Corcoran, John. 1974. Aristotelian Syllogisms: Valid arguments or true generalized conditionals?, Mind 83, 278–81. MR0532928 (58 #27178) This tightly-written and self-contained four-page paper must be studied and not just skimmed. It meticulously analyses quotations from Aristotle and Lukasiewicz to establish that Aristotle was using indirect deductions—as required by the natural-deduction interpretation—and not indirect proofs—as required by the axiomatic interpretation. Lukasiewicz was explicit and clear about the subtle fact that Aristotle’s practice could not be construed as correctly performed indirect proof. (...) Lukasiewicz evidence is presented fully; it is irrefutable. But, instead of considering the possibility that Aristotle’s discourses were not intended to express indirect proofs of universalized conditions presupposing axiomatic premises, Lukasiewicz came to the amazing conclusion that Aristotle did not understand indirect proof. This paper builds on the admirable Lukasiewicz scholarship to establish a conclusion diametrically opposed to the one Lukasiewicz asserted. This paper points out that if Aristotle had not been establishing an underlying logic but he was instead axiomatizing a theory of terms, Aristotelians could not claim for Aristotle the title Founder of Logic. People who take Euclid, Peano, and Zermelo to have first axiomatized geometry, arithmetic, and set theory, respectively, do not think that this qualifies them for the titles Founder of Geometry, Founder of Arithmetic, and Founder of Set Theory, respectively. Such people do think that this would qualify the three for the titles Founder of Axiomatic Geometry, Founder of Axiomatic Arithmetic, and Founder of Axiomatic Set Theory, respectively: titles that carry no honors in logic. Being the Founder of Axiomatic Term Theory would likewise carry no honors in the field of logic. CORRECTION: The paper inadvertently implied that Euclid was the first to axiomatize geometry. In order to understand Aristotle’s Analytics as a treatise on demonstration it helps to realize that axiomatized geometry was studied in Plato’s Academy when Aristotle was a student. Euclid was the author of the only ancient axiomatized geometry now available. (shrink)

Natural syllogisms are expressed in terms of classes and properties of the real world. They exploit a categorisation present in semantic memory that provides a class inclusion structure. they are enthymematic and typically occur within a dialogue. Their form is identical to a formal syllogism once the minor premise is made explicit. It is claimed that reasoners routinely execute natural_syllogisms in an effortless manner based on ecthesis, which is primed by the class inclusion structure kept in long term memory.

Relational Syllogisms and the History of Arabic Logic, 900–1900. By Khaled El-Rouayheb. Islamic Philosophy, Theology and Science, vol. 80. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Pp. viii + 295. $168.

Since Aristotle it is recognised that a valid syllogism cannot have two particular premises. However, that is not how a lay person sees it; at least as long as the premises read many, most etc, instead of a plain some. The lay people are right if one considers that these syllogisms do not have strict but approximate (Zadeh) validity. Typically there are only particular premises available in everyday life and one is dependent on such syllogisms. – Some rules (...) on the usage of particular premises are given below. (shrink)

In this paper, we provide an overview of some of the results obtained in the mathematical theory of intermediate quantifiers that is part of fuzzy natural logic. We briefly introduce the mathematical formal system used, the general definition of intermediate quantifiers and define three specific ones, namely, “Almost all”, “Most” and “Many”. Using tools developed in FNL, we present a list of valid intermediate syllogisms and analyze a generalized 5-square of opposition.

One semantic and two syntactic decision procedures are given for determining the validity of Aristotelian assertoric and apodeictic syllogisms. Results are obtained by using the Aristotelian deductions that necessarily have an even number of premises.

This article examines two syllogistic arguments contrasted in an ancient Chinese book, theMozi, which expounds doctrines of the Mohist school of philosophers. While the arguments seem to have the same form, one of them (theone-horse argument) is valid but the other (thetwo-horse argument) is not. To explain this difference, the article uses English plural constructions to formulate the arguments. Then it shows that the one-horse argument is valid because it has a valid argument form, the plural cousin of a standard (...) form of valid categorical syllogisms (Plural Barbara), and argues that the two-horse argument involves equivocal uses of a key predicate (the Chinese counterpart of ‘have four feet’) that has the distributive/nondistributive ambiguity. In doing so, the article discusses linguistic differences between Chinese and English and explains why the logic of plural constructions is applicable to Chinese arguments that involve no plural constructions. (shrink)

ABSTRACT: In antiquity we encounter a distinction of two types of hypothetical syllogisms. One type are the ‘mixed hypothetical syllogisms’. The other type is the one to which the present paper is devoted. These arguments went by the name of ‘wholly hypothetical syllogisms’. They were thought to make up a self-contained system of valid arguments. Their paradigm case consists of two conditionals as premisses, and a third as conclusion. Their presentation, either schematically or by example, varies in (...) different authors. For instance, we find ‘If (it is) A, (it is) B; if (it is) B, (it is) C; therefore, if (it is) A, (it is) C’. The main contentious point about these arguments is what the ancients thought their logical form was. Are A, B, C schematic letters for terms or propositions? Is ‘is’, where it occurs, predicative, existential, or veridical? That is, should ‘A esti’ be translated as ‘it is an A’, ‘A exists’, ‘As exist’ or ‘It is true/the case that A’? If A, B, C are term letters, and ‘is’ is predicative, are the conditionals quantified propositions or do they contain designators? If one cannot answer these questions, one can hardly claim to know what sort of arguments the wholly hypothetical syllogisms were. In fact, all the above-mentioned possibilities have been taken to describe them correctly. In this paper I argue that it would be mistaken to assume that in antiquity there was one prevalent understanding of the logical form of these arguments - even if the ancients thought they were all talking about the same kind of argument. Rather, there was a complex development in their understanding, starting from a term-logical conception and leading to a propositional-logical one. I trace this development from Aristotle to Philoponus and set out the deductive system on which the logic of the wholly hypothetical syllogisms was grounded. (shrink)

We present a coherence-based probability semantics for (categorical) Aristotelian syllogisms. For framing the Aristotelian syllogisms as probabilistic inferences, we interpret basic syllogistic sentence types A, E, I, O by suitable precise and imprecise conditional probability assessments. Then, we define validity of probabilistic inferences and probabilistic notions of the existential import which is required, for the validity of the syllogisms. Based on a generalization of de Finetti's fundamental theorem to conditional probability, we investigate the coherent probability propagation rules (...) of argument forms of the syllogistic Figures I, II, and III, respectively. These results allow to show, for all three Figures, that each traditionally valid syllogism is also valid in our coherence-based probability semantics. Moreover, we interpret the basic syllogistic sentence types by suitable defaults and negated defaults. Thereby, we build a knowledge bridge from our probability semantics of Aristotelian syllogisms to nonmonotonic reasoning. Finally, we show how the proposed semantics can be used to analyze syllogisms involving generalized quantifiers. (shrink)

Aristotle's syllogistic is extended to include denumerably many quantifiers such as 'more than 2/3' and 'exactly 2/3.' Syntactic and semantic decision procedures determine the validity, or invalidity, of syllogisms with any finite number of premises. One of the syntactic procedures uses a natural deduction account of deducibility, which is sound and complete. The semantics for the system is non-classical since sentences may be assigned a value other than true or false. Results about symmetric systems are given. And reasons are (...) given for claiming that syllogistic validity is relevant validity. (shrink)

In this paper I examine how Aristotle thinks syllogisms establish existence. I argue against the traditional "Instantiation" reading and in favor of an alternative "causal" or "structural" account of existential syllogisms. On my interpretation, syllogisms establish the existence of kinds by revealing that they are per se unities whose features are causally underwritten by a single cause/essence. They do so by tracing correlations between propria--peculiar, coextensive features--of the kind in question.

A coherence-based probability semantics for categorical syllogisms of Figure I, which have transitive structures, has been proposed recently (Gilio, Pfeifer, & Sanfilippo [15]). We extend this work by studying Figure II under coherence. Camestres is an example of a Figure II syllogism: from Every P is M and No S is M infer No S is P. We interpret these sentences by suitable conditional probability assessments. Since the probabilistic inference of ~????|???? from the premise set {????|????, ~????|????} is not (...) informative, we add ????(????|(????∨????))>0 as a probabilistic constraint (i.e., an “existential import assumption”) to obtain probabilistic informativeness. We show how to propagate the assigned (precise or interval-valued) probabilities to the sequence of conditional events (????|????,~????|????,????|(????∨????)) to the conclusion ~????|???? . Thereby, we give a probabilistic meaning to the other syllogisms of Figure II. Moreover, our semantics also allows for generalizing the traditional syllogisms to new ones involving generalized quantifiers (like Most S are P) and syllogisms in terms of defaults and negated defaults. (shrink)

This paper discusses the poetic art of cultivating the sacred by connecting the thought of two unlikely figures, twentieth-century anthropologist and systems theorist Gregory Bateson and nineteenth-century poet-philosopher Friedrich Hölderlin. Gregory Bateson’s theory of mental process within the ecology of mind, characterized in terms of metaphor and simile, or poetry and prose thinking, is illustrated with the aid of two syllogisms, the syllogism in Barbara and the syllogism in Grass. In light of these syllogisms, Friedrich Hölderlin’s views on (...) the task of the poet and the logic behind tragic song are then examined. Hölderlin’s poetic theory reveals how two elements of the song, tragic metaphor and caesura, invoke a living representation of the sacred, or the whole of ecology of mind. (shrink)

In the first half of this paper, we present a fragment of relational syllogisms named RELSYLL consisting of quantified statements with a special set of numerical quantifiers, and introduce a number of concepts that are useful for the later sections, including indirect reduction, quantifier transformations and equivalence of syllogisms. After determining the valid and invalid syllogisms in RELSYLL, we then introduce two Derivation Methods which can be used to derive valid relational syllogisms based on known valid (...) simple syllogisms. We also show that the two Methods are sound and complete for RELSYLL. In the second half of this paper, we discuss ways to extend the Derivation Methods, including the use of more valid syllogisms and the use of existential assumptions. In this way, we are able to derive more relational syllogisms that contain other types of non-classical quantifiers, including “only” and proportional quantifiers. Finally, we state and prove a proposition concerning the relationship between the two Methods. (shrink)

McCall's system for contingent syllogisms is modified. A semantics for the resulting system is provided.

Abstract“Natural syllogisms” are arguments formally identifiable with categorical syllogisms that have an implicit universal affirmative premise retrieved from semantic memory rather than explicitly stated. Previous studies with adult participants (Politzer, 2011) have shown that the rate of success is remarkably high. Because their resolution requires only the use of a simple strategy (known as ecthesis in classic logic) and an operational use of the concept of inclusion (the recognition that an element that belongs to a subset must belong (...) to the set but not vice versa), it was hypothesized that these syllogisms would be within the grasp of non‐adult participants, provided they have acquired the notion of deductive validity. Here, 11‐year‐old children were presented with natural syllogisms embedded in short dialogs. The first experiment showed that their performance was equivalent to adults' highest level of performance in standard experiments on syllogisms. The second experiment, while confirming children's proficiency in solving natural syllogisms, showed that they outperformed children who solved non‐natural matched syllogisms in the same experimental setting. The results are also in agreement with the argumentation theory of reasoning. (shrink)

Gottfried Leibniz embarked on a research program to prove all the Aristotelic categorical syllogisms by diagrammatic and algebraic methods. He succeeded in proving them by means of Euler diagrams, but didn’t produce a manuscript with their algebraic proofs. We demonstrate how key excerpts scattered across various Leibniz’s drafts on logic contained sufficient ingredients to prove them by an algebraic method –which we call the Leibniz-Cayley (LC) system– without having to make use of the more expressive and complex machinery of (...) first-order quantificational logic. In addition, we prove the classic categorical syllogisms again by a relational method –which we call the McColl-Ladd (ML) system– employing categorical relations studied by Hugh McColl and Christine Ladd. Finally, we show the connection of ML and LC with Boolean algebra, proving that ML is a consequence of LC, and that LC is a consequence of the Boolean lattice axioms, thus establishing Leibniz’s historical priority over George Boole in characterizing and applying (a sufficient fragment of) Boolean algebra to effectively tackle categorical syllogistic. (shrink)

Aristotle claims that the necessity of the syllogisms in the first figure is evident, and calls them ‘perfect’ on this basis. The perfection of such syllogisms, most notably barbara, appears to be correlated with the actual disposition of the middle term. G. Patzig strengthened the correlation to an explanation, claiming that in virtue of that disposition the transitivity of the relation ‘belongs to all’ between the terms becomes manifest. The present article shows that the modern scheme of transitivity, (...) namely, with contiguous middle term, is not the same as the one employed with remarkable consistency in the ancient mathematical texts. On these grounds, I argue that Patzig’s calling into play the notion of transitivity cannot count as an explanation of first figure syllogisms being perfect, not even of those in barbara. Keywords: Aristotle; logic; syllogism; perfect syllogism; first figure; barbara; proportion; transitivity. (shrink)

To explore the reducibility of non-trivial generalized syllogisms with the quantifiers in Square {not all} and Square {most}, this paper first gives the formalization of generalized syllogisms on the basis of set theory, and then proves the validity of the generalized syllogism EMO-3 by first-order logic and generalized quantifier theory; Finally, with the help of some reductive operations, the other 20 valid generalized syllogisms are deduced from the syllogism EMO-3. In other words, there are the reducible relationships (...) between/among the 21 valid syllogisms. The reason for this is that any quantifier in a square can define the other three quantifiers. This research method is applicable to the study of syllogisms with quantifiers in other squares. (shrink)

Parry discusses an extension of Aristotle's syllogistic that uses four nontraditional quantifiers. We show that his conjectured decision procedure for validity for the extended syllogistic is correct even if syllogisms have more than two premises. And we axiomatize this extension of the syllogistic.

본 논문의 목적은 아리스토텔레스로부터 시작하여 초기 페리파토스학파를 거쳐 고대후기에 이르기까지 ‘아리스토텔레스 논리학’의 특정 요소가 발전해 가는 과정을 추적하는 것이다. 고대 후기에는 가언삼단논법으로 분류된 4개의 논증형식이 있었다. 긍정적 긍정식(modus ponendo ponens), 부정적 부정식(modus tollendo tollens), 긍정적 부정식(modus ponendo tollens), 부정적 긍정식(modus tollendo ponens)이 그것들이다. 우리가 다루게 될 문제는 다음과 같은 것들이다. 앞에서 제시되었던 4개의 논증형식은 정확하게 어떤 상황에서 생겨났는가? 이 4개의 논증형식이 왜 ‘가언’ 삼단논법이라고 명명되었는가? 어떤 근거에서 이 4개의 논증형식이 타당하게 되는가? 논의를 진행하는 가운데 우리는 이 4개의 논증형식이 『분석론 전서』와 (...) 『토피카』에 보존되어 있는 아리스토텔레스 논리학의 특정 요소들이 오랜 기간에 걸쳐 점진적으로 발전한 결과임을 논증할 것이다.BR 우리의 논의결과는 이렇다. 첫째, 고대 후기에 오늘날의 조건명제와 선언명제가 가언명제로 분류된 이유는 단순히 조건명제와 선언명제에 조건적 요소가 포함되어 있기 때문이었다. 둘째, 고대 후기에 4가지 유형의 가언삼단논법이 ‘가언’ 삼단논법이라고 명명된 이유는 이 4가지 유형의 논증에 귀결관계와 비정합성관계의 조합으로부터 획득되는 가언명제가 적어도 한 개는 포함되어 있기 때문이었다. 셋째, 고대 후기에 4가지 유형의 가언삼단논법이 타당한 것으로 간주된 이유는 그것들 모두가 ‘모두스 포넨스’(modus ponens)유형의 형식을 갖고 있기 때문이었다. (shrink)

The paper elaborates two points: i) There is no principal opposition between predicate logic and adherence to subject-predicate form, ii) Aristotle's treatment of quantifiers fits well into a modern study of generalized quantifiers.

In order to provide a consistent explanation for Aristotelian modal syllogistic, this paper reveals the reductions between the Aristotelian modal syllogism ◇I□A◇I-3 and the other valid modal syllogisms. Specifically, on the basis of formalizing Aristotelian modal syllogisms, this paper proves the validity of ◇I□A◇I-3 by means of the truth value definition of (modal) categorical propositions. Then in line with classical propositional logic and modal logic, generalized quantifier theory and set theory, this paper deduces the other 47 valid Aristotelian (...) modal syllogisms from the modal syllogism ◇I□A◇I-3. This study shows that the reasons why these syllogisms are reducible are: 1) any of Aristotelian quantifier can be defined by the other three Aristotelian quantifiers; 2) the Aristotelian quantifiers some and no have symmetry; 3) the possible modality ◇ and necessary modality □ can be mutually defined. This formal study of Aristotelian modal syllogistic not only conforms to the needs of formalization transformation of various information in the era of artificial intelligence, but also provides a unified mathematical research paradigm for other kinds of syllogistic. (shrink)

We present a reading of the traditional syllogistics in a fragment of the propositional intuitionistic multiplicative linear logic and prove that with respect to a diagrammatic logical calculus that we introduced in a previous paper, a syllogism is provable in such a fragment if and only if it is diagrammatically provable. We extend this result to syllogistics with complemented terms à la De Morgan, with respect to a suitable extension of the diagrammatic reasoning system for the traditional case and a (...) corresponding reading of such De Morgan style syllogistics in the previously referred to fragment of linear logic. (shrink)

Syllogisms with or without negative terms are studied by using Gergonne's ideas. Soundness, completeness, and decidability results are given.

The practical syllogism of the customary type, “desire, belief /∴ action”, which we may also formulate as “WI (q), BI (p→q) /∴ p”, is the main topic of the following discussions. This syllogism is not valid, viewed at the level of rigid, symbolic logic. That is the initial claim made in this article (§2). Kant may save us from this dead end (§1); but his logic of the imperative is never always provided for our ordinary lives (§3.1). Contrasting the two, (...) Kant’s logic and the customary syllogism, we look into where the invalidity of the latter resides in: individuality of the belief (§1.4), a fallacy of affirming the consequent (§2.1), propositional attitudes (§2.3), irrationality (§3.2), concretely. Although the validity is finally given up, we find another dimension of understanding in the formulation of utilitarianism; this point has been passed over by former thinkers (§4). Before jumping to this conclusion, we look through the landscape of their discussions as well, especially those held under the name of Humeanism. Readers who wonder how this article relates to the main stream of modern debates are recommended to see those parts (§3.3-3.4) first. (shrink)

Relational inferences are a well-known problem for Aristotelian logic. This book charts the development of thinking about this problem by logicians writing in Arabic from the ninth to the nineteenth century. It shows that that the development of Arabic logic did not - as is often supposed - come to an end in the fourteenth century.

This paper aims to explain the distinction between syllogisms and subsyllogisms in Stoic logic. Subsyllogisms replace at least one premise in a syllogism with a premise that is, according to Galen and Alexander, equipollent to the respective syllogistic premise. This equipollence is not synonymy of meaning between two linguistic expressions, but obtains between two propositions when they are true or false by the same standard. Subsyllogistic premises are simple propositions that are equipollent to the non-simple premises of the respective (...) syllogisms. For subsyllogistic premises that replace syllogistic premises consist of predicates combining with cases rather than of connectives or negations governing propositions. Because of this difference in their premises, subsyllogisms have a different logical form than syllogisms and are not formally valid. (shrink)

We consider two categorical syllogisms, valid or invalid, to be equivalent if they can be transformed into each other by certain transformations, going back to Aristotle, that preserve validity. It is shown that two syllogisms are equivalent if and only if they have the same models. Counts are obtained for the number of syllogisms in each equivalence class. For a more natural development, using group-theoretic methods, the space of syllogisms is enlarged to include nonstandard syllogisms, (...) and various groups of transformations on that space are studied. (shrink)

It is a common complaint that the syllogism commits a petitio principii. This is discussed extensively by John Stuart Mill in ‘A System of Logic’ [1882. Eighth Edition, New York: Harper and Brothers] but is much older, being reported in Sextus Empiricus in chapter 17 of the ‘Outlines of Pyrrhonism’ [1933. in R. G. Bury, Works, London and New York: Loeb Classical Library]. Current wisdom has it that Mill gives an account of the syllogism that avoids being a petitio by (...) virtue of construing the universal premise as an inference-rule. I will show that both the problem and the role of inference-rules in its solution have been misunderstood. Inference-rules have very little to do with this problem, and I will argue further that nothing is gained with regard to this problem by the introduction of inference-rules in preference to premises. (shrink)

No início do século XIV, Raimundo Lúlio, contrapondo-se aos mestres em Artes por ele identificados como averroistae, desenvolveria não menos que dois métodos resolutivos de inconsistência, a fim de refutar aquelas teses filosóficas que divergem da fé cristã. Um deles serve-se de silogismos contraditórios capazes de expressar a estrutura de um argumento ad hominem, ao passo que o outro nada mais é do que uma reductio ad impossibile elaborada com base em suposições contraditórias. In the early fourteenth century, Ramond Lully, (...) opposed to university philosophers whom he identified as averroistae, developed no less than two methods for the resolution of inconsistency, in order to refute philosophical theses which diverge from the Christian faith. The first of these uses contradictory syllogisms expressing the structure of an ad hominem argument, while the other is a reductio ad impossibile produced with contradictory suppositions. (shrink)

This paper proposes a classification of economic models into three types: historical, axiomatic and conditional. Historical or empirical models utilize the historical-deductive method, and are generalizations from the economic regularities and tendencies that we find in the real world. Axiomatic models utilize the hypothetical-deductive method; they are syllogisms whose major premise is an axiom – a self-evident truth; they are appropriate for methodological sciences such as mathematics and econometrics. Conditional economic models are likewise syllogisms, but they are suitable (...) for economics because they make for clearer and more precise economic reasoning. The criterion of truth of the substantive sciences is the conformity with reality, of the methodological science, its internal consistency. When a school of economic thought adopts mainly axiomatic models, as is the case with neoclassical economics, it implicitly falls into contradiction because their best representatives believe in the conformity with reality criterion. (shrink)

The incompleteness and artificiality of the ?traditional logic? of the textbooks is reflected in the way that syllogisms are commonly enumerated. The number said to be valid varies, but all the numbers given are of a kind that logicians should find irritating. Even the apparent harmony of what is almost invariably said to be the total number of syllogisms, 256, turns out to be illusory. In the following, it is shown that the concept of a distribution-value, which is (...) related to the traditional theory of distribution, and the familiar concept of quantity together suffice to produce a far better way of enumerating syllogisms and a more complete understanding of the systematic features of syllogistic logic. (shrink)