|
Fallacy Of Four Terms
The fallacy of four terms ( la, quaternio terminorum) is the formal fallacy that occurs when a syllogism has four (or more) terms rather than the requisite three, rendering it invalid. Definition Categorical syllogisms always have three terms: :Major premise: All fish have fins. :Minor premise: All goldfish are fish. :Conclusion: All goldfish have fins. Here, the three terms are: "goldfish", "fish", and "fins". Using four terms invalidates the syllogism: :Major premise: All fish have fins. :Minor premise: All goldfish are fish. :Conclusion: All humans have fins. The premises do not connect "humans" with "fins", so the reasoning is invalid. Notice that there are four terms: "fish", "fins", "goldfish" and "humans". Two premises are not enough to connect four different terms, since in order to establish connection, there must be one term common to both premises. In everyday reasoning, the fallacy of four terms occurs most frequently by equivocation: using the same word or p ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Formal Fallacy
In philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (; Latin for " tdoes not follow") is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic.Harry J. Gensler, ''The A to Z of Logic'' (2010) p. 74. Rowman & Littlefield, It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion. Thus, a formal fallacy is a fallacy where deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process. This may not affect the truth of the conclusion, since validity and truth are separate in formal logic. While a logical argument is a non sequitur if, and only if, it is invalid, the term "non sequitur" typically refers to those types of invalid arguments which do not constitute formal fallacies covered by particular terms (e.g., affirming the consequent). In other words, in practice, "''non ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Syllogism
A syllogism ( grc-gre, συλλογισμός, ''syllogismos'', 'conclusion, inference') is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true. In its earliest form (defined by Aristotle in his 350 BCE book '' Prior Analytics''), a syllogism arises when two true premises (propositions or statements) validly imply a conclusion, or the main point that the argument aims to get across. For example, knowing that all men are mortal (major premise) and that Socrates is a man (minor premise), we may validly conclude that Socrates is mortal. Syllogistic arguments are usually represented in a three-line form: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.In antiquity, two rival syllogistic theories existed: Aristotelian syllogism and Stoic syllogism. From the Middle Ages onwards, ''categorical syllogism'' and ''syllogism'' were usually used interchangeably. Thi ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Term Logic
In philosophy, term logic, also known as traditional logic, syllogistic logic or Aristotelian logic, is a loose name for an approach to formal logic that began with Aristotle and was developed further in ancient history mostly by his followers, the Peripatetics. It was revived after the third century CE by Porphyry's Isagoge. Term logic revived in medieval times, first in Islamic logic by Alpharabius in the tenth century, and later in Christian Europe in the twelfth century with the advent of new logic, remaining dominant until the advent of predicate logic in the late nineteenth century. However, even if eclipsed by newer logical systems, term logic still plays a significant role in the study of logic. Rather than radically breaking with term logic, modern logics typically expand it, so to understand the newer systems, one must be acquainted with the earlier one. Aristotle's system Aristotle's logical work is collected in the six texts that are collectively known as t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Validity (logic)
In logic, specifically in deductive reasoning, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. It is not required for a valid argument to have premises that are actually true, but to have premises that, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the argument's conclusion. Valid arguments must be clearly expressed by means of sentences called well-formed formulas (also called ''wffs'' or simply ''formulas''). The validity of an argument can be tested, proved or disproved, and depends on its logical form. Arguments In logic, an argument is a set of statements expressing the ''premises'' (whatever consists of empirical evidences and axiomatic truths) and an ''evidence-based conclusion.'' An argument is ''valid'' if and only if it would be contradictory for the conclusion to be false if all of the premises are true. Validity doesn't require the truth of the premises, ins ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Equivocation
In logic, equivocation ("calling two different things by the same name") is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses within an argument. It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence. Fallacy of four terms Equivocation in a syllogism (a chain of reasoning) produces a fallacy of four terms (). Below are some examples: : Since only man umanis rational. : And no woman is a man ale : Therefore, no woman is rational. The first instance of "man" implies the entire human species, while the second implies just those who are male. : A feather is light ot heavy : What is light rightcannot be dark. : Therefore, a feather cannot be dark. In the above example, distinct meanings of the word "light" are implied in contexts of the first and second statements. : All jackasses ale donkeyhave long ears. : Carl is a jackass nnoying person : There ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Logical Complement
In logic, negation, also called the logical complement, is an operation that takes a proposition P to another proposition "not P", written \neg P, \mathord P or \overline. It is interpreted intuitively as being true when P is false, and false when P is true. Negation is thus a unary logical connective. It may be applied as an operation on notions, propositions, truth values, or semantic values more generally. In classical logic, negation is normally identified with the truth function that takes ''truth'' to ''falsity'' (and vice versa). In intuitionistic logic, according to the Brouwer–Heyting–Kolmogorov interpretation, the negation of a proposition P is the proposition whose proofs are the refutations of P. Definition ''Classical negation'' is an operation on one logical value, typically the value of a proposition, that produces a value of ''true'' when its operand is false, and a value of ''false'' when its operand is true. Thus if statement is true, then \neg P (pro ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Immediate Inference
An immediate inference is an inference which can be made from only one statement or proposition. For instance, from the statement "All toads are green", the immediate inference can be made that "no toads are not green" or "no toads are non-green" (Obverse). There are a number of ''immediate inferences'' which can validly be made using logical operations, the result of which is a logically equivalent statement form to the given statement. There are also invalid immediate inferences which are syllogistic fallacies. Valid immediate inferences Converse *Given a type E statement, "No ''S'' are ''P''.", one can make the ''immediate inference'' that "No ''P'' are ''S''" which is the converse of the given statement. *Given a type I statement, "Some ''S'' are ''P''.", one can make the ''immediate inference'' that "Some ''P'' are ''S''" which is the converse of the given statement. Obverse *Given a type A statement, "All ''S'' are ''P''.", one can make the ''immediate inference'' ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Obversion
In traditional logic, obversion is a "type of immediate inference in which from a given proposition another proposition is inferred whose subject is the same as the original subject, whose predicate is the contradictory of the original predicate, and whose quality is affirmative if the original proposition's quality was negative and vice versa". The quality of the inferred categorical proposition is changed but the truth value is the same to the original proposition. The immediately inferred proposition is termed the "obverse" of the original proposition, and is a valid form of inference for all types (A, E, I, O) of categorical propositions. In a universal affirmative and a universal negative proposition the subject term and the predicate term are both replaced by their negated counterparts: The universal affirmative ("A" proposition) is obverted to a universal negative ("E" proposition). :''"All S are P"'' and ''"No S are non-P"'' :''"All cats are animals"'' and ''"No ca ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Syllogistic Fallacy
A syllogism ( grc-gre, συλλογισμός, ''syllogismos'', 'conclusion, inference') is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true. In its earliest form (defined by Aristotle in his 350 BCE book ''Prior Analytics''), a syllogism arises when two true premises (propositions or statements) validly imply a conclusion, or the main point that the argument aims to get across. For example, knowing that all men are mortal (major premise) and that Socrates is a man (minor premise), we may validly conclude that Socrates is mortal. Syllogistic arguments are usually represented in a three-line form: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.In antiquity, two rival syllogistic theories existed: Aristotelian syllogism and Stoic syllogism. From the Middle Ages onwards, ''categorical syllogism'' and ''syllogism'' were usually used interchangeably. This ar ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Statistical Syllogism
A statistical syllogism (or proportional syllogism or direct inference) is a non- deductive syllogism. It argues, using inductive reasoning, from a generalization true for the most part to a particular case. Introduction Statistical syllogisms may use qualifying words like "most", "frequently", "almost never", "rarely", etc., or may have a statistical generalization as one or both of their premises. ''For example:'' #Almost all people are taller than 26 inches #Gareth is a person #Therefore, Gareth is taller than 26 inches Premise 1 (the major premise) is a generalization, and the argument attempts to draw a conclusion from that generalization. In contrast to a deductive syllogism, the premises logically support or confirm the conclusion rather than strictly implying it: it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, but it is not likely. ''General form:'' #X proportion of F are G #I is an F #I is a G In the abstract form above, F is called the ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Hypothetical Syllogism
In classical logic, a hypothetical syllogism is a valid argument form, a syllogism with a conditional statement for one or both of its premises. An example in English: :If I do not wake up, then I cannot go to work. :If I cannot go to work, then I will not get paid. :Therefore, if I do not wake up, then I will not get paid. The term originated with Theophrastus. Propositional logic In propositional logic, hypothetical syllogism is the name of a valid rule of inference (often abbreviated HS and sometimes also called the chain argument, chain rule, or the principle of transitivity of implication). The rule may be stated: :\frac where the rule is that whenever instances of "P \to Q", and "Q \to R" appear on lines of a proof, "P \to R" can be placed on a subsequent line. Hypothetical syllogism is closely related and similar to disjunctive syllogism, in that it is also a type of syllogism, and also the name of a rule of inference. Applicability The rule of hypothetical syllogis ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Categorical Syllogism
A syllogism ( grc-gre, συλλογισμός, ''syllogismos'', 'conclusion, inference') is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true. In its earliest form (defined by Aristotle in his 350 BCE book '' Prior Analytics''), a syllogism arises when two true premises (propositions or statements) validly imply a conclusion, or the main point that the argument aims to get across. For example, knowing that all men are mortal (major premise) and that Socrates is a man (minor premise), we may validly conclude that Socrates is mortal. Syllogistic arguments are usually represented in a three-line form: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.In antiquity, two rival syllogistic theories existed: Aristotelian syllogism and Stoic syllogism. From the Middle Ages onwards, ''categorical syllogism'' and ''syllogism'' were usually used interchangeably. This ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
.svg "Click for more on -> Validity (logic)")
