyllogism "2 in relation to the one that succeeds, and an " episyllogism " in ' For a dilemma which includes both hypothetical and disj[tnctive reasoning see Dilemma.
This so-called syllogism has been much criticized by modern logicians on various grounds (see LoGic).
(See LOGIC and SYLLOGISM.) See Naville, La Logique de l'hypothbse (1880), and textbooks of logic, e.g.
Let me explain why, in simple terms using a classical syllogism (or formal argument).
Tonight 's homework: please look up false syllogism.
Demonstrative syllogism gives us the most certain knowledge, and is the part of logic toward which the other parts are directed.
Secondly, he made no division of logic. In the Categories he distinguished names and propositions for the sake of the classification of names; in the De Interpretatione he distinguished nouns and verbs from sentences with a view to the enunciative sentence: in the Analytics he analysed the syllogism into premisses and premisses into terms and copula, for the purpose of syllogism.
In acquiring scientific knowledge, syllogism cannot start from universals without induction, nor induction acquire universals without sense.
In this way the Presocratics and Sophists, and still more Socrates and Plato, threw out hints on sense and reason, on inferential processes and scientific methods which may be called anticipations of logic. But Aristotle was the first to conceive of reasoning itself as a definite subject of a special science, which he called analytics or analytic science, specially designed to analyse syllogism and especially demonstrative syllogism, or science, and to be in fact a science of sciences.
The Topics, on dialectical syllogism; or argument; 6.
The Sophistical Elenchi, on sophistical or contentious syllogism, or sophistical fallacies.
The main problem which Aristotle set before him was the analysis of syllogism, which he defined as " reasoning in which certain things having been posited something different from them of necessity follows by their being those things " (Prior Analytics, i.
24) we owe the triple distinction into inference from particular to particular (irapf16ecy i ug, example, or what we call " analogy "), inference from particular to universal (i raywy17, induction), and inference from universal to particular (ouXXoyco-Os, syllogism, or deduction).
But he thought that inferences other than syllogism are imperfect; that analogical inference is rhetorical induction; and that induction, through the necessary preliminary of syllogism and the sole process of ascent from sense, memory and experience to the principles of science, is itself neither reasoning nor science.
Accordingly, the syllogism appeared to him to be the rational process (wet X6yov), and the demonstrative syllogism fran inductively discovered principles to be science (Eirurrr7un).
In distinguishing inner and outer reason, or reasoning and discourse, he added that it is not to outer reason but to inner reason in the soul that demonstration and syllogism are directed (Post.
In the Analytics he took the final step of originating the logical analysis of the proposition as premise into subject and predicate as terms mediated by the copula, and analysed the syllogism into these elements.
But he laid too much stress on reasoning as syllogism or deduction, and on deductive science; and he laid too much stress on the linguistic analysis of rational discourse into proposition and terms. These two defects remain ingrained in technical logic to this day.
Hence the manner in which induction aided by identification discovers necessary principles must be studied by the logician in order to decide when the syllogism can really arrive at necessary conclusions.
False Views of Syllogism arising from False Views of Judg- ment.
Logic falls, according to Ramus, into two parts - invention (treating of the notion and definition) and judgment (comprising the judgment proper, syllogism and method).
'AvaX uru oa bo rEpa: Analytica Posteriora: On demonstration, or demonstrative or scientific syllogism (hirobec u, rO Elktlkos 71-c0-T771.1.0PLKOS (7vXXoyLap)S).
T07ru: To pica : On dialectical syllogism (ScaXEKTLKOS auXAoyLapbs), so called from consisting mainly of commonplaces (rolrol, loci), or general sources of argument.
ZocearLKoL g XEyXoL: Sophistici Elenchi: On sophistic (roccaTLKOS) or eristic syllogism (EpLaTLKOS avXAoytapos), so called from the fallacies used by sophists in refutation (€AEy X os) of their opponents.
So also he might add the appendix to the Sophistical Elenchi, long after he had written that book, and perhaps, to judge from its being a general claim to have discovered the syllogism, when the founder of logic had more or less realized that he had written a number of connected treatises on reasoning.
In the syllogism " Every man is mortal and Socrates is a man," if in the minor premiss the copula " is " were not disengaged from the predicate " man," there would not be one middle term " man " in the two premisses.
Example (7rapabayma) is not called rhetorical induction, and consideration (EVBuµnya) is not called rhetorical syllogism, as they are in the Rhetoric, and in the Analytics.
Induction (E7rayo.y17) and syllogism (ovXXcytcr oc), the general forms of inference, do not occur in the Rhetoric to Alexander.
We cannot write a history of the varied origin of logic, beyond putting the rudimentary logic of the proposition in the De Interpretatione before the less rudimentary theory of categories as significant names capable of becoming predicates in the Categories, and before the maturer analysis of the syllogism in the Analytics.
As he says at the end of the Sophistical Elenchi on the syllogism, he had no predecessor, but took pains and laboured a long time in investigating it.
He got so far as gradually to write short discourses and long treatises, which we, not he, now arrange in the order of the Categories or names; the De Interpretatione on propositions; the Analytics, Prior on syllogism, Posterior on scientific syllogism; the Topics on dialectical syllogism; the Sophistici Elenchi on eristical or sophistical syllogism; and, except that he had hardly a logic of induction, he covered the ground.
Under the head of notion are considered, firstly, the subjective forms of conception, judgment and syllogism; secondly, their realization in objects as mechanically, chemically or teleologically constituted; and thirdly, the idea first of life, and next of science, as the complete interpenetration of thought and objectivity.
judgment is completed in the syllogism; the syllogistic form as the perfection of subjective thought passes into objectivity, where it first appears embodied in a mechanical system; and the teleological object, in which the members are as means and end, leads up to the idea of life, where the end is means and means end indissolubly till death.
Thus in the example of syllogism given above, " border-war between Thebes and Athens " is the minor term, " evil " the major term, and " border-war " the middle term.
Deduction or syllogism is superior to analogy and induction in combining premises so as to involve or contain the conclusion.
The truth is that, though the premises contain the conclusion, neither premise alone contains it, and a man who knows both but does not combine them does not draw the conclusion; it is the synthesis of the two premises which at once contains the conclusion and advances our knowledge; and as syllogism consists, not indeed in the discovery, but essentially in the synthesis of two premises, it is an inference and an advance on each premise and on both taken separately.
As again the synthesis contains or involves the conclusion, syllogism has the advantage of compelling assent to the consequences of the premises.
Rather it began as a science of reasoning (Xbyos), of syllogism (vvXXoycvA6s), of deductive inference.
The Prior Analytics, on syllogism; 4.
'AvaXurcxa 7rpbmmpa: Analytica Priora: On syllogism, with a view to demonstration.
The word usage examples above have been gathered from various sources to reflect current and historial usage. They do not represent the opinions of YourDictionary.com.