Your Mind and How to Use It: A Manual of Practical PsychologyAtkinson, William Walker
Science
Your Mind and How to Use It: A Manual of Practical Psychology
Atkinson, William Walker
Psychology
There are many technical rules and principles of logic which we cannot
attempt to consider here. There are, however, a few elementary
principles of correct reasoning which should have a place here. What is
known as a "syllogism" is the expression in words of the various parts
of the complete process of reasoning or argument. Whately defines it as
follows: "A syllogism is an argument expressed in strict logical form so
that its conclusiveness is manifest from the structure of the expression
alone, without any regard to the meaning of the term." In short, _if_
the two premises are accepted as correct, it follows that there can be
only one true logical conclusion resulting therefrom. In abstract or
theoretical reasoning the word "_if_" is assumed to precede each of the
two premises, the "therefore" before the conclusion resulting from the
"if," of course. The following are the general rules governing the
syllogism:--
I. Every syllogism must consist of three, and no more than three,
propositions, namely (1) the major premise, (2) the minor premise, and
(3) the conclusion.
II. The conclusion must naturally follow from the premises, otherwise
the syllogism is invalid and constitutes a fallacy or sophism.
III. One premise, at least, must be affirmative.
IV. If one premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative.
V. One premise, at least, must be universal or general.
VI. If one premise is particular, the conclusion also must be
particular.
The last two rules (V. and VI.) contain the essential principles of all
the rules regarding syllogisms, and any syllogism which breaks them will
be found also to break other rules, some of which are not stated here
for the reason that they are too technical. These two rules may be
tested by constructing syllogisms in violation of their principles. The
reason for them is as follows: (Rule V.) Because "from two particular
premises no conclusion can be drawn," as, for instance: (1) Some men are
mortal; (2) John is a man. We cannot reason from this either that John
_is_ or _is not_ mortal. The major premise should read "_all_ men."
(Rule VI.) Because "a universal conclusion can be drawn only from two
universal premises," an example being needless here, as the conclusion
is so obvious.
CULTIVATION OF REASONING FACULTIES.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account