|
Sum Of Logic
The ''Summa Logicae'' ("Sum of Logic") is a textbook on logic by William of Ockham. It was written around 1323. Systematically, it resembles other works of medieval logic, organised under the basic headings of the Aristotelian Predicables, Categories, terms, propositions, and syllogisms. These headings, though often given in a different order, represent the basic arrangement of scholastic works on logic. This work is important in that it contains the main account of Ockham's nominalism, a position related to the problem of universals. Book I. On Terms Book II. On Propositions Book III. On Syllogisms Part I. On Syllogisms Part II. On Demonstration * These 41 chapters are a systematic exposition of Aristotle's Posterior Analytics. Part III. On Consequences * The first 37 chapters of Part II are a systematic exposition of Aristotle's Topics. In Part III, Ockham deals with the definition and division of consequences, and provides a treatment of Aristotle's Topic ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Logic
Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the science of deductively valid inferences or of logical truths. It is a formal science investigating how conclusions follow from premises in a topic-neutral way. When used as a countable noun, the term "a logic" refers to a logical formal system that articulates a proof system. Formal logic contrasts with informal logic, which is associated with informal fallacies, critical thinking, and argumentation theory. While there is no general agreement on how formal and informal logic are to be distinguished, one prominent approach associates their difference with whether the studied arguments are expressed in formal or informal languages. Logic plays a central role in multiple fields, such as philosophy, mathematics, computer science, and linguistics. Logic studies arguments, which consist of a set of premises together with a conclusion. Premises and conclusions are usua ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Consequent
A consequent is the second half of a hypothetical proposition. In the standard form of such a proposition, it is the part that follows "then". In an implication, if ''P'' implies ''Q'', then ''P'' is called the antecedent and ''Q'' is called the consequent. In some contexts, the consequent is called the ''apodosis''.See Conditional sentence. Examples: * If P, then Q. Q is the consequent of this hypothetical proposition. * If X is a mammal, then X is an animal. Here, "X is an animal" is the consequent. * If computers can think, then they are alive. "They are alive" is the consequent. The consequent in a hypothetical proposition is not necessarily a consequence of the antecedent. * If monkeys are purple, then fish speak Klingon. "Fish speak Klingon" is the consequent here, but intuitively is not a consequence of (nor does it have anything to do with) the claim made in the antecedent that "monkeys are purple. See also * Antecedent (logic) * Conjecture In mathematic ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Accident (fallacy)
The fallacy of accident (also called destroying the exception or ''a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid'') is an informal fallacy and a deductively valid but unsound argument occurring in a statistical syllogism (an argument based on a generalization) when an exception to a rule of thumb is ignored. It is one of the thirteen fallacies originally identified by Aristotle in ''Sophistical Refutations''. The fallacy occurs when one attempts to apply a general rule to an irrelevant situation. For example: This fallacy may occur when limited generalizations ("some; sometimes and somewhere") are mixed with A-type categorical statements ("all; always and everywhere"), often when no quantifiers like "some" or "many" or qualifiers such as "rarely" are used to mark off what is or may be excepted in the generalization. Related inductive fallacies include overwhelming exceptions and hasty generalizations. See faulty generalization. The opposing kind of ''dicto simpliciter ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Fallacy Of Accent
The fallacy of accent (also referred to as ''accentus'', from its Latin denomination, and misleading accent) is a type of ambiguity that arises when the meaning of a sentence is changed by placing an unusual prosodic stress, or when, in a written passage, it is left unclear which word the emphasis was supposed to fall on. Later writers have extended the fallacy to ambiguity caused in sentences due to grammar as well. History Among the thirteen types of fallacies in his book ''Sophistical Refutations'', Aristotle lists a fallacy he calls (''prosody''), later translated in Latin as ''accentus''. While the passage is considered obscure, it is commonly interpreted as referring to the ambiguity that emerges when a word can be mistaken for another by changing suprasegmental phonemes, which in Ancient Greek correspond to diacritics (accents and breathings). Since words stripped from their diacritics do not exist in the Ancient Greek language, this notion of ''accent'' was troublesome f ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Fallacy Of Division
A fallacy of division is an informal fallacy that occurs when one reasons that something that is true for a whole must also be true of all or some of its parts. An example: # The second grade in Jefferson Elementary eats a lot of ice cream # Carlos is a second-grader in Jefferson Elementary # Therefore, Carlos eats a lot of ice cream The converse of this fallacy is called fallacy of composition, which arises when one fallaciously attributes a property of some part of a thing to the thing as a whole. If a system as a whole has some property that none of its constituents has (or perhaps, it has it but not as a ''result'' of some constituent's having that property), this is sometimes called an '' emergent'' property of the system. The term ''mereological fallacy'' refers to approximately the same incorrect inference that properties of a whole are also properties of its parts. History Both the fallacy of division and the fallacy of composition were addressed by Aristotle in ' ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Fallacy Of Composition
The fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy that arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. A trivial example might be: "This tire is made of rubber, therefore the vehicle of which it is a part is also made of rubber." This is fallacious, because vehicles are made with a variety of parts, most of which are not made of rubber. The fallacy of composition can apply even when a fact is true of every proper part of a greater entity, though. A more complicated example might be: "No atoms are alive. Therefore, nothing made of atoms is alive." This is a statement most people would consider incorrect, due to emergence, where the whole possesses properties not present in any of the parts. This fallacy is related to the fallacy of hasty generalization, in which an unwarranted inference is made from a statement about a sample to a statement about the population from which it is drawn. The fallacy of compositi ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Amphibology
Syntactic ambiguity, also called structural ambiguity, amphiboly or amphibology, is a situation where a sentence may be interpreted in more than one way due to ambiguous sentence structure. Syntactic ambiguity arises not from the range of meanings of single words, but from the relationship between the words and clauses of a sentence, and the sentence structure underlying the word order therein. In other words, a sentence is syntactically ambiguous when a reader or listener can reasonably interpret one sentence as having more than one possible structure. In legal disputes, courts may be asked to interpret the meaning of syntactic ambiguities in statutes or contracts. In some instances, arguments asserting highly unlikely interpretations have been deemed frivolous. A set of possible parse trees for an ambiguous sentence is called a ''parse forest''. The process of resolving syntactic ambiguity is called ''syntactic disambiguation.'' Different forms Globally ambiguous A globall ... [...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] |
Sophistical Refutations
''Sophistical Refutations'' ( el, Σοφιστικοὶ Ἔλεγχοι, Sophistikoi Elenchoi; la, De Sophisticis Elenchis) is a text in Aristotle's ''Organon'' in which he identified thirteen fallacies.Sometimes listed as twelve. According to Aristotle, this is the first work to treat the subject of deductive reasoning in ancient Greece (''Soph. Ref.'', 34, 183b34 ff.). Overview ''On Sophistical Refutations'' consists of 34 chapters. The book naturally falls in two parts: chapters concerned with tactics for the Questioner (3–8 and 12–15) and chapters concerned with tactics for the Answerer (16–32). Besides, there is an introduction (1–2), an interlude (9–11), and a conclusion (33–34). Fallacies identified The fallacies Aristotle identifies in Chapter 4 (formal fallacies) and 5 (informal fallacies) of this book are the following: :Fallacies in the language or formal fallacies (''in dictionem'') # Equivocation # Amphibology # Composition # Division Division or ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Liar Paradox
In philosophy and logic, the classical liar paradox or liar's paradox or antinomy of the liar is the statement of a liar that they are lying: for instance, declaring that "I am lying". If the liar is indeed lying, then the liar is telling the truth, which means the liar just lied. In "this sentence is a lie" the paradox is strengthened in order to make it amenable to more rigorous logical analysis. It is still generally called the "liar paradox" although abstraction is made precisely from the liar making the statement. Trying to assign to this statement, the strengthened liar, a classical binary truth value leads to a contradiction. If "this sentence is false" is true, then it is false, but the sentence states that it is false, and if it is false, then it must be true, and so on. History The Epimenides paradox (circa 600 BC) has been suggested as an example of the liar paradox, but they are not logically equivalent. The semi-mythical seer Epimenides, a Cretan, reportedly stated ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Theory Of Obligationes
''Obligationes'' or disputations ''de obligationibus'' were a medieval disputation format common in the 13th and 14th centuries. Despite the name, they had nothing to do with ethics or morals but rather dealt with logical formalisms; the name comes from the fact that the participants were "obliged" to follow the rules. Typically, there were two disputants, one ''Opponens'' and one ''Respondens''. At the start of a debate, both the disputants would agree on a ‘''positum''’, usually a false statement. The task of ''Respondens'' was to answer rationally to the questions from the ''Opponens'', assuming the truth of the ''positum'' and without contradicting himself. On the opposite, the task of the ''Opponens'' was to try to force the ''Respondens'' into contradictions. Several styles of ''Obligationes'' were distinguished in the medieval literature with the most widely studied being called "''positio''" (positing). "Obligational" disputations resemble recent theories of counterfact ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Albert Of Saxony (philosopher)
Albert of Saxony ( Latin: ''Albertus de Saxonia''; c. 1320 – 8 July 1390) was a German philosopher and mathematician known for his contributions to logic and physics. He was bishop of Halberstadt from 1366 until his death. Life Albert was born at Rickensdorf near Helmstedt, the son of a farmer in a small village; but because of his talent, he was sent to study at the University of Prague and the University of Paris. At Paris, he became a master of arts (a professor), and held this post from 1351 until 1362. He also studied theology at the College of Sorbonne, although without receiving a degree. In 1353, he was rector of the University of Paris. After 1362, Albert went to the court of Pope Urban V in Avignon as an envoy of Rudolf IV, Duke of Austria, in order to negotiate the founding of the University of Vienna. The negotiations were successful, and Albert became the first rector of this University in 1365. In 1366, Albert was elected bishop of Halberstadt (counted as ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
