THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
Advertisements

Basic Terms in Logic Michael Jhon M. Tamayao.
Test the validity of this argument: Some lawyers are judges. Some judges are politicians. Therefore, some lawyers are politicians. A. Valid B. Invalid.
An overview Lecture prepared for MODULE-13 (Western Logic) BY- MINAKSHI PRAMANICK Guest Lecturer, Dept. Of Philosophy.
Deductive Arguments: Categorical Logic
1 Philosophy 1100 Title:Critical Reasoning Instructor:Paul Dickey Website:
Deduction: the categorical syllogism - 1 Logic: evaluating deductive arguments - the syllogism 4 A 5th pattern of deductive argument –the categorical syllogism.
Today’s Topics Introduction to Predicate Logic Venn Diagrams Categorical Syllogisms Venn Diagram tests for validity Rule tests for validity.
Rules for Valid Syllogisms
Review: Logic. Fallacy: Appeal to Novelty New is better.
Philosophy 1100 Today: Hand Back “Nail that Claim” Exercise! & Discuss
Logos Formal Logic.
Deduction CIS308 Dr Harry Erwin. Syllogism A syllogism consists of three parts: the major premise, the minor premise, and the conclusion. In Aristotle,
Your name Mediate Inference. your name Mediate Inference Commonly called as argument Has two major types: –Deduction/Deductive Arg./Syllogism Categorical.
Patterns of Deductive Thinking
RATIONALISM OR EMPIRICISM? PURE LOGIC OR A REALLY, REALLY GOOD GUESS?
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, Even further More and yet more Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard.
Categorical Syllogisms
Copyright © Curt Hill Rules of Inference What is a valid argument?

Categorical Propositions All S is P No S is P Some S is P Some S is not P.
Deduction, Validity, Soundness Lecture II – 01/25/11.
Deductive versus Inductive Reasoning Consider the following two passages: Argument #1 Mr. Jones is a member of the Academy of Scholarly Fellows and only.
Critical Thinking Lecture 10 The Syllogism By David Kelsey.
The Science of Good Reasons
Venn Diagrams and Categorical Syllogisms
Night 2 Presented by Eric Douma
Logic A: Capital punishment is immoral. B: No it isn’t! A: Yes it is! B: Well, what do you know about it? A: I know more about it then you do! B: Oh yeah?
Question of the Day!  We shared a lot of examples of illogical arguments!  But how do you make a LOGICAL argument? What does your argument need? What.
DEDUCTIVE REASONING MOVES FROM A GENERALIZATION THAT IS TRUE OR SELF-EVIDENT TO A MORE SPECIFIC CONCLUSION DEDUCTIVE REASONING.
Chapter 15: Rules for Judging Validity. Distribution (p. 152) Several of the rules use the notion of distribution. A term is distributed if it refers.
Deductive Reasoning Rules for Valid Syllogisms. Rules for a valid categorical syllogism 1.A valid syllogism must possess three, and only three, unambiguous.
MLS 570 Critical Thinking Reading Notes for Fogelin: Categorical Syllogisms We will go over diagramming Arguments in class. Fall Term 2006 North Central.
Logic – Basic Terms Logic: the study of how to reason well. Validity: Valid thinking is thinking in conformity with the rules. If the premises are true.
LOGICAL REASONING FOR CAT 2009.
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS
The construction of a formal argument
Argumentation: The Appeal to Reason. Argument A reasoned, logical way of asserting the soundness of a position, belief, or conclusion. Take a stand. Support.
Chapter 13: Categorical Propositions. Categorical Syllogisms (p. 141) Review of deductive arguments –Form –Valid/Invalid –Soundness Categorical syllogisms.
Chapter 17: Missing Premises and Conclusions. Enthymemes (p. 168) An enthymeme is an argument with an unstated premise or conclusion. There are systematic.
Invitation to Critical Thinking Chapter 6
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn to recognize, analyze, and evaluate deductive arguments.
Fun with Deductive Reasoning
Syllogisms and Three Types of Hypothetical Syllogisms
Chapter 6 Evaluating Deductive Arguments 1: Categorical Logic Invitation to Critical Thinking First Canadian Edition.
Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual
Chapter 14: Categorical Syllogisms. Elements of a Categorical Syllogism (pp ) Categorical syllogisms are deductive arguments. Categorical syllogisms.
Elements of Argument Logic vs. Rhetoric. Syllogism Major Premise: Advertising of things harmful to our health should be legally banned. Minor Premise:
Critical Thinking Lecture 10 The Syllogism By David Kelsey.
Philosophy 1504: Language and Logic March 28, 2016.
Categorical Propositions Chapter 5. Deductive Argument A deductive argument is one whose premises are claimed to provide conclusive grounds for the truth.
Deductive Reasoning. Inductive: premise offers support and evidenceInductive: premise offers support and evidence Deductive: premises offers proof that.
Aristotelian Logic.
Rules for Valid Syllogisms
Deductive Logic, Categorical Syllogism
5 Categorical Syllogisms
Today’s Topics Introduction to Predicate Logic Venn Diagrams
Theme № 14. Conclusion The plan: 1. Essence of conclusion.
5.1 Standard Form, Mood, and Figure
Rules for Valid Syllogisms
Rules and fallacies Formal fallacies.
5 Categorical Syllogisms
Philosophy 1100 Class #8 Title: Critical Reasoning
Philosophy 1100 Title: Critical Reasoning Instructor: Paul Dickey
Categorical syllogisms
Chapter 6 Categorical Syllogisms
Reason and Argument Chapter 7 (2/2).
Critical Thinking Lecture 11 The Syllogism
Critical Thinking Lecture 10 The Syllogism
Evaluating Deductive Arguments
Presentation transcript:

THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM Michael Jhon M. Tamayao, M.A. Phil. LOGIC College of Medical Technology Cagayan State University

Topics INTRODUCTION Review of categorical propositions RULES FOR MAKING VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS The 10 rules THE STANDARD FORMS OF A VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM Figures Moods The Valid Forms of Categorical Syllogisms SUMMARY

Objectives At the end of the discussion, the participants should have: Acquainted themselves with the rules for making valid categorical syllogisms. Understood what is meant by mood, figure, & form. Acquainted themselves with the valid forms of categorical syllogisms. Acquired the abilities to make a valid categorical syllogism.

I. INTRODUCTION Review of the Categorical Propositions: A All S is P TYPE FORM QUANTITY QUALITY DISTRIBUTION Subject Predicate A All S is P Universal Affirmative Distributed Undistributed E No S is P Negative Distributed Distributed I Some S is P Particular Undistributed Undistributed O Some S is not P Undistributed Distributed

I. INTRODUCTION What is a categorical syllogism? It is kind of a mediate deductive argument, which is composed of three standard form categorical propositions that uses only three distinct terms. Ex. All politicians are good in rhetoric. All councilors are politicians. Therefore, all councilors are good in rhetoric.

II. RULES FOR MAKING VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS 1. A valid categorical syllogism only has three terms: the major, the minor, and the middle term. MIDDLE TERM 2 Major Term 1 MinorTerm 3

II. RULES FOR MAKING VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS Ex. All politicians are sociable people. All councilors are politicians. Therefore, all councilors are sociable people. Sociable People (Major Term) Politicians (Middle Term) Councilors (Minor Term)

II. RULES FOR MAKING VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS Sociable People Politicians Councilors

II. RULES FOR MAKING VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS The major term is predicate of the conclusion. It appears in the Major Premise (which is usually the first premise). The minor term is the subject of the conclusion. It appears in the Minor Premise (which is usually the second premise). The middle term is the term that connects or separates other terms completely or partially.

II. RULES FOR MAKING VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS 2. Each term of a valid categorical syllogism must occur in two propositions of the argument. Ex. All politicians are sociable people. All councilors are politicians. Therefore, all councilors are sociable people. Politicians – occurs in the first and second premise. Sociable People – occurs in the first premise and conclusion. Councilors – occurs in the second premise and conclusion.

II. RULES FOR MAKING VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS Sociable People (Major Term) Politicians (Middle Term) Councilors (Minor Term) First Premise Second Premise Sociable People (Major Term) Politicians (Middle Term) Councilors (Minor Term) Conclusion

II. RULES FOR MAKING VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS 3. In a valid categorical syllogism, a major or minor term may not be universal (or distributed) in the conclusion unless they are universal (or distributed) in the premises. “Each & every” X “Some” Y “Each & every” Z “Some” X “Each & every” Z “Some” Y

II. RULES FOR MAKING VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS 4. The middle term in a valid categorical syllogism must be distributed in at least one of its occurrence. Ex. Some animals are pigs. All cats are animals. Some cats are pigs.

II. RULES FOR MAKING VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS Some animals are pigs. All cats are animals. Some cats are pigs. There is a possibility that the middle term is not the same. “ALL” Animals Cats Pigs Some animals Some animals

II. RULES FOR MAKING VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS Some gamblers are cheaters. Some Filipinos are gamblers. Some Filipinos are cheaters. There is a possibility that the middle term is not the same. “ALL” Gamblers Filipinos Cheaters Some gamblers Some gamblers

II. RULES FOR MAKING VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS 5. In a valid categorical syllogism, if both premises are affirmative, then the conclusion must be affirmative. Ex. All risk-takers are gamblers. (A) Some Filipinos are gamblers. (I) Some Filipinos are risk-takers. (I)

II. RULES FOR MAKING VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS Ex. All gamblers are risk-takers. (A) Some Filipinos are gamblers. (I) Some Filipinos are risk-takers. (I) Risk-takers Some Filipinos who are gamblers. All gamblers Filipinos

II. RULES FOR MAKING VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS 6. In a valid categorical syllogism, if one premise is affirmative and the other negative, the conclusion must be negative Ex. No computer is useless. (E) All ATM are computers. (A) No ATM is useless. (E) M m V

II. RULES FOR MAKING VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS 7. No valid categorical proposition can have two negative premises. Ex. No country is leaderless. (E) No ocean is a country. (E) No ocean is leaderless. (E) M m V No possible relation.

II. RULES FOR MAKING VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS 8. At least one premise must be universal in a valid categorical syllogism. Ex. Some kids are music-lovers. (I) Some Filipinos are kids. (I) Some Filipinos are music-lovers. (I) M m V No possible relation.

II. RULES FOR MAKING VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS 9. In a valid categorical syllogism, if a premise is particular, the conclusion must also be particular. Ex. All angles are winged-beings. (A) Some creatures are angles. (I) Some creatures are winged-beings. (I) “Each & every” V “Some” m M

II. RULES FOR MAKING VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS 9. In a valid categorical syllogism, if a premise is particular, the conclusion must also be particular. Ex. All angles are winged-beings. (A) Some creatures are angles. (I) “Each & every” V “Some” M “Some” m “Some” V All creatures are winged-beings. (A) “ALL” m “Some” M

II. RULES FOR MAKING VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS 10. In a valid categorical syllogism, the actual real existence of a subject may not be asserted in the conclusion unless it has been asserted in the premises. Ex. This wood floats. That wood floats. Therefore, all wood floats.

III. THE STANDARD FORMS OF A VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM The logical form is the structure of the categorical syllogism as indicated by its “figure” and “mood.” “Figure” is the arrangement of the terms (major, minor, and middle) of the argument. “Mood” is the arrangement of the propositions by quantity and quality.

III. THE STANDARD FORMS OF A VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM FIGURES: M is P S is M S is P (Figure 1) P is M S is M S is P (Figure 2) M is P M is S S is P (Figure 3) P is M M is S S is P (Figure 4)

III. THE STANDARD FORMS OF A VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM MOODS: 4 types of categorical propositions (A, E, I, O) Each type can be used thrice in an argument. There are possible four figures. Calculation: There can be 256 possible forms of a categorical syllogism. But only 16 forms are valid.

III. THE STANDARD FORMS OF A VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM Valid forms for the first figure: Major Premise A E Minor Premise I Conclusion Simple tips to be observed in the first figure: The major premise must be universal. (A or E) The minor premise must be affirmative. (A or I)

III. THE STANDARD FORMS OF A VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM Valid forms for the second figure: Major Premise A E Minor Premise O I Conclusion Simple tips to be observed in the second figure: The major premise must be universal. (A or E) At least one premise must be negative.

III. THE STANDARD FORMS OF A VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM Valid forms for the third figure: Major Premise A E I O Minor Premise Conclusion Simple tips to be observes in the third figure: The minor premise must be affirmative (A or I). The conclusion must be particular (I or O).

III. THE STANDARD FORMS OF A VALID CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM Valid forms for the fourth figure: Major Premise A E I Minor Premise Conclusion O Three rules are to be observed: If the major premise is affirmative, the major premise must be universal. If the minor premise is affirmative, the conclusion must be particular. If a premise (and the conclusion) is negative, the major premise must be universal.

SUMMARY Summarizing all the valid forms, we have the following table: Figure Mood 1 AAA AII EAA EII Figure Mood 2 AEE AOO EAE EIO Figure Mood 3 AAI AII EAO EIO IAI OAO Figure Mood 4 AAI AEE EAO EIO IAI