Logic/A Brief Introduction

The Categorical Syllogism The following is a very brief introduction to intentional logic. Out of all that is treated in logic (both intentional and symbolic), I have decided to focus simply on the categorical syllogism. Terms: Logic: the study of how to reason well. Reasoning, recall, is the third act of the intellect. Validity: Valid thinking is thinking in conformity with the rules. If the premises are true and the reasoning is valid, then the conclusion will be necessarily true. Non-sequitur: (it does not follow). This means that the proposed conclusion cannot be deduced with certitude from the given premises. The categorical proposition: A complete sentence, with one subject and one predicate, that is either true or false. The Subject: that about which something is said. All giraffes are animals. (giraffes = subject) The Predicate: that which is said about something. All giraffes are animals. (animals = predicate) The copula: connects together or separates the S and the P. All giraffes are animals. (is/is not) Standard Propositional Codes. These codes come from the Latin words "Affirmo" and "Nego". Affirmo: I affirm. Note the A and the I Nego: I deny. Note the E and the O Hence, we have A statements, E statements, I statements, and O statements.

A - universal affirmative: All S is P I - particular affirmative: Some S is P The parts of a categorical syllogism: a. The two premises.

E - universal negative: No S is P. O - particular negative: Some S is not P.

All A is B (first premise) Some B is C (second premise) Therefore, Some C is A

b. The Conclusion. In the above syllogism, Therefore, Some C is A

The major term: this term is always the P (predicate) of the conclusion. In the example directly above, A is the major term. The minor term: this term is always the S (subject) of the conclusion. In the example directly above, C is the minor term. The middle term: this term is never in the conclusion but appears twice in the premises. (The function of the middle term is to connect together or keep apart the S and P in the conclusion).

Distribution: This is a very important term in logic. A distributed term covers 100% of the things referred to by the term. An undistributed term covers less than 100% of the things referred to by the term (few, many, almost all). For instance, All men are mortal. In this statement, "men" is distributed; for it covers 100% of the things referred by the term "men". In Some men are Italian, "men" is undistributed; for the term covers less than 100% of the things referred to by the term "men".

Universal Affirmative statements (A statements): the subject is distributed, the predicate is undistributed. Universal Negative statements (E statements): both the subject and the predicate are distributed. Particular Affirmative statements (I statements): neither subject nor predicate is distributed (both are undistributed). Particular Negative statements (O statements): the predicate alone is distributed.

Note the following (bold and underline = distributed): A = All S is P I = Some S is P E = No S is P O = Some S is not P

Question: Why is the predicate (P) distributed in the E and O statements? E = No dogs are reptiles. We do assert something about those individuals (dogs) designated by the subject term. We also know that each and every dog is not a reptile. O = Some men are not Italian. We are saying something about all things which are Italian (P). Of all the things which are Italian, those men mentioned in our statement are excluded from all those designated by Italian. In O statements, the particular individuals designated by the subject term are said to be excluded from those individuals designated by the predicate term. Those particular individuals have to be excluded from all those individuals designated by P. Rules of Syllogistic (categorical) reasoning.

The middle term must be distributed at least once. Any term which is distributed in the conclusion must also be distributed in the premises. From two negative premises, no conclusion can be drawn. If a premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular. If a premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative. The Conditional (Hypothetical) Syllogism There is another type of syllogism besides the categorical. This is the conditional syllogism, and it has the form If p, then q p q

If federal public housing will be undertaken, taxes will rise. Federal public housing will be undertaken. Therefore, taxes will rise.

The major premise is a conditional proposition. The "if" clause is called the antecedent, while the concluding clause introduced by "then" is called the consequent. Now in a true conditional proposition, the major premise provides a condition upon which the consequent depends for its truth. The minor premise, in affirming the antecedent, states that this condition is fulfilled. The conclusion then affirms the consequent. But it is possible to deny the consequent, and then conclude by denying the antecedent. Hence:

If India is ready for nuclear war, it has a stockpile of nuclear weapons. India does not have a stockpile of nuclear weapons. Therefore, India is not ready for nuclear war.

In a valid conditional syllogism, the minor premise either affirms the antecedent (AA) or denies the consequent (DC). But in an invalid conditional syllogism, the minor premise denies the antecedent (DA) and proceeds to conclude by denying the consequent clause, or it affirms the consequent (AC) and proceeds to affirm the antecedent. Hence,

If India is ready for nuclear war, it has a stockpile of nuclear weapons. India is not ready for nuclear war. Therefore, India does not have a stockpile of nuclear weapons.

This is evidently false. India could very well have a stockpile of nuclear weapons and at the same time be unprepared for nuclear war for other reasons.

If India is ready for nuclear war, it has a stockpile of nuclear weapons. India has a stockpile of nuclear weapons. Therefore, India is ready for nuclear war.

This too is evidently false. As was said above, India may not be prepared for nuclear war and yet have a stockpile of nuclear weapons. To sum up, it is an invalid procedure to affirm consequent, and it is an invalid procedure to deny antecedent. An easy way to remember this is the following.

Affirming the Consequent = AC = Acne = no one wants acne. Denying the Antecedent = DA = Dumb A** = no one wants to be a dumb a**. Denying the Consequent = DC = Washington DC = a nice city to visit. Affirming the Antecedent = AA = Alcoholics Anonymous = a good program.