LOGIC

Gordon H. Clark
CONTENT

FOR THE STUDENT: WHY STUDY LOGIC? 5

What is logic? 5

The place of logic 6

The laws of logic 6

Logic and Morality 7

The Bible and logic 9

Why study logic? 9

THE DEFINITION OF LOGIC 11

COMPUTER SCENARIOS 16

DEFINITION 26

THE BEGINNING OF FORMAL LOGIC 32

IMMEDIATE INFERENCE 48

THE DIAGRAMS OF SYLLOGISM 54

THE DEDUCTION AND RULES OF SYLLOGISM 68

HISTORICAL OBSERVATIONS 75

OTHER FORMS OF ARGUMENT 82

TRUTH TABLES 95
The deduction of The syllogism 100

God Post-script and Logic 103

Logic and God 103

Logic is God 105

Logic and Writing 107

Logic in Man 111

Logic and Language 112

Conclusion 113

Glossário 114
 FOR THE STUDENT: WHY STUDY LOGIC?
If you are thinking about reading this book or taking a logic course, then you need to
of reasons to do it. Why study logic? What can logic teach us about
for example, that chemistry or history cannot? Logic can teach us
Is there something or is life deeper than logic? If you intend to study logic
just because your course requires this, another question arises: why the curriculum
Does it include a logic course? Why would anyone think that logic is important?
sufficient to make it a mandatory course?

These are questions that deserve an answer, but the answer may not be
exactly what you could expect. Because many people disdain the
lógica, que vai ser necessário para compreender a relação entre a lógica e moral,
for example. After all, many people think that one should not study logic.
life is deeper than logic," they tell us. "Life is green, but logic is
gray is not life. "Poets tell us that 'we kill to dissect.'"
Many believe that time would be better spent in prayer, protesting, or
preaching. Or if they are naturalistically minded, it may suggest contemplating
a navel, or the sunset, or the conduct of experiments in laboratories.
So, why study logic? Perhaps if we understood what logic is, we ...
Could you better respond to the question.

What is logic?

In elementary school, you studied things like reading, writing, and arithmetic. Those
Subjects are rightly considered fundamental to all education: one cannot
to study history, botany, or computers without being able to read. Reading, writing and
Arithmetic is the principles, the tools that allow one to study further.
but, also for driving, shopping, and getting a job.

But could it not be something even more basic than the three basic principles?
Something so obvious that most people who do not see it, leave study alone
What is common among calculation, reading, and writing? The answer, of course,
It is the thought. One must think in order to read and write. Thinking
just like everything else, it is supposed to follow certain rules, if we are thinking
correctly. Sometimes we make mistakes in thinking. We take out
rushed conclusions; we make unjustified assumptions; we
we generalize. It is not a subject that catalogs these errors, pointing them out to
out of style
 LOGIC
Gordon H. Clark
attribute cannot both belong and not belong to the same subject and
in the same respect." The law is symbolically expressed as: "Not so much A as
non-A. The maple leaf can indeed be green and not green (yellow), but not
it can be both green

1Do not get confused with different bases in arithmetic. I am talking about ideas,
no words.
and yellow at the same time and with the same respect - which is green in the summer,

yellow in the fall, If it is green and yellow at the same time, it cannot be
green and yellow in the same respect; a part, no matter how small, will be
green, another part yellow. Green and non-green cannot be at the same time and
in the same way they belong to an edge of the leaf.

To suggest another example: A line can be both curved and linear, but not
in the same sense. One part of it may be curved, another portion straight, but the

The same portion cannot be both curved and straight.

The law of contradiction means something more. It means that each word in the sentence
"The straight line" has a specific meaning. The word does not mean
any, all, or not. The word line that does not mean, tooth of
lion, old twist. The word is that it doesn't mean no. The word itself makes no.
significant white, or anything else. Each word has a meaning
defined. In order to have a meaning of infinity, a word must not only
to mean something, it must also not mean something. The word
meaningline, but this also does not mean non-line -dog, to be born
of the sun, or Jerusalem, for example.

If the wordlittle meant everything, it would mean nothing; and no one,

including you, who has the slightest idea of what you want to say when you
say the little word. The law of contradiction means that each word, in order to have a
meaning, it shouldn't mean something either.

Logic and Morality

What does this law and the rest of logic have to do with morality? Simply this:
When the Bible says: 'You shall not covet', each word has a meaning
. To attack logic means to attack morality. If logic is
despised, then the distinctions between right and wrong, good and evil, just and
unjust, merciful, and relentless also disappears. Without logic, the words
of God, "You shall not commit murder," really means: "You must
"kill daily" or "Stalin was the Prince of Wales", or any one of a
infinite number of other things. without meaning. The rejection of logic means the
end of morality, for morality and ethics depend on understanding. Without
understanding, there can be no morality. It is necessary to understand the Ten

Commandments before someone can obey them. If logic is irrelevant or

irreligious, moral behavior is impossible, and the 'practical' religion of those
Those who despise logic cannot practice it in everything.
Something even worse, if anything could be worse, results from the rejection of logic. If logic

It does not govern all thought and expression, so one cannot say the truth.
from false. a lf rejects logic, so, when the Bible says that Jesus suffered under
Pontius Pilate was crucified, died, and was buried, and he resurrected on the third day.
Yes, these words really mean that Jesus did not er, he did not
crucified, without dying, was not buried, and did not rise again, thus
like Attila the Hun loved chocolate cake and played golf. The distinctions
between true and false, right and wrong, all disappear, for there can be no
distinctions made from the use of the law of contradiction. The very meaning
disappears.

The rejection of logic became very popular in the 20th century. It seems
that this rejection will continue in the twenty-first century. In matters of
morality, one often hears that "There are no blacks and whites,
just shades of gray." What this means is that it is neither good nor bad;
All actions and alternatives are mixtures of good and evil. If someone abandons the
logic, like many people have, then one cannot distinguish good from evil -
and everything is permitted. The results of this rejection of logic - murder in
mass, war, hunger caused by the government, abortion, child abuse, destruction
of families, crime of all kinds - are around us. The rejection of
Logic has led - and should lead to - the abandonment of morality.

In matters of knowledge, we are told that truth is relative; that what is

what is true for you may not be true for me. So, 2 plus 2
It can be 4 for you and 6,7 for me. If logic is abandoned, then so is that.
it follows. Christianity is 'truth' for some The result is an antipathy
growing in relation to Christianity, which asserts that all men, not
some are sinners, and there is only one way to God, through belief
in Christ. Absolute truth - which is really a redundant phrase - was
replaced by relative truth, which is really a contradiction in terms,
like the phrase square circle. But once logic is gone,
truth is also.

The use of logic is not optional. Logic is so fundamental, so basic, that

those who attack it must use logic to attack logic. They intend the
words that write, 'Logicisinvalid', to have specific meanings. The
opponents of logic must use the law of contradiction to denounce it. They
must assume their legitimacy to declare it illegitimate. They must take on the
your truth, to declare it false. They must present arguments if they
they wish to convince us that the argument is invalid. Wherever
whether they turn, they are boxed inside They cannot attack the object
of
your hatred without using -o in the assault. They are in the position of the Roman soldier

who arrested Christ, but they do not realize, as the soldier did, that the
their position and action. are dependent on rules that they reject. They
devem usar as regras de lógica na ordem de menosprezar a lógica; ele tinha
to be healed by Christ before he could continue with the arrest.

The Bible and logic

In the first chapter of the Gospel of John, John wrote: "In the beginning was the
Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. The Greek word Logos
is generally translated as Word, but is better translated as wisdom or Logic
Our word 'Inglêslógica' comes from the Greek word 'logos'. John
was calling Christ the Wisdom or Logic of God. In verse nine,
referring again to Christ, he says that Christ is "the true Light" that
He illuminates every man who comes into the world. Christ, the Logic of God, illuminates the

All. Strictly speaking, there is no "mere human logic" in contrast to the

divine logic, like some who have us believe. The lights of God's logic
every man; human logic is the image of God. God and man think of the
same way - not exactly the same thoughts, since the
man is a sinner and God is holy, but both God and man think that 2
but 2 is 4 and that A cannot be not-A. Both God and Christians think that
only the substitutionary death of Christ can earn a sinner's entry into
Heaven. The laws of logic are how God thinks. He does not make mistakes, does not take

unjustified conclusions do not build invalid arguments. We do, and this

it is one of the reasons why we are commanded by the apostle Paul to bring all
our thoughts in captivity to Christ. We must think like
Christ does - logically.

Why study logic?

To return to our first question, why study logic? Our first

the answer should be that we are governed by Scripture. Without learning to think
correctly, we will misunderstand the Scriptures. Peter warns against those who
they distort the Scriptures to their own destruction. A study of logic in
will help to avoid distorting the Scriptures and trying to make them imply something that they do not

we implicate. The Westminster Confession, written in England in the 1640s,

says that all things necessary for our faith and life are, whether expressly
definido para baixo na Escritura ou pode ser deduzido por conseqüência boa e
necessary of the Scripture. It is only through a study of logic that one can
distinguish a 'good and necessary' deduction from an invalid deduction.
Logic is indispensable not only in reading the Bible but also in reading
of history, botany, or computer programs. It is applicable to everything
Thoughts and misguided arguments can be found on every subject.
The study of logic will help us better understand all other subjects, won't it?
only theology. Therefore, as God said through the prophet Isaiah, Come,
Let's think together.

John Robbins
 THE DEFINITION OF LOGIC
CHAPTER 1

Have you ever not been in an argument? Many people use the word
argument when they want to say altercation. A fight is a fight. A
An argument is a series of reasons that one uses to prove the truth of something.
wants to be serious.

Suppose you want to convince your parents that you should go to the city today.
to buy a pair of gloves. They ask. Why you answer: mine
old gloves are worn out; this is the only day I have until next time
week, and the only place I can buy gloves is in the city.
reasons;. they intend to prove the veracity of their claim that you must go
for the city. Today In common situations these are good reasons, but they do not
prove your conclusion. If one of the reasons is false, the argument will fail. But
even if they are all true, they do not prove the conclusion to be
truth. For example, you may not have money. Or, if you have some
money cannot be something you need more than gloves.

Now, logic is the study of the methods by which the conclusion is proved to
beyond any doubt. Given the truth of the premises, the conclusion must be
True. In technical language, alogic is the science of necessary inference. .
From such and such premises, the conclusion necessarily follows.

The previous paragraph with its definition does not exactly explain what a
necessary inference. He certainly does not indicate how anyone can
detect one. The 'how' is the content of the book. Like a philosophy teacher
said his college class, "You cannot understand the first chapter of
book until after you have understood its last chapter, "So we must
proceed with small easy steps.

Most common everyday life questions, such as buying a pair of

gloves, that do not require the very rigorous proof provided in the sentence, You gave

some reasons, some good reasons if it is true 'necessary inference.';but

your parents could answer: "Well, you don't have to buy gloves today; in
Meanwhile, this is a good idea, so it will run well. But the opposite for the
family life conditions, the necessary inference is indispensable in mathematics.
In physics and chemistry, it is at least an ideal that must be constantly

10
approximate. And in the courts of justice, the standards of argumentation are very
more rigorous than at home.

11
Any college course in mathematics is a good example, but the best
An example of strict logic in school is geometry. From certain premises, called
axioms, theorems are necessarily deduced. Given the axioms, the
theorems cannot be otherwise. At this point, the student will do well to review
some of the earliest theorems; let it observe that they follow
necessarily; it is no way to avoid the conclusion. Try this one:
In an isosceles triangle, the angles opposite the equal sides are equal. Study.
the proof is just trying to twist oneself out of it!

Mathematics is not the only subject where necessary inference is required.

Although many people did not think at first, theology must use
valid arguments. In fact, if knowledge of God has any
importance, we are under a great obligation to argue validly. If the
Cancer research requires extreme care, and even more care is necessary.
extreme in the study of the Bible. To be clear, most people believe that
is more important to escape cancer than to escape hell; but the
the logic by which they came to entertain this opinion is poor logic. They
They need to examine their inferences.

Now, for an exercise, the student should examine the Bible to see which
arguments he can find. Romans 4:1, 2 is an example. The passage is
a somewhat complicated argument, and the student may still not be able to
analyze it correctly. On one hand, as the argument for buying gloves, a
or more of the premises is omitted. The glove argument assumed that the
the student had enough money. Was known by the parents and by the student and not
needed to be mentioned. Likewise, Paul's argument in Romans 4:
Something is omitted. Such an argument, in which a part is omitted or taken
As certain, it is called deontic. Most arguments in life
Everyday are enthymemes.

For more practice, the student can look up five cases in which the apostle
Paulo uses conjunctions for, because, for this reason, therefore, and to try to find

omitted installations, if any. This exercise can be very difficult for the student.
in this initial stage of the course, as the arguments of the Bible are often
quite complicated. But if he can finish the assignment after he passed
three quarters of the way through this book, which will record your growing
skill. In any case, selecting these verses will not cause harm
some. Here are a few. The first one is a bit rhetorical, and this does not do that.
12
any easier.

13
Romans 6:1, 2 What should it tell us then? Do they continue in sin?
What about the more abundant grace? Certainly not! How could it be that someone who died for

the sin live any time in which?

Romans 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in
Christ Jesus.

1 1 Corinthians 15:19 If in this one life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

all men the most lamentable.

An extreme enthymeme, which is a very, very condensed argument,

understood that condensed, because everyone knew that the unexpressed
propositions, occurs in Luke 5:21: "And the scribes and the Pharisees began to
arguing, saying: 'Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive
sins, but only to God? "This is not difficult to transform the issues.
rhetorics in statements; but the logic student can expand the verse of
how to make the argument complete? The Pharisees were perfectly logical;
in this example, the argument is valid; there is no fallacy. We claim, however,
that their premises were false.

What were then your premises and what was your conclusion? How is it
often the case in real life, the conclusion is declared first: 'Who is
Who is this that speaks blasphemies?
blasphemous". This is the conclusion. Now, what are the premises that imply this
conclusion? One of the installations, also a rhetorical question like the
Pharisees said he was, 'Anyone who can truly forgive sins is
God. This implies that anyone who claims to forgive sins asserts
to be God. The completely unexpressed premise is that this Jesus is just a
man and not God. Therefore, in claiming to be God, he is a
blasphemer.

This expansion of the argument undoubtedly impresses the student as tortuous. From
However, the argument needs to be expanded a little further to be
formally complete. And this fact should convince the student that the
arguments in common language can be and often are extremely
condensed in form.

These and others that the student may encounter illustrate how the Scriptures
we use reasoning. To understand the Scriptures, it is necessary to understand the

14
argumento. Nenhum estudante deve ser desapontado por não ser capaz de
decipher these arguments The right. He needs to study logic. But,
eventually, if a commentator cannot decipher them, and they show
clearly because they are valid, he lost the meaning of the verses.

15
Muitos argumentos em situações comuns da vida são igualmente difíceis;
still many people think they can recognize a bad argument,
or a good argument, the moment you see it. They claim that they have
no need to study LOGICI In the present they are very
optimists. Even if a politician cannot deceive everyone all the people
time, it can deceive everyone for a while and some of
people of all times. That's why politicians use propaganda.
deceptive. It generally deceives a large number of people. Now, in
In addition to these biblical verses and as another test of native capacity,
consider these examples.

In a university psychology class, the professor reached a fork adjustment;

So he fell silent and hit another one. Without a single one in the class noticed at all.

connection between the two tones. The teacher reached the second fork again,
silenced that has reached a third of the fork. Without one in the perceived class.
any difference between the two tones. Question: If the teacher hits the first one
fork again and then in the third fork, one can validly infer that there is
a student in the class will notice the inheritance of the '? '?

This example occurred at a modern university. Some logical examples.

They came from antiquity. Going back to the Middle Ages, they used this one: What
you bought yesterday, you eat today. You bought raw meat yesterday, so
today you eat raw meat. Now everyone is smart enough to see
that this is a bad argument. But can you say why this is bad? Of course,
You know that the buyer should have cooked the meat before eating. But
specifically what is the point in the argument itself that fails? Or try this: All
animals have four legs (we assume this is true); all things
Those with four legs are bad; therefore, some bad things are not animals:
ruined tables, for example. Does the conclusion follow from the two?
installations? If not, what is precisely the problem?

This argument, however artificial it may be, is a complicated one; but the
methods of logic, to be explained in this book. will analyze such
arguments as easy as rolling a log - or to use a less medieval term
expression - as easy as falling off a skateboard.

However, do not allow this encouraging statement to be misunderstood. The

arguments are not always explained easily. Many arguments are

16
extremely difficult to unravel. The reason is that many of these difficulties
they are not really logical. For example, to comply with the rules of formal logic,
the terms of an argument, as they are repeated, must have exactly the
same meaning. To use a fool, but, therefore, clear example, if in a

17
premise we talk about a child, and it means a kid, then, the word
child in conclusion cannot mean a young boy. English words are
frequently ambiguous. Now, there are logical rules that will help us in
discovery of ambiguities. It is necessary to know English. Many times, an argument
it does not contain an ambiguous term, but it contains an ambiguous sentence. For example,

Although it is not really an argument, analyze the statement: You cannot

eat your cake and have it too. Before you shake your head yes to this
common saying, remember the nutritionist who replied: 'You cannot eat
your cake without having this, too.

During one of the terrible wars of this century, a slogan was popularized and
printed in the newspapers in large letters: SAVE SAAP AND WASTE PAPER. A little
strange, I say, hey what? Although this kind of thing is more a matter of
language rather than logic, and it should really be included in English courses, there
It is customary to include a chapter on 'Fallacies' in logic books.
informal." The next chapter will alert the student. First, there are a few problems.
that formal logic, by itself, cannot solve; and, secondly, that arguments,
discussions, propaganda, advertisements, proofs, debates in everyday life are
often very complicated. A person must discover these informal ones.
deceive before he can apply the formal validity tests.

18
 INFORMAL FRAME
CHAPTER 2

Arguments are invalid, either because they contain a formal fallacy or

because they contain an informal fallacy. Formal fallacies have to do with
form of the argument. The topics he argued about are many. One can
discuss politics, religion or sports. But, although the subject is different, everyone
the arguments can be reduced to a small number of types or forms. The
that this will be explained in the next chapter. Here, we only need to observe
that the two examples below have the same format: men are mortal,
Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal and all dogs are black.
Fido is a dog, therefore Fido is black, also note that in these examples the word
the man in the first has the same meaning in both occurrences.
the same way. informal fallacies are not fallacies of form, but
mainly from bad English. However, it is often much more deceptive than the
common bad English.

The last chapter, until the end, mentioned ambiguity. It also noted that
there are two types of ambiguity. When a single word has two meanings,
we call this a misunderstanding. When the double meaning connects to a sentence, we
we call it amphibology. Some books refer to it as amphibology, but this word
does not occur in the main columns of the Merriam Webster Unabridged Dictionary.

An example of a misunderstanding has already been given. It was the slogan, Save Soap and Waste Paper. The

words save, soap, and paper, each one has a unique meaning; but the
the word 'residue' can be either an adjective or a verb. Newspaper headlines,
many times they are examples of mistakes. In an effort to make a brief
title, the editor sometimes produces a sentence that the reader should read two or three times

times before he guesses the correct meaning. Here the student is advised to
look at the newspapers from the last week or two and find some horrible ones
examples.

Sometimes, the mistake is intentional and witty. Benjamin Franklin, the

signing of the Declaration of Independence, is supposed to have said: We must all
stay together, or surely we all must fall apart. Another misconception
possibly intentional, but not so intelligent, is the case of a teenager
What is the answer to the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism: 'What is'

the main end of man?, Saying: His head, of course. The word with the
19
two meanings is the final word, but it's not a very good example right now like
it could have been, two centuries ago, that today the final word is that it means nothing

purpose as frequently as he did next. We do

20
in fact speaks of an end in sight; but more often we use the word in
the meaning of a dead-end street.

In serious matters, the mistake is harder to detect. Theologians and

secularists discuss revelation and reason. Secularists boast
about reason and burdening the theologian with irrationality. The theologians, or some
of them, to boast about the revelation and to belittle 'mere' human reason and the

logic. Both are guilty of mistakes. Today, when secularists

they praise reason, they do not mean what Augustine, Descartes, and Spinoza
they wanted to say with reason. These three men signified a capability
intellectual to argue. Secularists are (almost unanimously in this
20th century) empiricists, and for them it means sensory experience. He
It is not very clear what theologians mean; for them it is to speak among themselves. Many

they agree with their opponents that sensory experience is reliable and
that science arises from this. But they also maintain that theology does not
depends neither on feeling nor on reason. In the present they have two types of
knowledge, two sources of information, which two cannot harmonize in
a single system. Some of the more radical ones, called neo-orthodox,
we identify clearly the reason as the ability to argue
convincingly, and then they claim that faith restrains reason and that the
Christianity must be self-contradictory. The point of this paragraph is to
show that it is, at times, difficult to discover where the mistake lies,
what theological arguments are often complicated, and that the practice in
analysis is a great need for a student.

When it is a sentence, instead of a single word, that has two meanings, we

we call it amphibology. An old example, found in many books
modern didactics is that of Croesus. Croesus, king of Lydia, wanted to wage war on
Persia. But, with due caution, he first consulted the oracle of Delphi.
to know what the outcome of the war would be. The oracle responded: If Croesus goes
for the war With Cyrus, he will destroy a powerful empire. Enchanted, he
he went to war, but to his dismay the empire he destroyed was his
own powerful kingdom.

Or consider this argument very biblical. A drug addict says to another:

Do to others what you would like them to do to you; you would like that
the others to give you some heroine; therefore, you must give me some
heroine.
21
Even ordinary English grammar sometimes produces amphiboly. Suppose
that a mother says to her son, I am not going to take you to the zoo because it is

22
Saturday. This may mean that the mother has other duties on Saturdays and,
therefore, he/she will not go to the zoo. Or it may mean, depending on the conversation

before, my goal is not to have a pleasant Saturday, but to give it to you

a lesson in zoology, so put on your coat and let's get going.

The misunderstanding about going to the zoo could have been avoided by the addition of another.

word or by an accent. The mother could have said, We are not going to the
zoo just because it is Saturday. Or with a certain tone of voice that she
could have said, We are not going to the zoo (slight pause) because it is
Saturday. These modifications of speech introduce another type of fallacy,
called the fallacy of touch .

There is a common saying that we should only speak of the dead. If this phrase is said
in a calm and unaccented tone, it has the intended meaning. But suppose that
Someone said: We should not speak ill of the dead - (but we should encourage others.

to do this). Or, we can accentuate the second word: We must not speak badly-
(but should do it this way however). Or, again, we should not speak badly
of the dead - (but we will publish your crime in the newspapers). Or, finally, no
we must speak ill of the dead - (but I am sure it will darken the brother of
your brother alive). reputation).

This source of misunderstanding often torments authors and readers of books. If

an author is a good public speaker, they constantly use variations in their voice; and
your auditors can easily understand. But if he publishes his speeches, a
reader, particularly the many readers who have not heard him speak, loses the idea and
actually suffers from serious misunderstandings. To give a less scholarly example of a
common slang: After one person makes a statement, the other person can
to respond, yes, but if said with a smirk, it means
no, sarcastically.

The fallacy of accent and the fallacy of equivocation somewhat overlap. In

truth, many of the examples in this chapter can also be classified as
one or the other, or even as one of the mistakes yet to be
mentioned. The classification of informal fallacies is not systematic. The classes do not
they are watertight. There are fallacies in the course that are infinitely true and not ambiguous,

but such a one can be equally two or more other types at the same time.

23
However, let's examine one more fallacy of accent or misunderstanding. In
celebration of the Lord's Supper, the minister may say: Drink all of this. If he
accentuates the whole word, does not pause and insults the word of, the idea is that everything

Wine must be consumed before the end of service. No one can stay.
But if he takes a pause after the word to emphasize the word, it means
that everyone present must participate.

Fortunately, the Greek language of the New Testament is not as ambiguous as the
English. There are indeed some ambiguities in Greek, but not so many.
In this case, the word 'toda', due to its declinable form, is
masculine plural, and not neutral singular. The meaning is clear.

Liberal theologians have frequently used ambiguity, whether it be equivocal.

or amphibology, to undermine biblical doctrines. They replace a word
or vague sentence for one that is univocal. Univocal means ways to have a meaning
For example, we can talk about Cristosacri sacrifices on the cross. Well, he was
indeed a sacrifice; but it was not a sacrifice in the sense that a
The hunt in baseball is. Now, a squeeze or a sacrifice fly is a sacrifice; in
true, it is a sacrificial substitute, for the mass it is placed out in
instead of the corridor on the second or third. And Christ's sacrifice was substitutive.
sacrifice of Christ and sacrifice overlap of the hitter in the sense But they
are not I of n t i c a l i n m e um n i n g . T h e w o r d s um c r i fi c ec o v e r s m a
n y d i " e r e n t s i t u t I orn s . C h r i s t ' s and we offered the sacred
ended Divinity. To use ambiguous, in general, all, inclusive vacancies
terms such as sacrifice, and remain silent about the atonement of
sins and the propitiation of God dilute the Gospel message through
misunderstanding, the notion of propitiation and that of God's justice is a very idea

unpleasant for theological liberals. Thus, when the Bible is translated,

the word propitiation, in some versions, is replaced by a more
general and, therefore, ambiguous. The new international version does that. It uses the phrase

sacrificial atonement. But there are many forms of atonement. Propitiation is a

only; but they are not others. For example, people used to talk about a
a criminal for having paid his debt to society for a year in prison. Such
A man may have atoned for his sin, but it is very likely that he did.
do not provide your victim. The result of vague or very general phrasing is that
the people in the banks, who don't have much logical sense, accept the new
they may even keep the notion of propitiation; but hey can go ahead

24
to forget, and a later generation that no longer remembers the translations
antiquities, more precise, do not learn the idea of propitiation. Thus, the
The Gospel disappears from people's minds.

25
This should be enough to show the student that logic is not merely
a question of artificial and trivial illustrations. Logic books have their
failures. The examples tend to be trivial or artificial. If historical, and not
artificial, are generally irrelevant. Benjamin Franklin's observation was
spirited, but many of us will not sign a declaration of independence
we will risk our lives. However, ambiguity occurs constantly; and
a study of history, fictional and even the most trivial artificialities alert the
student for similar possibilities in your situation. A textbook does not
can predict what difficulties the student will encounter tomorrow, nor how he
can be deceived by television advertising. If the book warns him, that he has
served its purpose.

The next type of fallacy is called the fallacy of composition. The first example
It is undoubtedly banal, but it is not artificial; and it is well within the experience of most.

of students. Your school, let's suppose, has a basketball team. You want to defend
your reputation and, to impress a skeptic, you point out that player A is a
very good player, and player B is excellent, and player C is unmatched, and so on
from now on for players D and E. you tell the doubter, your school has the best
conference team. This argument is called the fallacy of composition. The reason
the logic is that the characteristics of the components are not necessarily, nor
even generally, the characteristics of the compound. The practical reason is that the os
players may not be friendly with each other, they do not have team spirit and
lose more games than they win.

The example can be adjusted for the political arena. But let us put it.
back. You want to show how stupid your political opponent is. You
wants to express your argument. Depending on your political principles, and that
whichever side your opponent has taken, you can use one or the other of these two
contests: Throughout the United States, the senator is a wise man, like you
but the United States Senate is the stupidest body on earth; or, it is
It's true that each senator has limited intelligence, but when their
knowledge is combined, the Senate is almost infallible.

Chemistry provides another example. Chlorine is a poison; and so is sodium, for

if you put this in your mouth, it will burn a hole in it. Therefore, if
you combine them chemically and obtain NaCl, sodium chloride, is two times
more potent than a poison and should not be sprinkled with eggs in the coffee
morning. Just remember that the qualities of the components are not
26
necessarily, not even normally, the qualities of the whole;

27
the qualities of the whole are not necessarily the qualities of the parts. Perhaps
you do not like chemistry. So be careful with sociology, as it is
the key of wholes.

Most of the examples in logic books are artificial, but they have the
advantage of being simple. Even the chemical example, although not
artificial, it is simple. Examples for students must be simple, at least the
from the beginning. But be warned that in the 'airs of the world, the fallacies are
generally complex and not easily recognized. Here is one of the
philosophy. One of the theories about the constitution of the universe is that it is

composed, ultimately, of atoms. These are very small bodies,

hard and impenetrable. The theory is called materialism. Now, a
German philosopher, called Leibniz, who does not like materialism. He thought
could not explain the functioning of the human mind. Thus, he
proposed the idea that the ultimate constituents of the created universe are minds,
similar in essence to the mind of the Creator. Of course, minds are
spirits; they are not material; they have no extension in space. Leibniz
he called them monads: indivisible realities of thought. Some of
Leibniz's opponents then objected that materialism might not explain
minds, everything except could minds explain bodies, if you add
an unextended object for another and for another and so on, the sum of
zeros is still zero, and you do not have an extensive body. This objection to
Leibniz is fallacious. He is the fallacy of composition, as the characteristic of
components are not usually the characteristic of the compound; or place it to
behind, there are usually characteristics of compounds that are not meant to be

found in the components.

Just one more example. When Bonnie Prince Charlie, the Stuart heir
for the English throne, an attempt to overthrow George II in 1745 and impose
again Roman Catholicism in England and Scotland, their troops were
Scottish Scots. He is probably true that any Highlander
he was a brave warrior or more vigorous than any English soldier. The
Highlanders actually won the first battle. But the prince's army,
even if it had been more numerous and braver, it was no match for the
disciplined English troops. In the second engagement, the Highlanders were
defeated before the battle was truly underway. Each
Highlander was a better fighter than any English soldier; but the
The English army was a better fighter than the mountain troops.
can you try to think of some examples from the Old Testament. He can also
do well to study chemistry.

Another type of fallacy, or at least another name given to some fallacies, is, in
begging the question; in English, begging the question. Essentially that
means
that one of the premises from which the conclusion is deduced is the very
conclusion, somewhat disguised in form. Now, it should be noted that this type
the argument is indeed valid. The conclusion follows from the installations of
strict logic. It must be, as the premise is the conclusion itself, and any
A proposition implies itself. But as proof of that convinces.
anything else, the argument is useless. One might say, chess is a
recreation is better than football because football is not as good as recreation
of chess. Well, of course: Since the two statements are equivalent, if
One is true, the other is true. But not a football player would be.
impressed.

Instances of begging the question are often not as obvious as this

artificial example. Consider Thomas Aquinas's argument about the
the existence of God. Is it a petitio principii or not? Saint Thomas writes:
Everything that is moved must be moved by another. If this is why it is moved.
If it changed in itself, then it must also be moved by another. And that
for another again. But this cannot continue endlessly, because then
there would be no first engine, and consequently no other engine, since
the subsequent movers move only to the extent that they are moved by the
first engine. … Therefore, it is necessary to reach the first engine,
moved by none other: and that everyone understands to be God.

Once again, the Greek of Aristotle, from whom Aquinas took his
argument, avoids ambiguity in English. The word movement in English
it can be transitive, meaning to put something into something else
movement, or intransitive, that is, to be in motion. Besides English
ambiguity, which if it does not occur in Greek or Latin, the student can detect a
should I plead the question?

It is not another type of fallacy usually observed in textbooks. It is

called ad hominem argument. The fallacy consists of appealing to the
character, the situation, the beliefs or prejudices of the person to be convinced, in
instead of using facilities that deal with the subject under discussion.
For example, someone may be impressed by Aristotle's view of the soul.
like the shape of the organic body. Then your minister says to you: Do you believe in
Bible; it teaches that the soul remains after the body disintegrates in the grave;
therefore, you must reject Aristotle and deny that soul and body form a
, such as described by Aristotle.
The problem with this argument is that a person's belief in the Bible does not prove.

a future life. The necessary premise is: The Bible is true. There is, however,
a certain plausibility in the argument, for a belief in the Bible implies a
belief in a
future life. Anyone who accepts both Aristotle's view of the soul and
the biblical acceptance of immortality is confusing to the point of self-
contradiction.

Another example works in two ways. A candidate for Congress

argument: you should vote for me; I will help raise the protection rate;
you know that a protection tariff is good for the country because you are a
manufacturer. More often, this ad hominem argument comes the other way around:
It's no wonder you think that protective tariffs are good for the country: you are
um fabricante, não é você! Isso pode ser chamado dead hominem abusivo .

There are many types and varieties of informal fallacies. They cannot be
categorized classified. There are no rules that can automatically
detect them. They overlap in such a way that a single argument can be a
example of two, three or four at the same time. A category in the old ones
Logical books were ignorance of the fallacy. This is translated, ignorance of the rectification.

A modern book less literally translates it as 'Irrelevant conclusion'. But

all fallacies are examples of irrelevant conclusions. And irrelevances come in
all shapes and sizes.

Socrates in his Apology, his defense before the Athenian judges against the
accusation that he was worthy of death, rejects the frequent device of
criminals who take their wives and children to court and sadly
They ask: Who will take care of them if you execute me? Such a request is not a
proof of innocence; and therefore, it is called the fallacy of argumentum ad
mercy .

In Shakespeare's Richard III, after murdering all the heirs...

close to the throne, Richard makes an appeal to the people. This is not a good

example, as it did not raise much enthusiasm.

Another fallacy, which fortunately can generally be distinguished from the others, is the

fallacy of the complex question. It is the known device of asking: Have you ever
Have you stopped hitting your wife? Usually, the fallacy is not that obvious.

Another very common fallacy is called post hoc ergo propter hoc.
A student should always use these phrases in Latin because they will make him sound educated.

The translation is 'After this, therefore, because of this.' In the late seventies, the
The Federal Revenue service committed to pursuing Christian schools. Previously, the
The State Board of Education in Ohio filed a suit against one. In Kentucky and
The parents from Nebraska were sentenced to prison for sending their children to
Christian schools; and in another case, the government forced children to stay away from
your parents and put them in foster homes. Then the IRS intervened and tried to revoke the
tax exemption for Christian schools, keeping them guilty of discrimination
racial, unless they could prove themselves innocent by certain processes
impossible to fulfill in some locations. One of the arguments of the IRS
used to be that these schools were organized shortly after laws against the
discrimination was enacted. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. One of the defenses
used by Christians was that schools were organized soon after the
The Supreme Court banned the Bible and prayer. It can be added that they were
organized after violence, drugs, and sex became intolerable
in public schools. A member of the State Education Council in
Atlanta, Georgia, accepted the resignation of a teacher whose reason for quitting
your job was that a student threatened to cut your throat with a knife,
unless he changed a grade from D to B. In such situations the non-
violent students are put in danger too, and the parents are fine
advised to find a better and safer school for their children.
Ignoring all this, the IRS put down the anti-American principle, You are
guilty, unless you can prove yourself innocent; and it relied on logic.
fallacious. This type of fallacy can also be called an argument ad
baculum: Do as I say or I will hit you up.

There are other names, but not always other fallacies; for categorization it is
careless and overlapping. Therefore, the chapter will end with the fallacy of the accident

This happens when some accidental and irrelevant factor becomes the essential point.
from an argument. The example, delightfully outrageous, comes from Germany
medieval.

A noble host invited an illustrious guest for dinner. To honor him,

The noble instructed the cook to serve roasted stork. The servant was very
good cook, and he roasted the stork to perfection. In fact, the smell was so
delicious that he could not resist cutting off a leg and eating it
same. Next, be carefully placed the stork on its side and
served the dish at dinner. The nobleman was very disturbed when he saw the
stork with a leg missing. He tried to maintain his composure,
ignored the mutilation, and treated his guest with extraordinary delicacy.
But he promised himself to cover his scandalous cooking with
confusion. The next day, therefore, he took his servant to the courtyard of the
castle and pointed to a stork that is there at a short distance.
Storks have two legs, he said, what did you do with the other stork?
"did you sleep well last night? But look, said the cook, the storks only have
a leg. (The stork in the backyard was stopped on one leg, like storks,
many times. To do) Not to be overcome, the noble clapped his hands; by the
the stork's noise putting down its other leg and flew far away. Look,
he said to the cook, storks have two legs. But, replied the
Cook, last night you didn't clap.
 DEFINITION
CHAPTER 3

In the previous chapter, the observations on ambiguity showed the need

of definitions. The next chapter will provide several necessary definitions for the
development of logic. This chapter proposes to study the methods of definition.
Once again we must insist, to reiterate, that a valid argument does not
it may not contain any term in its conclusion that has not already occurred in the

premises. Therefore, when the same words are found in the premises and
In conclusion, it should be determined that they have the same meaning.

It must be no mistake. Pascal, a brilliant mathematician and philosopher of

17th century, to guard against such errors, said: Always replace
(in your mind, at least) the defined word with the definition.

A serious example of how a need arises in the New Testament. James

2:14 and 17 contain the word faith. Romans 3:28 also contains the word faith.
Does the word mean the same thing in both cases? Martin Luther and others
great theologians had problems at this point; and there are difficulties here beyond the

misunderstanding; so that a layman can be exempted if they cannot solve the

problem in five minutes.

In addition to the epistle of James, the word ordinary religious or discussions

current policies are used and abused constantly. A definition is necessary.
"to believe in what you know is not true." Some religious authors and
many secularists make a sharp contrast between faith and knowledge, while
some theologians identify them. Augustine and Anselm made faith the foundation of
knowledge. More Latin: I believe in order to understand.
in religious discussions, it is necessary to be very careful to ensure what the
Another person understands by the word, Even more importantly, you must know the
What do you mean, otherwise you don't know what you're talking about.
Thus much for the importance of defining fi.

A good enough start for the definition problem, but uniquely one.
beginning, it is the distinction between connotative and denotative definitions of fi. In fact

We can say that the term of definition is the very mistake. Now suppose that
we wish to define the term eligible voters in such and such locality. This can be
made saying: A person
eligible to vote must be an American citizen, over a certain age, a
resident of the State for a year (or whichever State specify), and a
resident of the district for sixty days before the election, and registered. This is
definition with connotative meaning, because it lists the necessary qualifications and

sufficient. The qualifications are necessary: that is, if any of them is

If missing, the person will not be able to vote. The qualifications are also sufficient:

no additional qualification may be required. It is, however, another

way to define eligible voters, It is the list of names in the book of
employee record. This is called a denotative definition. The denotative
the definition explicitly mentions each individual - person, place, or thing - in the
class.

There is an interesting relationship between the two types of definition. Suppose that
We remove from the connotative definition above the requirement to be registered. This reduces

the number of qualifications, but increases the number of eligible voters. Or,
Conversely, if we were to add names to the original list, names of children or
foreigners, we would have to exclude some part of the original connotation. One might
As the connotation increases, the denotation decreases and vice versa.

This is not strictly true, however. The denotation, that is, the list of
names can be increased by registering more people, without affecting the
connotation." But there is a more important exception. The given rule only applies
the classes containing a finite number of members. the members are infinite,
strange things happen. Ask a boy at a younger age if they are not
like many even numbers like odd numbers. He will undoubtedly say,
Yes. So ask him, are there as many prime numbers as there are numbers?
Ask yourself: you will probably argue that, like cousins
they are scarce, there are only ten between one and twenty, and fewer as we progress,
There must be many more numbers that are not prime numbers. All of the
prime numbers are numbers, but not all numbers are prime.

It is better to take this example to your math teacher and listen to their
Explanation that they are not like many of one another. You can leave.
thinking that finitude is mistaken. Make sure to have a definition of
infinite, but do not ask for a denotative definition of the serial number.

Although denotative definitions are useful and practically indispensable in

voting locations, they are not independent of connotative definitions. The
voter registration
is compiled by a prior investigation to determine which individuals
they satisfy the connotative criteria, this is relatively easy to do; but
There is a biblical and theological example that is not so easy. Several Orthodox
theologians have tried to defend the possibility of miracles against pseudo-fic
scientific claims that miracles are impossible. This debate requires a
connotative and denotative definition. The antichristian philosopher David Hume
define a miracle as a violation of a natural law. Then, a
Christian can respond: The crossing of the Red Sea as the Israelites were
escaping from Pharaoh was a miracle, although he was and 'was by a strong east
wind, so that no natural law was violated then Hume responded:
It was not a miracle: it was just a coincidence. The questions for the
Christians then become, what is a miracle? And what events in the Bible are
miraculous? Without denotative meaning it will help. Or, at least, one must
to give a connotative definition before he can compile a list
denotative. Many debates about miracles sink into the swamp of confusion
because one or both sides have little idea of what a miracle is. If they
not having taken a course in logic, they must have read a few Socratic texts
dialogues.

An old method used to reach definitions is described as a tree.

of Porphyry. Porphyry was an obscure philosopher, a disciple of Plotinus, in
the third century of our era, the method itself comes from Plato, who exemplified it.
nosofista, one of his dialogues, defining a fishermen He is called
a tree because its diagram has a kind of point at the top and the branches
they go down even more. Thus...
Plato defines fishing as an art. Just like art, the top of the tree, is
defined, raises more difficulties; but we will continue.

Fishing is an art, there are now arts of production and arts of acquisition. Of course, a
fishermen who do not produce the sh, he takes it. Acquisition is made by purchase or
by capture. Well, here is the diagram:

So living beings are divided into those that have feet and those that do not.
They float. After arriving at the fish, Plato begins fishing through the distinction.
between spear fishing and fishing with a hook.
Plato was not really interested in fishing. He was interested in
define. After the illustration, he tried more seriously to define a sophist,
therefore, the name of the dialogue. Aristotle also used the same method. His
terminology era: declare the gender, then add the difference; this gives to
species. The entire universal tree descends from the supreme genus to the species
enemies, the lowest ones. Individuals cannot be defined. This is a
whim in Aristotle, because he argues that individuals are the most real
of all realities, but they are unknowable. This bit of historical information
has the sole purpose of alerting all students that surrounds logic is a
great philosophy business that he should take in college and graduate school
school.

As for Porphyry's trees, one can note that some genres that do not
conveniently divided into two. The triangular genre is normally divided
in three: scalene, isosceles, and equilateral. This division is based on the
relative lengths of the sides. Of the course, the triangle can be divided
gender in species - Angle - right triangles and non-right angular
triangles. And possibly the famous Pythagorean theorem presupposes this.
classification. To change the examples, botanical species and military rows
are uniquely awkwardly fitted into the present dichotomous scheme.

In a sense, there can be no debate about a definition. An author may

say: This is what I mean by the word. The reader must then understand the
word in this sense. However, there is a possibility of debate about whether the
the author's definition is close enough to the use of English to avoid misunderstandings

serious understandings. If he says, by the word cat, I mean an animal of

domestic estimation that barks, we are able to consider it a triple idiot, or
idiosyncratic. But how common languages use one word in various
related meanings, it is not unreasonable for an author to choose one and make it
its technical definition. In the theology of thermodynamics, it has supported several

meanings. It can mean non-revelational knowledge; this can

to mean knowledge derived by logic alone; and this can mean and has
Many times it meant knowledge based on sensory experience. This
last, although it is frequently used, seems to divert a little away from
etymological meaning of darazão.

Sometimes, a quarrel develops over a 'purely verbal' definition. This

it is a situation in which both definitions have the same intellectual content: for
example, says oneman, X is a geometric figure constructed in such a way that the
the closed area is larger than any other. Another says: No, X is a line in which
each point is equidistant from a certain point.
expressions refer equally and exclusively to circles. The words are
different, but the designated objects are the same.

In the philosophy of the twentieth century, another type of definition became popular, called

ostensive definition. It is not verbal. It consists of pointing to the object. If someone

to ask, what is a dog? the other person points at one. Bertrand Russell
and, especially, the (or illogical) positivist logics make this an essential
factor in your theories. However, it is difficult to pinpoint the square root of
minus one. Or the number three, for this matter. Likewise, no one
never saw a line or a triangle. And even in the case of visible objects, Of
Agistro (The Professor), by Agostinho, shows that ostensive definitions are
impossible.

Agostinho and Bertrand Russell go beyond the boundaries of a textbook

elementary about logic. Here it is enough to point out some of the difficulties
qualities. As far as formal logic is concerned, the point is that a term must
maintain exactly the same meaning throughout the argument.
 The Beginning of Formal Logic

CHAPTER 4

The arguments in the chapter on informal fallacies were all a bit

complicated. If we are now formulating a method to test the validity of
all the arguments, regarding your logic, if not your English, we must
start with the simplest form of argumentation. The word form indicates
Let's not pay any attention to the infinitely different subjects of
arguments, but rather consider their forms alone. Instead of saying: Everyone
men are mortal, one must say, Everything is b. The letter stands for
any subject; and the letter is for any predicate. Everything is bé the first
form in formal logic.

The reason why it is possible to construct validity rules for all inferences
The forms of affirmation are very limited in number. Remove all the
declarative sentences in the language, and you will find that there are only four types.
The first form is, All a is b. All dogs are canines, All storks have
two legs and All revolutionaries run the risk of being suspended.

The second form - they are called categorical forms for no reason
sufficient - is, No a is b. It stays for No dogs are cats, Without Christian is
A secularist, and not cooks are perfect. The third form is, some a is b.
Some dogs are pets, and so on. The fourth form is, Some do not
It is b. Some dogs are not pets. Each simple declarative.
the sentence can be put in one of these four forms.

By the way, most logical books do not talk about declarative sentences. They
They talk about propositions. There is a difference between propositions and sentences.

declarative. In English, it can be said that the kick-off was captured by the fullback; or he
You can say: The defender caught the kick. 'These two are two different sentences.'
subject and predicate are swapped, and the voices of the verbs are different. But they
mean the same thing. A proposition, therefore, is defined as the meaning of
a declarative sentence. Some sentences are not declarative, such as commands in
imperative humor, or exhortations in the well-extinct subjunctive mood. Questions or
Interrogative sentences are also neither true nor false. Just sentences.
declarative statements are either true or false; and it is this common characteristic that is important for

propositions. It is clear that in English rhetoric there are issues that are intended

propositions. They are called rhetorical questions. They are an embellishment.

of style. They adorn a speech. But logically they are
propositions. A question that is intended as a question is not true.
not false. It cannot be part of an argument.

Let us now return - an exhortation, neither true nor false, but one that
the student is expected to follow - for the simpler propositions and the most
simple arguments. Some additional modifications are necessary to
reduce propositions to a manageable logical form.

To keep the logic as simple as possible, it does not use the verbs of
common conversation. Instead of saying, all the men on the track run well, say
Logically, all clues are good runners. Instead of saying, no dog
Like a hay, logic says: no dog is vegetarian. The only verb in logic
It is the verb to be, the copula, it is. Premises and conclusions, therefore, consist
in subject-copula-predicate, plus any relationship that is necessary,
UmAll, No, Some, or Some... no.

Now, for practice, the student should try to write some English sentences.
common in categorical form. He may have been surprised by the fact that the
declarative sentences have only four forms. Only four forms in
all the books in the library! He also needs practice if he wants to
analyze common arguments. It is easy enough to change English verbs
in adjective predicates, or in few awkward phrases. For example, 'the
"Children run to school" becomes "All children are runners at
classes." Of course, some children may not work. Without all English
The phrase is ambiguous. Does that mean, all the children run, from, some
Do children run? In this last case, the categorical form will be: "Some
Children are runners to classes. The embarrassment of English is not school.
I'm analyzing arguments. It seems stupid, but the meaning remains.
Sure. When the English sentence contains dependent clauses, pronouns
relatives and prepositional phrases, the categorical translation will be extremely
uncomfortable; but with hyphens, or by placing sentences in parentheses to
turn them to look like a word, the feeling is clear. For example, Everyone
Those who have been born in the United States are at least thirty-five
years of age) (legally qualified to run for the position of
president). Maybe now the value of a simple All a is b has become
evident.

But there are other difficulties in producing categorical forms from sentences.
in English, in addition to these uncomfortable expressions. Can the student put this
a categorical statement? Only good students receive A's. This means that
Do all good students get A grades? No, for some capable students.
goofo"e one fl, or at least obtain unique C. What he
It means that all students who get an A are good students. Now, this statement
it can be false, as some bad students may receive an A by mistake or by
deception; but the translation given here is the correct translation. Similarly,

"No one except the brave deserves the fair"

Only the brave deserve the market." Then it becomes "All those who
those who deserve the fair are brave.

Even textbooks on logic make mistakes. One author used the phrase,
The elephant has escaped. The zoo or the circus wanted to give it
alarm in good categorical form. The author then translated: 'Some
elephants are creatures that have escaped. But this is not really what the
the handler meant to say. He meant to say: “Everything jumbo is an escaped animal.”

Surely, the author was not completely wrong, that is why it is true, under
this condition, that some (an indeterminate number of) elephants are fugitives.
In logic, some can mean one, as well as many or few.

However, when the main idea is certainly one, like Socrates, the form
Logic requires everything. Socrates was in a class by himself, and because of that we
talk about everything that class. We certainly do not mean 'Some'
Socrateses.

Other expressions in English are harder to manage. For example,

business firms for advertising purposes may hold a contest in which the
your employees cannot participate. The language is: All except
employees, can enter. Now, this sentence is not hard to understand, but
its use in an argument presents some traps. The problem is that
this seemingly simple English sentence is two propositions. This means
that (1) no employee is eligible; and (2) all non-employees are
eligible. Now neither of these two propositions implies the other, so as not to
only non-eligible employees can, but others, non-employees, who
they live in states where contests are illegal or taxed, it can also be
ineligible. And also, but not usually, the proposition 'All those who are not'

"employees are eligible" does not imply, by itself, that employees are
barred. Now, what can happen is this. The phrase with both meanings
is taken as a premise, and with some other proposition introduces a
conclusion. Then, someone who takes the major premise in just one
sense can decide that the syllogism is invalid, although it is valid by
reason for giving the premise another meaning. Or, in the opposite direction, the sentence with
two meanings can be taken as a conclusion; in which case someone
You can consider the argument valid because a meaning (he has lost the
another meaning) validly follows. If the facilities are
both simple categorical propositions, no double meaning conclusion
pode ser validamente desenhada.

There are other sentences in English that cause difficulties. Suppose someone
exclaims, whether in admiration or disgust, "You always twist yourself out of
a point.” The grammatical subject is you, but that is not the logical subject.
Clearly, "You" are not twisting out of a twenty argument and
four hours a day. And of the course of categorical form cannot be "Some
You.
To obtain the logical form, one must always consider the term "every time you"
to enter into a discussion." Therefore, the categorical statement will be: "Every time
"that you enter into a discussion are moments when you evade it." A
Proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence, and colloquial English should
to be studied to determine what this meaning is. Then we can place it
in a categorical form.

Students often take great pleasure in discovering puzzles.

when they occur as parlor games or as challenges in self-tests
improvement in popular journals. But when it comes to work of
class, they are usually not willing to look for additional problems.
So here are a few examples for which the student should for
add others; but probably not the one he is going to. However,
Can the student declare the meaning of the following sentences?

Only freshmen need to use the door

From the depths. The poor I always have with you.
with you.
Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain to build it.

When you understand what these sentences mean, you can easily put
in the correct categorical form, although clumsy. If you cannot place them
In categorical terms, you do not know what they mean.

Thus, all propositions are in the form of All, Not, Some, or Some are.
no. The simplest inference, then, must be an inference that has a
proposition for a premise and a proposition for a conclusion. With
certainly, very few inferences in common conversations are that simple; but the
students must learn about them because more complicated inferences are
built on this simple basis. The problem, therefore, is to discover
as many such inferences are not, and which of them are valid. Such a set
The inference is called immediate inference because there is no intermediate term.

"Medium term" will be defined a little later. At any rate

Immediate inferences consist of two propositions with two terms.
They cannot have three terms, as it is absurd to infer that some snakes are
poisonous because some poisons are minerals.

Now, if we want to test the validity of an inference, we must first know

What does thermal validity mean. We want no misunderstandings in the logic.
Estranho como isso pode parecer, ele é o melhor, em ordem a preparar para a
exact definition, to give an imprecise first definition of. So we say:
An inference is valid if the conclusion is true whenever the premises are.
they are.

Este imprecisos fi nição pontos no direito direção; mas como foi dito , é muito
bad. For example, it would declare the following obviously invalid nonsense to be valid:

George Washington was our first president; therefore, roses and apple trees.
they belong to the same botanical family. Certainly the conclusion is true,
As often as the premise, because they are both always true.
But one does not imply the other.

There is a second and more surprising reason why the definition is bad. The
The example we just gave consists of a true premise, a
true conclusion, but a wild inference. But what about false ones?
premises? Can they validly imply a true conclusion? One
false conclusion? Any conclusion in everything? Try this example: All
Presidents of the United States have been Roman Catholics. Obviously false.
Cardinal Cushing was a Roman Catholic. Obviously true. But not only
obviously true. This true conclusion also follows validly from
two false premises. (All presidents of the United States have been
Catholic Romans. Cardinal Cushing was a president of the United States.
How can this be? Can falsehood imply truth? It certainly can.
But although the poor definition can defend itself by saying that the conclusion, being

true, it is true as many times as the premises - for that it needs to be

truth only once to be true more times than the false premises -
this does not explain how we count the 'times' a premise or conclusion is
true. A true statement is always true. It is not true three
times and five false. Hence the poor definition must be changed, serving only to
show that there is some relation between the truth of the conclusion and the truth of the

premises.
When, however, we consider the forms of inference, the absurdities
They disappear. The correct definition of will be, An inference is valid whenever
The form of the conclusion is true each time the forms of the installations are.
He is now needed to show how often these forms are
truthful. To do this, we must consider how many ways
two terms can be related, whether they are dogs, liberal theologians, or
rose bushes. There are five possibilities. First, all can be in the same
time can be everything: it is, they are co-extensive, even if different
English words are used. Secondly, everything can be, but not everything.
Go serum. For example, all sweets are sweet, but not all sweet things.
They are sweet. In third place, some of the aums, but not all of them, can be.
and, at the same time, some of the b's, but not all, can be of type a. Some
books are interesting, but not all are; for example, logic books.
Furthermore, not all interesting things are books. In fourth place, everything of
it can be serum's, but not all of aum's. So, fifth, none
Two aum's sãob. No cat is a dog and, conversely.

These five relations between any two possible terms do not correspond to the
four categorical forms in a one-to-one relationship. But there is a
very defined relationship. The following diagrams, invented by
The mathematician Euler shows how many times a form can be true.

The student is now going to make an exact copy of this great work of art, to hang it up.
lie on your bed, and look at him in ecstasy every night. He must notice that
In two of these five, all a is true. In the only one, one is not true.
Some A is B true four times; and some is not B true three times.
An inference will be valid if the form of the conclusion is true every time that the
form of the premise for.

Under the circles, four lines were drawn and labeled A, E, I, O. These
letters are respectively for All, No, Some, and some is no. A (ab),
Everything that is a is b, is true twice. Some a is not b, is true three times.

Now, these four uppercase letters are not just arbitrary letters of
alphabet. They come from the Latin verbs Amo and Nego. The forms A and I are forms
Affirmative; forms E and O are negative forms.

We could now start counting the number of possible immediate inferences.

and test its validity. For example, I (ab), Some a is b, is true every time A
(ab) is true. I (ab) is true in the first four diagrams and, therefore,
It must be true in the first two. Therefore, A (ab) and I (ab) make a
valid inference. But despite of us, we could now proceed to test all the
immediate inferences, it can be quite useful to defend the legitimacy of the present
definition of validity against some opposing viewpoints. If this defense is
to become very complex, the student may skip the next ten paragraphs.

Many contemporary logicians say that there are four distinct types of
validity or implications. They argue that the words ... thusare
ambiguous. For example, a logician gives this list:

1. If all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal.
mortal.
If Mr. Preto is a bachelor, then Mrs. Preto is single.
3. When blue litmus paper is placed in acid, the litmus paper will
transform red.
4. If State loses the home game, then I will eat my hat.
Now, it may be that 'if... then' has several uses in English, and it may be that the
example four is not an implication. But it could be, still.
argumento seria: a perda de um jogo de regresso a casa é algo que me perturba
I am such a peculiar person that, when I am very disturbed, I eat.
my hat; therefore, etc. Or it could be understood as an eruption
forecast, similar in form to one about Hitler and an uncle monkey, explained more
afternoon in. The third example can be an enthymeme and when its omissions
chemicals are explained, it will also be a valid implication. In example two,
the fact that singles are synonyms does not make the example less
valid inference. Trivial without a doubt, but still valid. Of course, the example one
it is standard.

However, the author of these examples immediately states: 'Even a

a casual inspection of these four conditional statements reveals that they are of
"very different types." This is the problem: the inspection was too casual. This has.
leads to inventing more than one type of implication. He does not simply say that the words

“if... then” sometimes does not indicate any implication; instead, it

says: "The four conditional statements ... are different because each one asserts
a different type of implication.

Not only that: the author begins to introduce a fifth type. He says: 'Neither
all conditional statements in English I need to affirm one of the four
types of implication previously considered. Material implication constitutes
a fifth type," and he continues with Hitler and the monkey's uncle. He even gives the

correct interpretation of the example. But what he cannot see is that

implication and validity are identical in each argument.
This fifth type is what most contemporary logicians call 'implication'
material.” Mas então ele acrescenta: “Ao traduzir declarações condicionais em
our symbolism that treats them all as merely material for implications.
This is an admission that logic is that it does not need, in fact cannot use,
five types. One is enough. Another author, after saying a lot of the same
things, concludes, 'Brie fl y, materials implication works and works well.'

Another logic makes this a bit clearer. Examples one and five will be
enough. One: If the weather remains warm, there should be a picnic
próximo sábado. Cinco: Se qualquer coisa é um cavalo, então ele é um animal. O
first of these, he says, "there is a precedent that implies as a question
In fact! The particular consequent connected to it. There is nothing in the antecedent itself.

that necessarily implies the consequent." In proposition five "the

the consequence is guaranteed as directly involved in the meaning of the given
antecedent ... The term 'horse' includes the meaning of 'animal'.

Undoubtedly this is the case; but it does not provide any reason to list two or
four different types of valid implication. The meaning of the inference of
the word in English is very broad. It includes the craziest estimates. Many
people inferred that the next winter will be exceptionally cold because the
caterpillars or autumn is less accurate than normal, although this is an inference
psychological, it is not a valid implication, but it could be a valid implication
if the premise "Whenever the caterpillars are confused" were added
September, the following winter is harsh. "So is the little picnic Saturday.
One can say: We have already decided to go on a picnic next Saturday, if the
time permits. Therefore, if Saturday is clear and warm, what our should be
picnic. All of this is common English. It is not a big logical discovery.
of a new type of validity.

We therefore insist that an inference is valid if the form of the conclusion is

true every time the shapes of the installations are; and that this definition is su
sufficient for all logical ends.

Perhaps something should be added regarding the supposed absurd implication: If

Hitler is a genius military man, I am an uncle monkey, this is not really a
strange and of "type different from implication, like an argument that is an enthymeme

and it is perfectly valid. Expand English and become:. If Hitler is a genius

military, I am an uncle of a monkey, but I am not an uncle of a monkey, therefore, Hitler
he is not a military genius This is a form of the hypothetical syllogism called modus

tollens, after being explained, and it is perfectly valid. Of course, a person

using this type of argument
You can make false statements and historical errors, but logic is not history.
validity of an argument that does not guarantee the truth of any of its
propositions. It is valid if the formed conclusion is true every time.
Forms of installations are.

Most likely the confusion among these authors is due to the fact that they
are thinking in terms of the incorrect definition of validity, given above. They
they are thinking in terms of true and false propositions. All of this to
confusion disappears when we say: An inference is valid if the form of
The conclusion is true whenever the installations are.

We are now back to studying the forms themselves. It may surprise the student.
how much is to be learned about how an apparently simple
statement as Everything is b. The next thing, therefore, is to check what
It means to say that everyone is a firm affirmative proposition.

Does anyone have the certainty to say that an affirmative statement is a statement, and

A negative proposition is one that denies. Not that you see why it would be.
useless? Its flaw is that it defines a term by itself. In a definition, the
The term to be defined should not occur. How then can the statement be defined?
without using the word, can you give a synonym for it?

This can be done by distinguishing between a distributed term and a non-distributed one. A
Distributed term is a modified one by the adjective all or none. A term
undistributed is that which is not so modified. The whole and not are
often explicitly written in the proposition; but sometimes they are
hidden or implicit. It is clear " that the subject of the first form, the little
after the capital A, it is a distributed term. Looking at the second diagram, you will see
that no statement is made as a whole. Therefore, it is not distributed.
In the first diagram, a statement can be made about all the b: All the b
They are a. But to be distributed, it must be modified throughout all the
applicable diagrams. Therefore, the subject of A is distributed and its predicate is not.
It will also be noted that the predicate of I is not distributed. It is impossible to make a

statement about all those who remain in the first four diagrams.
Obviously, if the second diagram is not distributed, it cannot be.
distributed in each of the first four. Now, then, we have our definition:
An affirmative form is one that does not distribute its predicate.

The student can now easily guess that a negative form is one that
distribute your predicate. But seeing this in the diagrams isn't so easy. Of course,
since when a is not b
It precisely means that not b is a medium - there are cats and dogs, and not that the dogs are.

cats means the same thing - which is clear that both terms in E are
distributed. From an is a that it is possible to make a statement about everything
All beings are non-dogs.

But O's case is more difficult. The problem is that making a statement about
everything that will be true each of the three times that O (ob), Some one that
No, it's true. If some books are not interesting, you can make a
true statement about all interesting things? First, look at
these two diagrams. The third or last diagram is not necessary here, a
since the previous paragraph took care of him.

These two diagrams are numbers three and four of the set of five from Euler.
Here they were shaded so that the shaded part is the shaded part of a one.
do not be. In both diagrams there is something that is not b. Call this
"some a". So it can be seen that todobé is not some. Or more clearly,
everything is not shaded. Therefore, it is possible to make a statement about everything

b, from which it follows that O is a negative form. English examples are not
frequently found because there are some words in English for
correspond to none; but if we put our imagination back to
In the year 1860, we can use this: Some citizens of the United States are not
Northerners means that all Yankees are non-Southerners. The diagram would be:
Even if we use the current point of the United Kingdom, and they refuse to call.
Hawaii and Alaska want Yankee or the south, the same result is seen in this
slightly more complicated diagram.

Consequently, the predicate of O is always distributed and O is a negative form.

In addition to classifying categorical forms as affirmative and negative, they must

also to be given the cross-classification of universal and particular. A and E are
universal, because we define a universal form as one that distributes its
I and O are particular forms because they do not distribute their subjects.

The explanation of these terms may seem tedious. But the logic starts with the
what is simple and easy, and accumulates in many complexities.

This is mainly a chapter of The definitions - of definitions until we

to become familiar with the characteristics of simple categorical forms. By
this is the appropriate place, before counting the number of immediate inference and
determine which of them are valid, to explain three other characteristics of
A, E, I, e O. Illustrations can be taken from these other things; but
eventually it is the forms that interest us the most.

Some relationships are reflexive. A reflexive relationship is one that is

maintains between one of its objects and that object itself. For example, equality
In arithmetic, it is a reflexive relation because two is equal to two. In logic, the

implication is a reflective relationship because any proposition implies the

itself. The 'is less than' relationship is not reflexive because two is
less than two.

A symmetric relationship is one that, if it holds between two of its

objects a eb, also stays among the family. In the family, one "goes to a cousin".
a symmetric relationship, if John is Mary's cousin, then Mary is John's cousin.
The affiliation is not symmetrical because if John is Frederico's father, Fred is not his father.

of João. Now consider: "the brother of" is symmetric? Be the brother of b, eb

Does the brother necessarily have to be? Well, you found out! B can be her sister.
"is parallel to" and "is perpendicular to" are symmetric, but in time "is
"subsequent" is not symmetrical.

The relationship is transitory if, when he holds between two of his objects, aeb
, and also maintains entrebec, which contains as well entreumec. If the line
is parallel to line b, and line b is parallel to line c, line a is parallel to line c.
If moment x is subsequent to moment y, and moment y is subsequent to
momentoz, so the momentoxé is subsequent to momentoz. Now, if John is the
Mary's first cousin is James, and Mary is James's first cousin, John is the first.
Tiago's cousin? Or, still, your brother is, and he is the brother of, he is.

Does the brother dec necessarily? Be careful now.

Some relationships are not one of the three types. Some have two or even all of them.
three characteristics.

Yes, now the student has completed his genealogical studies, and knows
like many grandfathers that he and his cousin have, he can now return to formal,
logic.

The relationship of implication is not symmetric because it is seximplicay, that is, seyé

Truth every time is true, this does not guarantee that it is true all the time.
It is obvious. If, as we will see, Allaíb implies that something is, it does not follow

that if some books are interesting, all must be. So, the implication is not
is symmetric. We saw a little above that it is reflexive. It is also
transitory, for seximplicity, eyimplicaz, thenximplicaz. The transitivity
it becomes very important in the construction of the syllogism.

The relationship 'Everything is,' is reflective because everything is mine. It has to be.

Obviously, but be careful: the phrase business is business doesn't always hold.

means what it says. This usually means that obscure practices are
excusable in business. The term business in this sentence is misleading. Lewis
Carroll, the author of Alice in Wonderland, met a gourmand in a
from his poems, which defended his overeating by asserting that dinner is the
Dinner and tea is tea. Lewis Carroll lamented (well, perhaps that is not the most appropriate term)

literal to be used) the greedy when responding:

Why cease;
Let's your scarce knowledge
Say men are men
the geese are geese.

The three relationships explained now are not the only important ones.
for the categorical forms. There are four others, and we cannot go without them. The
four are contradiction , contrariety , subalternatione subcontracting .

As mentioned a few paragraphs ago, the student may be surprised by the

how complicated is a simple form like Allaisb.

Here are the definitions of fi, and they have already been portrayed by the lines.
drawn under Euler diagrams. It is actually a great work of art.
Two forms, or two propositions, are contradictory if they cannot both be true.
cannot both be false. Since the lines under A and O meet without overlapping, that
is, they exhaust all five possibilities, they are contradictories.

Two forms are contradictory, if they cannot both be true, but they can.
both being false The lines under E and A do not overlap, which means that they
they cannot both be true in any instance; and since they are not
exhaust all five possibilities, they can be false in one
a certain instance. In the case where some books are interesting, depicted
In the third diagram, both A and E are false. They are opposites.

Subalternation has two forms that can both be true and both can.
they are false. A and I are subalterns. E and O are subalterns. You can put
your finger on a diagram where both are true; and you can place your
finger in a diagram where both are false.

Subcontraries are forms that cannot both be false, but can both be true.
true. The e and I are subcontractors, as the two lines overlap each other.
to the others and exhaust the five diagrams.

This diagram is called the square of opposition.

The student must familiarize themselves with these construction relationships.

numerous examples After doing so. he can try to respond to

Next question. But, watching from outside, which is complicated.

Suppose that the debate team wants to destroy their opponents' argument.
To do this, you must prove your own argument. But what should that be?
argument? Let's also assume that as far as the subject goes
(although this is not always the case) that is just as easy to prove the
contradictory to the opponent's position, as it is to prove the opposite of
opponent position. Without further research, it is necessary in one case than in the other

Now, the question is, what gives to two, the contradictory or, on the contrary, the
majority of and effectively administer defeat?

This chapter has already sufficiently covered what should be said about each one of the
four forms separately At the beginning, the student could almost have guessed
much could be said, the people who have never studied logic do not
I think this. Because they are not aware and alert to all these possibilities,
they make the craziest argument mistakes. Even when they know
specifically that All Yankees are non-Americans does not prove that all
Americans are Yankees, they still make this mistake a lot less.
well-known subjects matters. You may not believe it, but this is
truth: In fifty years of university teaching, at least once by
Yes, and many times once a semester, some university students have
this gaffe was committed. Even a recent theological book contained the statement:
If a proposition is true, its inverse must also be true.
Forgive me if I do not give the author's name. He is a friend of mine; but
unfortunately he was never my student. I hope none of the students who
I will always be so irrational through this book.

Now it's time to consider categorical forms in combination.

 IMMEDIATE INFERENCE
CHAPTER 5

The simplest possible inference is one with a single premise. The

syllogisms have two premises; those with only one are called
immediate inferences. We must see how many are there, and which of them are valid and
how deceitful.

Since immediate inferences have only one premise, and of course one
conclusion, determining its number is somewhat like the problem of
permutations in mathematics Not exactly, however, for mathematics it is
more restricted than logic. If you were to give the permutations of two
numbers taken two at a time, and the numbers are two and three, the answer
it would be 2-3 and 3-2. If you list the permutations of four numbers taken two at a time.

In time it will not be twelve possibilities. Now, once there are four.
categorical forms, and immediate inference always have two, the problem is one
little how to take permutations of four numbers taken two at a time
time. But with numbers that do not list 2-2 and 3-3. In logic, besides AI,
OE, etc., we also list AA, EE. II, and OO - the diagonal descendant in
diagram. So there are not sixteen immediate inferences. The array is as follows:

AA EA I OA
A
AE EE IE OE

AI EI II HI

AO EO IO OO

Or, when reading these in length: Everything a is bimplica All one is b. Everything one is b

If a implies b, everything that is a implies that some a is b; and to complete a

first vertical column, All a is b implies that Some a is not b. When we insert the
Terms, as we generally need, it's better to write them:

A (ab) < A (ab)

A (ab) < E (ab)
A (ab) < I (ab)
A (ab) <B (ab)
That small sign between the premise and the conclusion, by which we symbolize.
the implication should look like the sign 'is less than' in arithmetic, Implication is
analogous to 'is less than'. This is clear from the fact that A (ab) is true twice
sometimes, and I (ab) is true four times. Two is less than four. But that is
just an analogy, since A (ab) implies A (ab), the conclusion not even
it is always more true than the premise. Another example is E (ab) implies E
(ab). In fact, every form implies itself. However, there are several analogies.
between arithmetic and logic, and the use of mathematical symbols will help to make the
most evident similarities. We should then use the signal multiplication and the plus.
signal.

Now the question is, how many of these sixteen implications are valid?
From what has already been said, the student should be able to point out those outside.
they are valid. They are not six of them.

The method is very simple. As an example, it should go down to the third.

column. The premise in the third column is I, it is true in Euler diagrams
one, two, three and four, but not five. The conclusion in the first line is A. It is
true only in Euler's diagrams one and two. Therefore, it is not entirely true
since I am true. The inference is invalid. The conclusion in the second line
It's E. It is only true in the fifth Euler diagram. Therefore, it is not true in
each of the first four diagrams. Invalid. The conclusion in the third line is
I. It is true in each of the first four diagrams. Valid. Well, of course.
what has to be, for if a proposition is true, it follows that this
The proposition is true. It may seem useless to say this, but the system
demand this. And if you still think it's pointless, just imagine what the logic would be
it's like, if he were not like this. So, finally, the conclusion of the last line is
O. O is true in diagrams three, four, and five. It is true, therefore, two
times when I am true. But this is not true in the diagrams one and
two, therefore the inference is invalid.

Let's pause for a moment on this last inference. Suppose that one of your
classmates may have told you: "Some members of the soccer team are
rotten sports.” You, a loyal student of the old and dear Siwash, would be
Inclined to infer that some of the players are not rotten sports? He can.
It is true that some are not; but you cannot validly infer that the
starting from the declared premise. Or, to use another example, suppose that a
secularist mocked, "I really found some honest Christians." He
wait for you to deduce that he found many that are not. In fact, he
wait for you to deduce that an honest Christian is very rare. Now, he can be
that honest Christians are very rare, but
under the circumstances you are justified in responding, "Your ad
You must find less obvious fallacies. Remember, some of them do not imply.
that some one is not b.

Now that the student has identified the six inferences that are valid and the ten that are
invalid, it may happen to him, if he is alert, that there are sixteen more
possibilities. The reason is that each premise can also have as a conclusion the
the same forms with their subjects and predicates exchanged. That is, the
Conclusion of A (ab), in column one, row one, can be A (ba). This makes it so that
A very different inference. Look at Euler diagrams again.

The premise is A (ab), true in diagrams one and two. But now the conclusion
A (ba), true in diagrams one and four. A (ba) is true, as
many times like A (ab), but that is not true every time an (ab) is. It is not
true in diagram one and in diagram two. Thus, A (ab) implies that A (ba) is
an invalid inference. If all Cubans speak Spanish, it does not follow that
not all Spanish speakers are Cubans. However, the batches of people
they make this mistake in examples that are not so obvious.

As an exercise, the student should now determine how many of this

second group of sixteen years are valid, and are found. To avoid the
the second group of sixteen," we will say, the second figure.
The definition is: The difference in the figure is a difference in the order of termination.

immediate inference, there are two figures. The only possible difference, when
there are only two propositions, that the subjects and predicates are either in the
same order or in reverse order. A (BA) implies A (BA) is just like very much
the first figure as A (ab) implies A (ab). There should not be more than one
In a premise of an argument, there will be more than two figures, as we will see later.

afternoon about.
But now go back to the second figure of immediate inference. There are
precisely four that are valid. See in which inferences the conclusion is
true every time that
the premise is. Here is an example. Take the last of the sixteen years, The (ab)
O (ba). O (ab) is true in diagrams three, four, and five. It is O (ba)
verdadeiro em estes três diagramas? O (ba) é verdadeiro nos diagramas cinco,
three and two, but not in the four diagram. Therefore, the inference in question is
Invalid. In English an example would be, Some Spanish-speaking people
they are not citizens of Cuba, therefore, some citizens of Cuba are not from
Spanish language people. This is invalid, so take this as
It is factually true that all Cubans can speak Spanish.

There are three ways to identify valid and invalid inferences. The first is
for example, like the ones that were given. Because the conditions of an example
are so clear and well known, we assume that other examples of the same
the standard will be as clear as the example is. Unfortunately, this is not always the

cases If all triangles are flat numbers of three sides, then all
three-sided numbers of the plane are triangles. This seems like a valid inference.
because both propositions are true. However, it is an accidental example.
Sometimes, A (ab) is true and A (ba) is true at the same time. But the
diagrams show that, although it is possible, it is not necessary. The use of
examples seem clear and persuasive, but in fact, it is deceptive like a
test.

The second method of determining validity is the method of diagrams.

This seems like a much better method. However, it is based on a
assumption that it may not be true. At least it is an assumption that must
to be demonstrated. The assumption is that the characteristics of pie charts
they are precisely the characteristics of logical forms. Now, it is not just
a possibility that this can be like this. However, it doesn't seem strange.
What circles and shapes have exactly the same relationship? Will it be
that he doesn't seem suspicious? Suppose you draw a triangle; in
next, you prove that the square on one of its sides is equal to the sum
the squares on the other two sides; you will infer that this is true for each
triangle, or will you recognize that what is true of the triangle you
it happened to draw is not true of some others? Diagrams are useful
for some purposes, but the two circles have exactly the same ones
relationships like two logical classes are really suspicious. Later, in
Another method will be explained. Until then, we should continue with Euler.
diagrams.
The thirty-two moods (individual cases) of immediate inference display
some other relationships that should be pointed out now. It has already been said that a
Reflective relationship is one that is maintained between an object and itself.
Thus, the forms A and I are reflexive. But while A is not simply
convertible, I am. That is to say, I (ab) and I (BA) have precisely the
same diagrams and are, therefore, equivalent. Hence we call
I am simply convertible. The same goes for E.A simple conversion.
consists of swapping the subject and the predicate of a proposition. This is a
valid process for E and I, but not for A and O.

But two more relationships require an additional complication first. In

diagrams had circular areas. Obviously, everything outside the circle was not.
Let's symbolize non-b with a prime signal, b '. The noble signal will contradict
everything he is a duck c h and t o , w h e t h e r a t e r m o r a p ropositi
o n . F o r e x a m p l e . Um ( um b ' it is a ystha t humble t h e class one
is included in the contradictory deb. And (ab ') means that no case is deaé
found in the contradictory deb. This last example gives us the definition of
obversion. The objection, when validly made, consists of replacing a
Forming in another way, contradicting the predicate of the first and changing the quality.

from the proposition. Thus, A (ab) becomes E (ab'). And I (ab) becomes O (ab').
Obversion is indispensable in logic, that's why it is by this method that the term.
is defined by the term All.

The second relationship is called contraposition. Contraposition consists

to contradict both subject and predicate and swap them. To contrapose A ( um
b),onewrit the and
sA ( b ' um ' ) . I n t h e c um s e o f A , t h i s i s l e g i t I m
a te,for all together
C u b um n s um r e from the Spanish language, so it's clear that
All non-Spanish speaking people are non-Castro. The student must now
to discover that the contraposition is legitimate for O as well, but not for E or I.
Consider the diagrams on the next page again.
In each of them is embedded. Therefore, it is true to say some.
it is not'. The diagrams become a bit complicated, for now
terms, all must be taken. In reducing English
arguments for symbolic forms, it is often necessary to use
these relationships, for the English argument can contain, say, four terms, that
they reduce to two, because four consists of two contradictory pairs.

Now try this example: the proposition 'Some Jews are Israelis' implies the
proposition "Some non-Israelis are gentiles"? Probably half of the
the group will err; and of those who receive the correct answer, two thirds will give a
wrong reason. Well, try again.
 THE DIAGRAMS OF SYLLOGISM
CHAPTER 6

The next step after immediate inference is syllogism. Immediate inference

there was a premise; the syllogism has two. Obviously, this is the next step. And
this is a step that is the most important cause of all the arguments in science,
religion, politics, history, and athletics, the largest proportion by far is syllogistic in
form

Some people in each of these fields devalue the syllogism claiming

that it teaches nothing new. The conclusion is already contained in the premises.

Of course the conclusion is contained in the premises; but the way these people
make their complaint depends on the misusage of the thermocontained. The conclusion is

sempre logicamente contida (nos humores válidos), mas nem sempre é contida
psychologically. That is, a person, combining two pieces of information that they know, can
derive a third proposition of which he had no prior knowledge.

Surely, all of you have heard of people who are a bit too clever.
that can put two and two together and come up with five. But many people are not.
smart enough to put two and two together and make four. Give them two
statements and this will take them some time to figure out what, if
anything, go ahead. In detective stories, Sherlock Holmes or Perry
Masons can have five; but in sober physics, the scientist always aims to obtain
precisely four. Remember Galileo and his thirty-two feet per second.
per second. Syllogisms are not merely useful; they are indispensable.

Galileo knew, from a previous argument, that the speed of a

freely falling body is proportional to the time of the fall. For an easy
mathematics deduction - and mathematics is nothing but a simplified form of
syllogistic reasoning - he concluded that a body would fall four times as
very much in two seconds as in one. He was then able to check the
last by an experiment and establish the law of bodies in free fall. He is
It is true that the laws of physics may not be formulated by logic alone; but
it is also true that without syllogistic reasoning no law of physics can
to be formulated.

The same is true when a minister preaches a sermon. Since sermons

they are not just the reading of a passage from Scripture, but an exposition of
a verse or chapter. the minister must - if he is to be biblical - deduce
conclusions based on various
verses used as premises. If these deductions are not syllogistic, the
A sermon cannot be biblical unless it is chaotic and by accident.

Currently, there is a large body of ministers and theologians who reject logic.
They are willing to use valid arguments for a few steps, but then
they say that faith restricts logic. In other words, if several verses of the
Bible (assuming that they are true even if these men say that
a large part of the Bible is false), if these verses validly imply a
conclusion, the conclusion can be false. This point of view and those that
to promulgate are irrational. Validity is the characteristic of an argument by
What conclusion must always be true whenever the premises are.
men say that the conclusion must be true, that is, the argument satisfies
the laws of logic, but still, it is false. It is true, but that is false.
Crazy, isn't it? Well, crazy or insane, in more polite language it is called
irrational.

The first thing to do now is to find out how many 'permutations' there are of
four items (the forms) taken three at a time. This is surprisingly
easy. There were six adolescent permutations two at a time. Each of these
sixteen can now have A, E, I, S added in succession. Hence they are not
sixty-four permutations of categorical forms taken three at a time.

The matrix would look like this:

UMA UMA
E E
AA EA and so on.
I I
O O

A A
E E
AE EE
I I
O O

A A UMA
E E
AI EI
I I
O O

UMA A
E E
AO EO
I I
O O
We must now figure in the terms. But first, a definition must be given.
A syllogism is an inference with two premises and three terms, the latter
arranged in such a way that one term of each premise is also in the conclusion, and
a term is in both installations, but not in the conclusion: in a way -

A (ab) A (bc) <A (ac).

But some definitions are necessary. The main term is the predicate of the
conclusion - here c. The shortest term is the subject of the conclusion - here. The means

"the term is the only one that occurs in both installations, but not in the conclusion. And,"

Moreover, the main premise is the one that contains the main term, and you
I wouldn't know, the minor premise is the only one that contains the term minor.

In immediate inference, the sixteen permutations became thirty-two.

inferences, because the terms could be organized in two orders.
Like many orders. That is, how many figures does syllogism have? If you go
make it a success and lose fashion, which will be difficult to come by
up with the right answer. But the appropriate method gives the answer, by the
Less, the first three quarters of responding quite easily. A
medium term can be the subject of the major premise and the predicate of the minor one -

first figure; or the middle term can be the predicate of both

premises - second film; or it can be the subject of both - third figure;
You can be the predicate of the major and the subject of the minor. So -

1. ba cb ca
2. ab cb ca
3. ba bc ca
4. ab bc ca

Now we have three terms, and they must figure out how to draw.
three circles that fit a syllogism. Or, the question can be formulated as
Can we draw diagrams that combine the main and minor premises?
We want a set of diagrams - three, six, or sixteen - that
completely portray the two installations, and then we should ask:
Is the conclusion true every time?

The first of the 256 syllogisms - the student has already multiplied the 64.

Permutations by four figures to obtain 256, doesn't it have? - the first

the array syllogism is:
 A (ba) A (cb) <A (ca)

By convention, we write the major premise first; but as far as

validity goes, one can put the second largest; in fact, in English, one can
state a premise, then the conclusion, and give the other premise last. But
by convention, in logic books, we start by writing the major premise
first.

The problem now is to get the two diagrams for A (BA), and somehow.
they include I in them. The answer is to impose the first diagram for A (cb) in both
the diagrams of A (ba); then impose the second diagram of A (cb) in
another set for A (ba).

Once they are coextensive in the diagram for the smallest premise, ceb
they must be made to the same extent in both diagrams of A (BA).

Now draw the set for A (ba) again:

It imports the second diagram of the minor premise:

it must be placed inside deb. The result is:

Is the syllogism valid? Examine each of the four combined diagrams and see
if in all cases All c is a. It is, and the syllogism is valid.

How many of the 256 syllogisms do you think are valid? I think. Then, do.
diagrams for everyone. This is a bit tedious, but not quite so exhausting
As you can assume at first. However, there is a catch at certain points.

One reason you do not have to call 256 sets of diagrams is that
A given pair of installations has eight conclusions.
The diagrams above had a (ca) as a conclusion. But E (ca), I (ca) and
They can also be tested with them. Look at the four diagrams and
Ask: Is (ca) true every time? Isn't I (ca) true each time? Yes. It is O
true every time? No.

But here is a little trick. The diagrams above can also test
four syllogisms in the fourth figure. Write A (ba) A (cb) < A (ac). Here it is
main term. Conventionally, we write the premises in such a way that the
the main premise is the first: A (cb) A (ba) <A (ac). Written this way you see
that the middle term is the predicate of the major and the subject of the minor. The premises are

the same as the first figure and, therefore, the first set of diagrams
it will work, but the conclusion is different. How these same premises also
they can have as conclusions E (ac), I (ac), and O (ac), we tested four others
syllogisms with the same diagrams.

Instead of remembering the four figures of SP, PP, SS, PS - that is, the middle term is the
subject of the major and predicate of the minor, the predicate of both, the topic of
both are the predicate of the main and the subject of the lesser - one can use a method
easier by drawing a triangle.

Primeiro, escreva os termos, apenas os termos, em uma coluna vertical.

Now draw lines, one at the top and another connecting the terms in the middle.

Join these angles and number them:

Before proceeding, make sure that

A (ba) A (cb) < A (ca)

A (xy) A (zx) < A (zy)
A (bc) A (ab) < A (ac)
A (ab) A (bc) < A (ac)

they are all the same identical syllogism.

At the beginning of this section, the four figures, what has already been said, were labeled as

three quarters of the correct answer. It is really the complete answer, but as the
students always ask a certain question, the answer must have another
quarter. The question is, can we not also reverse the terms in the conclusion and
get four more figures?

We can't. What happens is that the circles in the diagrams are given to di
letters are different, but the relationships between the circles remain unchanged.

Suppose we take the first figure, A (ba) A (cb) < A (ca), and change this
to read a (ba) a (cb) < a (ac). Once the facilities of these two
syllogisms are the same, the diagrams will be the same.
The conclusion of the first of such syllogisms is true in each of them.
four diagrams; the conclusion of the second is not true in all four.
But the present question is, is the second syllogism a fifth figure beyond the
original four? The change from A (ca) to A (ac) produces a fineness.
fiftieth

To find out, we must draw the diagrams for the fourth ordinary figure, the
saber, A (ab) A (bc) <A (ca).

If you look closely, you will find that each of the three circles in
each set of four is in the same relative positions as each of the
three in the other set, although they are not in the same order. The only
the visible difference is that the circles called the first four are
called in the second quarter. Or in English, the 'all the cars' that
were designated by a first were in the second case designated by
umc. There is no figure.

Obviously, as far as validity is concerned, it makes no difference.

I know how to label the circled rotula or x, buoy, cousin, as long as we do it
consistent form. Therefore, it doesn't make a difference to label a circle or a square. If

All Athenians are Greeks, we can label the Athenian circle instead of
Of course any other circle symbolizing the Athenians in the same
syllogisms must also be labeled. But we still have a smaller circle.
completely closed by a large.

It is now time for the student to test each of the 256 syllogisms.
In some cases, the same diagrams will work for more than eight states of
spirit. Because E and I are simply convertible diagrams for

E (ba) I (cb) <Em)

E (ab) I (cb) < E (ca)
E (ab) I (bc) < E (ca)
E (ba) I (bc) < E (ca)

they are all the same. And it is clear that these diagrams are also sufficient when the
The conclusion is A (ca), I (ca) or O (ca). Now, count how many modes this set
You can test the diagrams. It is a relief to know that you don't need to
256 different sets of diagrams to test the 256 modes of the syllogism.

As the student continues with his tests, he will soon come across a hitch.
The general rule is: Draw a complete set for the major premise as many
Sometimes there are individual diagrams for the minor premise. If the major premise
for A, you must draw two diagrams and if the minor premise is O, you must
draw the two diagrams three times. Then you impose the first diagram
about the first defined for A; the second diagram or in the second One
set; and it is the third in the third. It will not be six diagrams composed of three.
circles each.

Here is set A.
Now impose the first of the set O:

This means that you should overlap one circle onto another circle in A.
set. But meanwhile, this is easily done in the first diagram,

it's more complicated the second time. There are three different ways:

to do it because the circle, while overlapping, can absorb everything

you are just a part of one, or none. Now, since the validity requires
a conclusion to be true in
In all possibilities, these extra possibilities must be extracted.
So, when you come to test any figure of OI <X, you will have four (I) times
three (O), that is, twelve rather complicated drawings.

In fact, you usually don't need to draw all twelve simply

to test the validity. Most likely the third drawing will be one where
the conclusion is false. This is enough to show that the humor is invalid. In
Meanwhile, for practice and understanding, it's good to draw all twelve. Worse:
Premises II < X require sixteen vicious circles.

Now, if you have all been good little boys and girls and have been doing the
your work, I can keep it a secret. There are not 24 valid moods
The 232 is invalid. You see that there are many other ways to argue.
incorrectly than correctly. It also happens that each figure has six
valid states of mind: 6 x 4 = 24. They are:

1 2 3 4
AAA AEE AAI AAI
AAI AEO AII AEE
AI AOO EAO AEO

EAE EAE EIO EAO

EAO EAO IAI EIO
EIO EIO OAO IAI

Thus, if you come to an argument about politics or breakfast

foods, and your opponent uses a syllogism other than one of these twenty and
four, to tell him that he needs a logic course. Of course, you have to
remember the twenty-four. There are two easy ways to remember: by a poem or
by rules. Here is the poem. Starting with the name of a beautiful girl,
this will touch your heart, unless you are a beautiful girl. And beyond
So, all the students are in love with Latina, aren't they?

Barbara, Celarent, Darii, and Ferio of the first figure;

Cesare, Camestres, Festino, Baroko, second.
Tertia: Darapti, Disamis, Dati, Felapton,
Bokardo, Ferison, has; Wednesday
insuperable Bramantip, Camenes, Dimaris,
Fesapo, Fresison.
Wow! This surpasses anything that Virgil or Longfellow wrote. It's almost as good
How much the Jabberwocky by Lewis Carroll. But it needs some explanation.
With your excellent efficiency for the purpose in Latin you will recognize that prior,
second, third, and fourth refer to the four figures. Now, you observe that
Does each of the names have three vowels? AAA, EAE, AII, DEI, and therefore in which the

extremity, God in the room.

It is more difficult to observe, unless someone points out, that the initials of the digits

in two, three, and four - B, C, D, F - are all contained in line one. Bramantip
refers to Barbara and Camenes to Celarent. The meaning of the present is that it
Barbara is valid, so is Bramantip, and if Celarent, so is Camenes. As
lowercase letters, which is, some of them, show the reason why.

The lowercase letters on the first line mean nothing, no matter what.
line they occur. S means simple conversion. If you simply
convert the form that precedes the Cesare, change it from E (ab) to E (ba)
you have Celarent. If then, Celarent is valid, and if E is simply
convertible, he follows that Cesare must be valid.

In Camestres there are two. Others mean nothing. It means that after
to make the two simple conversions, it is necessary to write the second premise
first, to put the premise in the conventional way of having the major premise
first.

The third and fourth figures have some names containing ump. This means
conversion by chance. It was not explained earlier. E and I are simply
convertible. A and O are not. But A (ab) implies I (ba); and that seems like a conversion.
Although the categorical form is different, the subject and the predicate have been swapped.

This is now called accidental deconversion. Thus, if you apply the opem
Felapton, you will get Ferio. Felapton is the third number: E (ba) A (bc) <o (ca).
Change a (bc) to I (bc) and you have the first figure Ferio.

Later, you may ask why he is allowed to change an I.

For an A. Shouldn't it be the opposite: Change one by one? The answer is
that the poem works from back to front. That is, we do not prove Ferio by
Felapton, but Felapton by Ferio. If, by chance, any syllogism changes from one
premise of A for me, you cannot be sure to have a valid mood. But if
humor has a premise, so when you change it to an A, you are
Of course, to have a valid sense of humor. Therefore, if Ferio is valid, Felapton must be.

A letter is now left and will give you a kick. K means reductio ad impossibile. .
The idea is that you start by assuming a certain theorem or syllogism. The
From this, we deduce by valid inference a conclusion that you know to be false.
This shows that
Something in your original assumption was wrong. Now take Baroko (second
figure

A (ab) O (cb) <O (ca).

If Baroko is invalid (our assumption), it follows that there must be at least

a diagram where O (ca) is false while both premises are true
truthful. Or, since the falsity of O (ca) implies the truth of A
(CA), it should be at least a diagram, where A (AB) O (CB) and A (CA)
They are all true. Try to draw such a diagram!

The reason why you cannot build such a diagram is the following: If A (ab) and A
(ca) they are both true, so A (cb) must be true, because Barbara is

A (ab) A (ca) <A (cb).

But if A (cb) must be true, O (cb) cannot be true, because they are
contradictory. But in our original syllogism, Baroko, O (cb) is true.
Now, to argue the same thing backward: If O (cb) is
true, A (cb) cannot be true. But we put in A (cb) in the
assumption that Baroko was invalid, This led us to contradict our
original premise. There isn't even a diagram in which O (ca) is false. Hence
Baroque is valid.

Now, this may have seemed complicated the first time you read it. But
read it again. Draw the diagram. And think!

Perhaps this makes it clearer:

Baroque: A (ab) O (cb) < O

Assume: It is
once false. If so,
A (ca) is once
truth.
But A (ab) A (ca) implies A (cb);
E A (ch) cannot be true.

Because The (cb) is true.

But if A (ab) is true as
It is assumed that A (ca) must be
false
Because if A (CB) is false, then A (ab) or one (ca) must
be false. Therefore, O (ca) must always be true.

Now work outside Bocardo in the same way; and do enough exercises to
to be sure to have all the mess in mind.
There is a small flaw in this poem. There are only nineteen names. In
Meanwhile, the diagrams validated twenty-four moods. Perhaps these omissions
they can be pushed to the poetic license. The real reason, however, is that
the poet thought that anyone would realize that when a conclusion is
universal, the corresponding particular is also implied. Therefore, Barbara
AAI and AAA mean.

Now try these arguments in English:

Everyone who wears a tuxedo is civilized, and since no zombie wears one.
smokings, no zombie is civilized.

The study of logic interferes with the pleasures of football, and anything that
interfira should be removed from the curriculum. Therefore, one of the things that should be
abolished is the logic.

Some animals are not felines and, since all cats are felines, some
animals are cats.

Some Greeks are not Athenians, but all Greeks speak Greek. Therefore,
Some people who speak Greek are not Athenians.
 THE SYLLOGISM DEDUCTION AND RULES
CHAPTER 7

Drawing diagrams is not the only way to determine validity. Nor is it

best way, as it depends on the questionable assumption that the properties of
circles are precisely the properties of logical classes. Similarly,
the theorems of geometry are not proved by the triangles that are extracted, but
by the deductive arguments that they poorly illustrate. Keep in mind that a
geometric line cannot be drawn on a blackboard, because the lines do not
they have width and the chalk does it. To answer what approximate chalk stripes a
Dimensional lines are a type of ignoratio elenchi; and more obviously the general conic.

they really can't be approximated.

If we now discard the artwork, we must rely on deduction of

theorems of axioms. The axioms themselves are never deduced because they are the

starting points of all deduction. Axioms are assumed. Regarding the

syllogism, there is more than one way to follow this geometric method. To
make things easy that should start with immediate inference and then,
take the syllogism.

What is necessary turns outward to be three axioms and two principles of

operation. The first principle is: If in any valid mood of
the antecedent or premise and the conclusion can be interchanged and contested, what
the inference result is valid.

Axiom 1 is A (ab) < A

(ab). Axiom 2 is A (ab)
I (ab). Axiom 3 is I (ab)
I (ba).

Applying a principle to these three axioms, we obtain three theorems:

Theorem 1: 0 (ab) < 0

(ab) Theorem 2: E (ab) <
0 (ab) Theorem 3: E (ba)
< E (ab).

Obviously, if the first principle is applied to these theorems, the axioms

will appear again. Therefore, another principle is needed to deduce the
four remaining states of mind. The principle itself makes use of two expressions
what needs to be defined.
The second principle is: in any valid implication, if its premise is strengthened
it can be said that it is darkened or cut off - or if its conclusion is
weakened - whitened or like a candy - a valid humor will result.

Darkened, preserved, lightened, and sweetened are included to show

what he does is not different, the English word is used. It is the definition that
Some students get confused because they try to understand.
strengthened and weakened in ordinary English sense. but of course, logics
They have neither strong muscles nor weak legs. If we use decapitated and
sugar-coated, the students will undoubtedly be confused; but at least they will
to know that they are confused, and that it is better. But since we have the terms

strengthening and weakening are the usual terms that should leave the
pickles to pickle on the vine.

Hence the definition: the premise of a valid humor is a forced form of it.
consequently, and the conclusion is a form of weakness of your premise.

For example, in axiom 1, A (ab) is a reinforced form of A (ab); and A (ab) is

a weakened form of A (ab). This is of no help But in Axiom 2, A
(ab) is a reinforced form of I (ab), and I (ab) is a weakened form of A.
(ab). No axiom 3, note that not only is I (ba) a weakened form of I (ab),
but also, how the axiom 3 can be written I (ba) < I (ab), I (ba) is a form
strengthened by I (ab) Now we can deduce the remaining four humors.

Theorem 4, A (ab) < 1 (BA) by weakening the conclusion of axiom 2; and that
weaken it through Axiom 3.

Theorem 5, E (ba) <0 (ab) strengthening the antecedent of Theorem 2. The form
strengthened from E (ab) is found in Theorem 3.

Theorem 6, I (ab) < I (ab), for axiom 3 gives us the right to reinforce its
own premise or weaken its own conclusion.

The theorem 7, E (ab) < E (ab) is obtained in a manner similar to what was I (ab) <
I (ab). Or we can also derive Theorem 7 by applying the principle of one to
Theorem 6.

Now, these results are not very surprising. The importance of the method
is seen more clearly in the deduction of twenty-two syllogisms from two axioms.
For practice, the student can deduce the invalid moods from immediate inference.
Four axioms will be necessary and the two principles are slightly different.
Principle three is, in any case, invalid, if the premise and the conclusion are
intercambiados e contradisse, o resultado vai ser um inválido humor. Princípio
four, to watch closely, is, in any invalid mood, if the premise of being
weakened or the conclusion reinforced, the result will be an invalid humor.
Now, the axioms are:

4.A (ab) that do not imply A (ba).

5.A (ab) that do not imply O (ba).
6.A (ab) that does not imply 0 (ab).
7.E (ab) does not imply I (ab).

From these, the student must deduce eighteen invalid states of mind.

With these exercises completed, the deduction of the syllogism is for the child to play.

The principles are the same - except that, now that there are two
premises, any one can be used. Use the other one and you start one
another theorem. From two axioms you must obtain twenty-two theorems. The
axioms

Axiom 1: A (ba) A (cb) < A (ca)

Axiom 2: E (ba) A (cb) < E (ca).

To begin with, note that Axiom 1 contradicts and swaps each premise in
succession, gives us

A0 O e
O (ca) A (cb) <O (ba).

What are these? And what are their poetic names? In this deduction, one must be
aware that the theorems do not result from the conventional way. In other words, the
the terms of the conclusion are not always m; the smaller term is not always b; and the

the main premise is not always the first. To determine the figure by
triangular diagram, the conventional order should be used.

Let us now operate a little on the axiom

two Celarent. E (ba) A (cb) < E (ca).

By contradicting and swapping the conclusion with the major premise, we can obtain I

A < I.
By contradicting and interchanging the minor of Celarent and its conclusion, we obtain E.

(ba) I (ca) < O (cb).

Now, by weakening the conclusion of Celarent, we obtain three results because E

(ca) implies E (ac), O (ca) and O (ac):

E (ba) A (cb) < E (ac)

E (ba) A (cb) < O (ca)
E (ba) A (cb) <O (ac).

Aqui nós ter deduzido cinco teoremas de Celarent; mas unicamente dois de eles
I have the longest term, and two of them do not have a medium term.
Put it in conventional form, they look like this:

I (ba) A (bc) <I (ca)

Disamis, third figure.

E (ab) I (cb) <O (ca)

Festino, second figure.

A (ab) E (bc) <E (ca)

Camenes, fourth figure.

E (ba) A (cb) <O (ca)

Celarent weakened, first figure.

A (ab) E (bc) <O (ca)

Camenes weakened, fourth figure.

From I (ca) A (cb) < I (BA), the first theorem deduced from Celarent, by
contradicting and switching, it's not that I (bis) and (ba) <O (CB) and E (ba) A (cb) <E

Naturally, after a theorem is obtained, one can deduce other from it.
syllogisms. The problem now is to deduce twenty-two modes of the two
axioms. Be careful: you may and probably will get repetitions. You
there must be twenty-two different moods. each one to determine its figure. If
If you find yourself going around in circles, check the poem,
find out what humor you lost, and then see what can be deduced
from.

Now, whenever a person is studying a discussion about anything

subject, he can draw some diagrams if he has pencil and paper at hand; or he
he may rely on his memory of the poem; or he may use an easier method
now to be explained.
There are five rules, easily remembered, by which the validity of any
Syllogistic argument can be tested almost instantly. These five rules
can be taken as axioms, replacing the deductive method given above.
Or they can be considered as a complete induction of the twenty-four.
humors have already proved in some other form. In any case, here they are:

Two negative installations that do not imply a conclusion.

2. Two affirmative statements that do not imply a negative conclusion.
3. An affirmative and negative premise that does not imply an affirmative conclusion
conclusion.
Two installations in both of which the middle term is not distributed that do not
it implies a conclusion.
5.Two installations in which a certain term is not distributed that do not
it involves a conclusion in which a deadline is distributed.

Many contemporary logicians give six rules. They replace something different for
the rule two is to preface the whole, saying: 'A standard form of syllogism
categorical valid must contain exactly three terms...", But this is not a
rule by which to test the validity of a syllogism. It is a rule, in fact
a part of a definition, by which to distinguish a syllogism (valid or
invalid) of an argument that is not a syllogism in any way. When
rules for testing syllogistic validity are given, it is assumed that the
Tested arguments are syllogisms.

Now the student must want to know whether or not to follow the five rules.
work. To be professional, one must be sure that these rules are
necessary and sufficient. The rules are sufficient if their application leaves
untouched all twenty-four valid syllogisms and, at the same time, show
the nullity of each of the other two hundred and thirty-two. The student may find
tedious to check all two hundred and fifty-six; but each check is
perfectly easy.

However, it cannot be a set of ten rules, also sufficient. For

For example, one of these rules can be, two particular premises do not
they imply a conclusion. But in such a case, it would not always be two rules
applicable. Try to construct a syllogism to which this rule about
certain facilities apply, without any others applying. You will
to think that if you evade a rule, you caught yourself by the other. This means
that although six or ten rules may be sufficient, they are more than
sufficient. Some of them are not necessary.
We want to show that each of the five rules is necessary. What
does it mean to be necessary? Well, it means that you cannot be without it. And
If you can't do without this, there must be at least one invalid syllogism.
for which the given rule
only applies. If every time you find the rule that applies, you also
discovered that the rule of five applies, one or the other would be unnecessary. If the

the first rule is necessary, there must be at least one invalid syllogism that
Do not exemplify rules two, three, four, or five. Only rule one applies.
Such a syllogism is

E (ba) E (cb) <E (ca), or again, E (ba) E (cb) <I (ca).

Let's see now if rule five is necessary. The example cannot have two
negative premises, as this would bring rule one. If there are two premises
affirmatives, there must be an affirmative conclusion, otherwise the second rule
it would apply. But if the conclusion is affirmative, we have:

A (ba) A (cb) <I (ca) valid.

A (ab) A (cb) <I (ca); rule 4 if
apply. A (ab) A (bc) <A (ca);
rule 5 alone.

They are not other syllogisms for which those who govern five only applies. But this one

the example is in itself sufficient to show that the rule five is necessary.

The student must now try to show that rules four and three are necessary.
Finally, he can test his intelligence on rule two. Rule two is a
slippery character. But this can be done.

These rules are easily memorized and easily applied. If the student
forget everything you learned from this book, he should at least remember
from these five rules. For practice, he can try to find a syllogism that
governs two and five, but no other, apply; and one for which it governs three and
four, but not another, Apply; and other combinations of rules. You can do it.
find a combination of three rules that, together, do not apply to any
Syllogism? It's so much fun to juggle with these things.

This chapter should not end without giving the student some exercises to
discover. The chapter itself was entirely formal; but a previous chapter
pointed out some English difficulties. Now, using English, diagrams,
deductions, poetry and rules, the student must engage in a combat of
intelligence. If you join a debate team, you can't expect
any consideration of your opponents. The following exercises are less
more difficult than debates in real life. The question is: is the argument valid or
No? In both cases, show why.
 Exercises

There must be a performance at the opera tonight, because the outside lights are on.
accusations, and they are always in when a performance is to be given.

The Browns don't eat when they have guests at home. They are eating.
outside tonight, so they should not have guests from the house.

All those who are not members or guests of the members are
excluded. Therefore, all senators are members or guests of the members,
since none of those included is a senator. (Note: If this seems like an argument
with four terms, and thus not a syllogism, calling the mind that 'excluded' and
"included" are contradictory.)

The Wrights must have company, for their blinds are down, and they
always call the blinds when they have company.

5. Only seafood is rich in iodine. Game fish is not the only one.
seafood. Therefore, not all iodine-rich things are a hunting problem.

Not everyone who was convicted was guilty, for some the innocent were
poor, being condemned is never to be rich.

A judge sentenced a murderer to be executed at noon on any day.

two five subsequent days, without the criminal knowing what day until the morning
on the chosen day. Produce a valid argument to determine on which day the
criminal was executed.
 HISTORICAL OBSERVATIONS
CHAPTER 8

After a very technical and tedious way, the student deserves a co

pause. This will take the form of a brief history of logic.

Since man is the rational creation of the rational God, for the not only does He make Genesis

1:27 says that God created man in His image, and that after forming the body
from Adam of the earth, God breathed his own spirit into him, so that Adam
became one that lives soul, but 1 Corinthians 11:7 makes this even clearer.
for saying that man is the image and glory of God - since then, man is
different from animals by its intellect, which is by its innate nature that it thinks
logically. Of course, after the introduction of sin, every man makes mistakes. The
called noetic and 'ECTS of Adam's sin consist mainly, or
perhaps entirely, from logical errors. However, when an error is called to
your attention, he usually recognizes the mistake. That's long before someone tried
to systematize logic, men naturally thought logically.

The deliberate first attempt to reduce this type of thinking in a way

Systematic studies seem to have occurred during Plato's time. In Plato
dialogueProtagoras, Protagoras makes the point, in response to an objection, that
he had said "All the brave are fearless," while Socrates had
twisted it as if he had said: 'All the fearless are brave.'

Parenthetically, do not be too disturbed by Socrates making a mistake.

It was, on the contrary, Protagoras who misunderstood what Socrates was saying.
The entire dialogue is very clever. It opens with Protagoras stating and
Socrates denying that virtue can be taught; and that ends with Socrates.
to assert and Protagoras to deny that virtue can be taught, if a student wants
In practice in the analysis of arguments, Protagoras will make you laugh a lot about it. But
Here we are dealing with the unique beginning of the history of logic.

Let us first note that Protagoras is a bit confused about this.

point. He seems proud that he knows this. This would indicate that the principle
only recently was it discovered and, therefore, it was a source of pride. In
next, in second place, since it is Protagoras, and not Socrates, who makes
from the point, it can be inferred that the discovery was not made by the historical Socrates,
and certainly not by Plato, but,
although new, they were disseminated through the educated circles of the day. The

Plato himself and his disciples, although they advanced geometry to the point
registering the regular solids in the sphere, it seems that no attention was paid
the logical systematics.

Aristotle did; and with such detail that to this day they refer to
Aristotelian logic. It is not in fact another reason, that is to say, that it began

around 1850 and making great advances in the 20th century, there is also a
non-Aristotelian logic.

Aristotle wrote several short treatises on logic, sometimes more grammatical.

than logical, and added two longer books, the Prior Analytics and the
Posterior Analytics. These, especially the latter, do not diverge to the
grammar, but they rise noble in the celestial kingdom of metaphysics. In general, the
Aristotle's works on logic were not organized very well.
systematic. The material is somewhat like the first attempts at geometry
before Euclid organized everything. However, these works, translated into
Latin kept alive and stimulated philosophical interest through the Age
the darkness and the beginning of the medieval period, when little more was known.

It was not a single, unique, remarkable change that the Middle Ages made to logic.

Aristotelian. Aristotle had a syllogism with three figures; the Middle Ages
added a quarter. The reason is somewhat as follows. An intermediate term,
Aristotle thought it had to be greater in extension than greater and lesser,
smaller in extent than these two, or intermediate between them. He never
It was considered that the middle term or any term could be identical to the other.
This formal possibility did not fit into his very empirical scheme.
For him, there are only three possibilities, which we can diagram.
thus:
But if instead of this realistic approach, a more formal approach is taken,
and consider the possible positions of the middle ground, it will not be, as we have already seen,

four figures.

The next development occurred around the year 1850. Perhaps it was DeMorgan.
, which by its intelligent Paradox Budget stimulated George Boole to
build a symbolic logic. Boole introduced plus and minus signs and made the
logic seems more mathematical. The minus sign was discarded, but zero, one,
multiplication and addition continue. A remarkable result of this symbolic logic,
discovered in the late 19th century, reinforced by Bertrand Russell in the 20th century,
and is almost universally accepted today, is the denial of subalternation and the restriction of

syllogism at nineteen years, instead of twenty-four valid moods.

for example, according to this view, if all Athenians are Greeks and if all
the Greeks are Europeans, it does not follow that the Athenians in the fifth wing - some

Athenians - be Europeans. Or, more simply, if all Athenians are

Greeks, it does not follow that those in Athens, fifth wing, are Greeks.

Although this strange result is anything but universally accepted today, the
the present author finds an awful view in modernity to avoid all
ambiguities of common English, and in order to solve some logical puzzles
heads that he made not think in any other soluble way, Bertrand Russell
they proposed a completely symbolic artificial language. While its
The proposed idea was rejected even by its immediate disciple, Ludwig.
Wittgenstein, his symbolism for logic has to become standard. He reduced the
The sentence "All Athenians are Greeks", not only for A (ab), but more
for (a <b), that is, class A is included in class B. If this definition is accepted,
a modern symbolic logic continues without a coupling. Follow its conclusions
necessarily. But these conclusions are so restrictive that this is desirable
To find the best definition, Russell's implications were necessary.
its definition was not. For example, a better definition of Allaisbé

(a < b) [(b < a) + (a < b ')' (b '< a)].2

Strange as this formula may seem, it is more in accordance with ordinary.

Short definition of English by Russell. Its advantage is that it preserves the

subalternation. The important question is, which definition should choose us?
Now, from all the important
2 There is a technical difficulty in this formula regarding zero. It is similar to the
difficulties encountered in the axiomatization of arithmetic.
Arguments (perhaps with the exception of pure mathematics) are expressed in
common English, a systematization of logic must remain as close to
English as much as possible. If a symbolic definition of Everything leads far from

serious argumentation becomes just a matter of curiosity. Any

a person who enjoys playing can postulate any assumption that pleases them and
deduce the consequences for the content of his heart. But he cannot
insist that others limit their serious arguments to your constraints
artificial. According to this, Russell's short definition, namely, (a <b),
although it seems so simple at first glance, it proves to be unsatisfactory in its
implications. The longer definition, although troublesome, is better. Or, perhaps,
Can someone come up with a less strange formula that still works?
better. At any rate, Russell cannot force anyone to agree with the
your starting point. This topic of defining the starting point is important.

It should be noted that there is no logical compulsion to accept one definition over another.

another. Russell conjured his definition outdoors. The longer formula can
coming from cloudy air. But since definitions are not deductions, they only
can be judged by their consequences; and the consequences of logic
modern symbolic is a restricted subsystem of logic. Aristotelian logic has
Nineteen syllogisms that modern logic has, but it also has five more.
Certainly, if possible, he is better off having a less restrictive system.
than just a subset.

Now, regardless of what the suggested formula is, it doesn't seem to be good.
reason (or saying that (a <b) does not correctly interpret the English phrase 'Everything is a')

b. When we say 'toda a eb', it means 'All things are ab.' All the
Athenians are Greeks, which means that every Athenian is Greek. Now, osaebsão
variables. They can mean Greeks, rainbows, or typewriters. They
they can also mean zero or one. One is the class that contains all the
zero is the class that contains nothing. Now, since zero is a class,
a class extensively used in modern logic, and as one is the class that
includes all classes, it follows that (the <i), that is, zero is contained in one.
Now, try to proceed carefully, since in Russell's view (a <b) defines 'Alla
isb”, then in Russell's View (the <i) means “Everything of zero is one.” But he does not

you can say this. When we say, in English, that 'All dogs are animals',
we want to say that each dog is an animal. Thus, if we say with Russell that
Everything from zero is one, which would mean that all the zeros, each class that contains
nothing, it is a one, a class that contains all classes. or, to make it even
but clearer, since zero does not mean just an empty or null class, but
also a false proposition, (0 <i) would say, All false statements are
true. Let this be true that
zero is included in a: As zero is a class and, as one is the class that
contains all classes, (the <i) must be true. But this is not the definition
Of everything. Zero is included in one, but it is false to say, 'all zero is one of them.' Hence

Russell's definition of Everyone is defective, and its completely valid.

deductions of defective gift definition have nothing to do with everyone,
Some, or subordination.

Most modern logic books do not analyze Russell's work.

definition. Instead of fixing your attention on the formula as a translation
of English word of everything, they try to explain the peculiar results by
a discussion of 'imported existentialism.' They say that 'everyone is a member'

If it does not assert the existence of any one; but 'Someaisb' asserts
the existence of at least one. Thus, since it is not an existential
factor in I (ab), and none in A (AB), and since a valid inference does not
there may be a factor in the conclusion that was absent from the premises, A (ab) < I

(ab) must be invalid. But if we insist, these modern logicians must

to recognize that 'existential import' is a common phrase (although not
colloquial English; and therefore, what wants to force their arguments must
to depend on symbolism Talk about its existential importance, therefore, it is.
Irrelevant.

Furthermore, ordinary English, or common logic, has no room for the

existential import. One of the previous chapters here said that the
Forms were called categorical forms for no good reason. The
the reason, although poor, is that the forms have something to do with predicates or
categories. But categorical syllogisms are not 'categorical' in the sense of not being
hypothetical. The so-called categorical syllogisms are indeed hypothetical.
Unfortunately, the term 'hypothetical syllogism' has been used to designate a
is a form of argument that is somewhat different from the syllogisms of the last chapter. What they

It will be explained later on.

However, the categorical syllogisms - those from the last chapter - are hypothetical in
the sense that bare logic does not affirm the truth of a premise. If we say:
All Athenians are Greeks; therefore, some Athenians, those who are in the
fifth wing, they are Greeks”, and even more obviously if we say: “Everyone
Grunts are boojums; therefore, some boojums are snarks,” the logic as such
makes no assertion about the existence of Greeks or brands. This is a
a question of history or biology, but not of logic.
To be more precise, instead of saying: "All ossnarks are boojums; therefore,
some are 'a logical inference is better expressed as' if all the
“insects are boojums”, etc. But if the insects live in Athens or Corinth it is a
question that must be left for
geography or fairy tales. Repeat for emphasis: it's not a question that only the
logic can decide. Logic, by itself, does not assert the existence or non-existence
of anything. It seems, therefore, that we can dispense with the import.
existential and preserve the validity of subalternation.

Although he is above the usual level of college achievement, still, to avoid

that these historical observations being very brief, we can add that the
the theme 'Quanti fi cação' provides no answer to the previous defense of
subalternation.

An author states that there are "types of arguments for the criteria of validity
[previously explained in your book and in the present one] that do not apply.
Your example is the old one:

All humans are

mortals. Socrates is
human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

So the author continues: "If we applied the methods to this argument

previously introduced evaluation, we symbolize it as

S
E
N
H
O
R
A
∴ H.

But in this notation it seems to be invalid.

Well then. This notation must be wrong. Furthermore, this is not a type of
an argument for which Aristotelian methods are inapplicable. Like logic
alone does not determine the number of objects in a class, the class a in A (ab)
it can be a single object. Socrates is in a class by himself. Thus,

All men
they are deadly. All
Socrates is a
man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
And this is Barbara.

But contemporary logic thinks that singular propositions are something

entirely different from universal propositions, and that, therefore, cannot be
treated by Aristotelian methods. To remedy this alleged defect, the theory of
How many complicated formulas do you invent. To say the least, this
the expenditure of ingenuity is unnecessary. When we talk about a class
that has only one member, we are talking about this whole class. So,
A so-called singular proposition is simply a common universal.
 OTHER FORMS OF ARGUMENT
CHAPTER 9

If the immediate inference has one premise, and the syllogism has two, there is also
others that have three or more. They are called sorites. As a matter of
fact, they are not systemically important, because they are just a series of
condensed syllogisms nailed together. An example of this is A (ab) A (hc)
A (cd) A (de) < A (ae).

This is divided into:

A (ab) A (bc) < A (ac);

A (ac) A (cd) < A (announcement);
A (ad) A (de) < A (ae).

Although this kind of thing generates little logical interest, it can be used.
to write excellent detective stories. First, let us use
some illustrations by the author of Alice in Wonderland. Lewis Carroll,
whose real name was Lutwidge Dodgson, was a mathematician and liked to
puzzles. He built many sorites, leaving his conclusions not
expressed. The reader was supposedly the figure - them out. Here are some.

Babies are illogical

No one is disregarded who can.
manage a crocodile Illogical people are
despised.

What is the conclusion? Note that the logic is found in premises 1 and 3. Thus,
they can be connected in such a way as to read:

All illogical people are

despised. All babies are
illogical.
Thus, all babies are neglected.

Note that the next disregard happens in the present conclusion and in the second.

premise. Thus, no one is disregarded who can manage a crocodile.

All babies are disregarded.
Therefore, no baby can manage a crocodile.
The first syllogism is Barbara; and the second is Celarent. Now let's try one.
with four premises:

The only food items that my doctor allows me are such that
they are not very rich.
Nothing that agrees with me is suitable for dinner.
Wedding cake is always very rich.
4.My doctor allows me all food articles that are suitable for the
dinner.

To solve this and other similar ones, it is necessary to discover intermediate terms.
that occur in two premises. It is necessary, then, to find a term that occurs
in just one premise and another term that occurs in just one premise.
These last two will form the conclusion, and the middle terms will unite the
premises. The two that occur, but since they are (1) food that
agree with me, and (2) wedding cake. As soon as it starts.

The entire wedding cake is rich.

No allowed food is rich. [Therefore, no wedding cake is
allowed.
4. All permitted foods are suitable for dinner. [Therefore, none
wedding cake is suitable for the Supper.
Everything that agrees with me is suitable.
Conclusion: No wedding cake
agree with me.

The first syllogism, with premises one and three, is Cesare. The second syllogism,
using the first conclusion as a premise, it is Celarent. The third syllogism,
using obversion on the second premise, it is Camestres.

With these explanations, the student should be able to discover the next by themselves.

even

All my children are thin.

2, none of my children are healthy if they don't exercise.
All gluttons, who are my children, are fat.
4.No daughter of mine takes any exercise.

Here is the recipe for a successful detective story. Before you start
in writing, build a sorites, whose premise is a clue, so that all
together, six or eight, necessarily identify the murderer. Mix the
installations in some random order. Then, write a chapter about
each one. Of course you mix in several irrelevant details. That is, write a
chapter in which premise three is clearly stated somewhere, and another
chapter for the runway number, and so on. Very few of your
readers can join them, and you can earn a million from your best seller.
There are some rules, not useless rules, for sorites:

1. If the conclusion is affirmative, all the premises must also be.

affirmatives.
If the conclusion is negative, then one and only one premise is negative.
3. If the conclusion is universal, all the premises must be as well.
4. If the conclusion is particular, then no more than one premise can be
particular.

The next type of argument is called hypothetical syllogism, namely,

x implies
yx is
true
Isand it is true.

This form is called a constructive hypothetical syllogism, or in our lovely

Latin, modus ponens. There is also a modus tollens or a syllogism.
hypothetical destructive

x implies
yy is false
∴ x is false.

A small consideration will show that there are two corresponding fallacies.
First, affirming the consequent; second, denying the antecedent:

(1)
x implies
yy is
true
∴ x is true.

(2)
x implies
yx is false
∴ and is false.

No student today remembers Prime Minister Neville's return.

Chamberlain from his fateful meeting with Adolf Hitler. He was carrying
an umbrella as it used to be done. Suppose we now discuss:

Chamberlain always carries an umbrella when

it's raining. (That is, if it's raining, Chamberlain carries
an umbrella.)
Chamberlain is carrying an umbrella. Therefore, it is raining.
Anyone who knew Chamberlain, or perhaps the time in London,
Or whoever knows logic will know that this is an invalid inference.

Or someone could argue

If the carburetor fails, the engine

die. The engine has died.
Therefore, I need to rebuild the carburetor.

Even an automobile mechanic knows the logic when it comes to

carburetors. Affirming the consequent is a fallacy.

In religion and politics, people often fall for these fallacies.

usually because they know and use facilities not included in the argument.
Suppose someone quotes Romans 10:9, 'If you confess with your mouth
the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised him up from
of the dead, you will be saved," After quoting this verse the person continues,"the
Apostle Paul, or John Jones, was certainly saved; therefore, he did this
confession and believed in the resurrection.” More simply, Mr. X is
except; therefore, he must have believed in it. Our friend's argument
devoted is fallacious. He has made a mistake in logic. What happened is that the
our friend is convinced of other parts of the Bible that no one can be
except I believe that God raised Christ from the dead. But this verse,
Everyone by themselves, no, don’t say that. He says: If you believe, you will be
saved. But as far as this lonely verse is concerned, which is like the
carburetor. If the carburetor fails, the car stops; but starting from the car of
stop, one cannot conclude that the carburetor is kaput.

A valid argument would be: "Unless you repent, all of you

they will also perish." Repentance is a sine qua non condition for salvation.
You cannot be saved without repenting. The argument would be: 'If you are saved, '
você se arrependeu". Por contradição e intercâmbio, torna-se "Se você não se
"You regretted, you were not saved." But even with this verse you cannot
It is valid to say: 'If you repent, you will be saved.' The verse says:
The lack of regret results in misfortune. It does not say, regret results in
non-disgrace. If this is true, some other verses should be used as
premises.

To return to Hitler and not to Chamberlain, but to Churchill, consider this:

 The Germans can win on land in Russia, France, Africa, but if the
the British navy remains intact, they will not be able to dictate peace.
Therefore, if they earn so much on land and at sea, they will be able to
to dictate peace.

A slightly more complex form of the hypothetical syllogism is the syllogism.

disjunctive hypothetical, namely,

x+y
x is false
IsAnd it's true.

This requires an explanation of the plus sign, which symbolizes disjunction. A

The English word is ambiguous. It has three distinct meanings. In Latin, there was
one word separated for each meaning, but we have only one.

I hear an animal walking through the kitchen. It must be a dog or a cat.

Obviously, it cannot be both. In Latin, this sense was expressed by

automaton

(2) Its shape was like a sphere or a ball. Here the word comumball.
explain the sphere of the more technical word. Spinoza, a pantheist philosopher, used the

phrase "God or nature". He meant that the words God and nature
should be understood as synonyms. Latin was Deus sive natura.

Suppose you are sitting next to a man on a plane or bus. He

talks about baseball and clearly knows the rules better than you. You say
to himself: "This man is a referee or a very dedicated baseball fan.
Of course he can be both things. The Latin word is evil.

The problem now is this: You can logically use only one of these three, and still
to express the other two when necessary? The answer is that the third meaning
It will work. In fact, some logics use the letter to indicate disjunction, such as (av
b): umoubou, of course, both. It carried a bad symbol. In the syllogism,
when we combine two premises, we write A (ba) A (cb). This is
multiplication. The cards mean that it is true and it is true. Or, ab
it means things that are apples and brown. Multiplication in logic is conjunction.
Likewise, addition in logic is disjunction. The symbol (a + b) means,
querumoub.
There are several cases where multiplication and logical conjunction are analogous;
and in the same way with logical disjunction and addition. Examples, with their translations

below them, are

a (b + c) = ab + ac

I want both to be true or in essence.

both true. ai = a
What is so much and something, is one.

ao = o
O que éume nada, não é nada.

a+i=i
What is one or something is something.

a+o=a
What is one or nothing, is one.

To show the relationship between logic and mathematics, therefore, it is better for
use the plus sign that linguistics has used.

Now, after some English examples of hypothetical disjunctive syllogisms,

that should return to another more interesting symbolism.

Due to known circumstances, you can assert these two premises:

Florence has a new dress or she went to the party.

Florence won't go to the party.

From these propositions you can infer

validly: Florence won a

new dress.

But now suppose:

Florence has a new dress or she went to the

party. She got a new dress.
Therefore, she did not go to the party.

If the word had been taken in the Latin sense of 'deaut', this would have been
valid. But as long as they have decided to use it in the sense of it,
argument is invalid.
Sometimes English deceives us. Suppose someone argues:

Jones is in Texas or he is in Paris.

Jones is in Paris.
Therefore, he is not in Texas.

This seems valid. If Jones took the " from Dallas and flew to France, he
I could not be in Texas. But the argument is that not specifying Paris,
France. It is not also Paris, in northeast Texas, as well as in
Kentucky, and some other states.

The rule is: the negation of the smallest premise of one of the large disjuncts.
involves the truth of the other disjuncts. The assertion of one of the disjuncts implies
nothing about the other.

Possibly the most interesting of all forms of argumentation, although

not for a symbolic logician, it's the dilemma. A dilemma is an argument in the form:

(x < y) (z < w) (x + z) < (y + w).

These factors can be manipulated around some. For example,

by contradicting and swapping the conclusion and the third premise, we can obtain (x <
y) (z < w) (y + w) ' <(x + z)'.

Similarly, we will be eliminated:

(x <y) (z <w) (y '+ w') <(x '+ 2').

As usual, the plus sign, indicating disjunction, is not the Latin 'sive', but
Well. It means that you are true or both. One must be true;
both can be. But (y + w)' is different from (y' + w'). The first one says that
the disjunction is false, that is, both must be false. The second means that a
or the other is false and both can be false. Building an example in English is a
a little difficult, at least difficult enough to show how much the symbolism
it's clearer than English.

First of all, (y + w)' can mean, It is false that George Washington

he was a Roman Catholic and Kennedy was Protestant. This denial is really
true because Washington was not Catholic and Kennedy was not Protestant; this
é, (y 'w').

Secondly, (' + w') can mean, any Cleveland is not in

Iowa or Kalamazoo is not in Michigan. But that does not mean (y'w ')
As above did. He does not mean, Cleveland is not in Iowa and
Kalamazoo is not in Michigan, for the first of these is true and
the second is false. The example means (yw) ', that is, it is false that Cleveland is in
Iowa and Kalamazoo are in Michigan.

The dilemma is not stated as axioms. It can be derived from more

simple arguments. Here is the derivation: Suppose

(x < y) < (y < x).

This is a contradiction and exchange. Now multiply both sides by

same factor:

(x < y) (x < z) < (y < x) (x < 2).

Due to the law of transitivity, the conclusion can be condensed to (y ' < z):

(x < y) (x' < Z) < (y' < Z).

Now again multiply both sides by

same factor of: (x <y) (x '<z) (z <w) <(y' <z) (z

<w).

Condensing the conclusion again by transitivity,

we have : (x <y) (x '<z) (x <w) < (y' <w).

But (y '<w) = (y. + W).

E (x '<z) = (x + z).

In order to

(x < y) (z < w) (x + z) < (y + w).

As at,y,z are variables, any meanings in English can be

replaced, as long as, of course, they are consistently replaced. The concept
In English, substituting the first factor must be identical to the third premise.
and so on.

Now, the most spectacular form of the dilemma arises when x and z are contradictory.
e y e w are identical. The first example to be given will be the complete standard
the form, and the reworks will come later.
If a dog is the best pet for a boy, then a cat is the
best pet for a girl, and if the child is by the door
Whether a boy or a girl, the child should get either a cat or a dog.
It's not very spectacular, is it?

But throw in some negatives and we have:

If this man were wise, he would not speak irreverently of the Scripture in a tone of
joking; and if he were good, he wouldn't take it seriously; therefore, he is not wise
you are not good.

Or both, of course; for 'ouével', and it means one or the other or both.

Now, try this familiar argument, one that has been used in many
situations, since it was first recorded:

Stay away from these men and leave them alone; for if this plan or this work is
of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it, for
that you are not found to fight against God.

First, try to put this argument in symbolic form to prevent mine from yours.
validity. Then, test the facilities to see if they are acceptable. The
an argument can be valid even if the premises are false. For example,
suppose that the Roman Catholics were massacring fifty thousand Huguenots
On the eve of St. Bartholomew, someone came to Henry of Navarre and said: No
send your army to protect the Huguenots, for if the massacre is the work
of the men, who come and go for nothing...etc.

While Gamaliel's advice saved the Christians from some immediate danger.
persecution, it is strange that many Christians have thought of it wisely.

Here is another philosophical argument where you can sharpen your intelligence:
if the world was created, an infinite time must have passed before the creation; and if
the world was not created, an infinite time must have passed before the moment
present; but an infinite time cannot pass; therefore, the world was not
neither created nor uncreated.

But at the student's level it is this: if a student likes to learn, he does not need to
stimulus; if he doesn't like to learn, a stimulus will be of no use; therefore, the
instructor should not apply stimulation.
Now, finally, the reworks, which happen to be ancient Greek, is it
story of Corax (the Greek name means Mrs. Raven) and Tisias. Corax was a
famous lawyer and Tisias became his student. The enrollment was organized in
following condition: If after graduation Tisias won her first case in
court, he should pay Corax a certain amount of money; but if Tisias
if he lost his first case, there would be no charge. After graduation, Tisias
he refused to practice the law. He did not have a first case. But Corax was not
stupid He sued Tisius in court, and thus Tisius involuntarily had
Your cases first pe before Judge Corax argued: Your honor, I do not not
It matters how you decide this case, for if you rule in my favor I must
get my money at the end of the court; on the other hand, if you decide on
Tísias' favor, he must have won his first case, and by the terms of the contract.
that he must pay me my fee.

Now, Tisias was not an idiot either. He had learned his lessons well, so
He addressed the judge: Your Honor, I do not care how you decide this
In case you decide in my favor, I should not have to pay by order of
tribunal. But if you rule in favor of Corax, I must have lost my
first case, and by the terms of the contract, I do not have to pay.

The judge's decision was very clear. .

While you wait to find someone to translate this untranslatable Greek

Pun for you, analyze the two arguments in your own country. You
You can also consult a lawyer, but lawyers are qualified to take
all the fun outside of him.

There are (among others) two possible mistakes that a person can make when using
a dilemma. The first is nothing new. The formula assumes that the first two
premises are valid inferences. If one is not, the dilemma fails. This was the mistake of
Gamaliel. He had argued, if it is of men, it will come to nothing.
This does not follow. In some cases, the wrong actions of men are thwarted.
in a short time; in other cases in a longer time. Hitler, for example,
ended up being defeated. However, many people died. Chamberlain
should have resisted the takeover of Czechoslovakia, or France should have
avoided the rearmament of Saar. Hitler was indeed defeated; but the results
from your evil program were nothing. Therefore, one must be sure that
The first two premises are valid.
Another example is the following: If Calvin's doctrines are scriptural, they
they no longer need to be published, as the Scriptures are already public; if, in
meanwhile, they are not biblical, they should not be published, as they would be, in this
case, false;
either they are bookkeeping or not, and in both cases they should not be
published.

The second and perhaps most frequent mistake, perhaps also the hardest to detect,
It has to do with the third premise. It is a disjunction. One must ensure certainty.
that it is a complete disjunction; that is, it is necessary to be sure that there is no
third possibility.

Sometimes the logical are literary and imagine a dilemma like a bull. The bull
tilts his head and runs towards you with his horns. Then the brilliant toreador
pass between the horns, avoiding being impaled on one of the two. It's better, in the

meanwhile, to convince the bulls and the reviewers of literary imagination. The thought
of course avoid this misleading language by using phrases like complete disjunction or
incomplete disjunction.

An idiotic and artificial example, with no literary flavor whatsoever would be: if I vote in the

Democratic ticket, I will encourage war and inflation; if I vote Republican,

I encourage depression and unemployment; but should I vote for the Democrats or the ...

republicans, that is why I am forced to encourage war or unemployment.

Although in the United States third parties are almost uniformly useless, their
my existence makes this dilemma flawed. Speaking of which, until we are
thanks for voting whether we like it or not, we can simply refuse to go
to the polls. This also refutes the dilemma, and may be more politically effective in
that the third parties.

Students may find the following example equally artificial and almost as
stupid, but within the range of your interests. The faculty should not
offer prizes or high grades to students, as good students do not need them
of these stimuli, and poor students are allergic to any and all stimuli.

A disjunction not expressed in this dilemma is: the students are good or bad. But

many students are in the middle and are susceptible to stimulation and able to
improve.

The last section of this chapter will now focus on the relationship between the
conjunction and disjunction, and a relation between any of these and implication.
Symbolically this is this:
(x + y) = (x'y ')' = (x '<y).

This short line of three factors requires a paragraph or two in English. This is
why symbolism is so useful. Several paragraphs can be expressed in one
short line. And, clarox,y, and ezsão are not unambiguous like many English words
times are.

Here, the first two factors of symbolism mean that, if one or the other
It must be true, both cannot be false. If we write this:

(xy) ' = (x' + y ')

we could say, the negation of a conjunction is the disjunction of its two terms
negated separately. Or the negation of a disjunction is the conjunction of its
two terms negated separately, because if you deny quexouyé true,
You are stating that both are false:

(x + y)' = (x'y')'

Next, since a disjunction states that at least one of its

part is true, the falsehood of one part implies the truth of the other:

(x + y) = (x '<y) = (y'

This way, we have this

(x + y) = (x ' <

(x'y') '.

Now, first try some easy exercises. Transform the disjunction 'The student
"is he brilliant or does he have luck" into an implication. Transform this conjunction into

a disjunction: "The student is both stupid and lazy." Now,

point out an example that fits in your own school.

But finally do your best with the following well-known verse. Express.
this as a disjunction, conjunction, and implication:

There is no end to the making of many books, and much study is wearisome to the flesh.

A student can almost do this if he relies solely on English.

the present writer has had students who produce a translation that is the
contradictory precise of the biblical verse, and I still think that both mean the
the same thing. The symbolism can
it doesn't seem easy at first glance; it may have to hyphenate negative terms,
It will certainly not be negative propositions; but the symbolism is a lot.
easier than ordinary English. A simple b' or (a '<b)' is easier for
track through an argument deque 'it is false that books are not infinite
It implies that studying is tiring. Is that really what the verse means or is it...
a wrong translation?
 TRUTH TABLES
CHAPTER 10

Among scholars, there is some difference of opinion regarding the position.

truth tables in logic. They can be considered basic,
that all other formulas are derived; or they can be considered as
useful summaries, like Euler diagrams, for easy solutions to problems
Complicated When the university student starts graduate school, they can
like this debate, but here the real tables will simply be a
easy method to untangle complexities.

The source of all truth tables lies in the simple fact that all
a proposition is true or false. And the simplest truth table is:

p p'

T F

F T

What it means is that when p is true, q is false, and when p is false, q is.
true. It will be a surprise how such an obvious triviality can unravel.
almost uncontrollable complexities in English.

Two other simple truth tables represent, first, the conjunction;

second disjunction:

p q why

T T T

T F F

F T F

F F F

The first two columns represent all possible combinations of two

propositions that are to be true or false. That is, in the first
tantop combination
they are true in the second combination, the 'or' is true and the 'and' is false. the third

The column shows whether the conjunction is true or not in the four instances.
When columns one and two show T, it is true; when in the part
inferior, p and q are both false, then pq is false. Note also that the
the conjunction pqtambém is also false in lines two and three. Naturally! The combination

It cannot be true unless they are individually true. This

it's so easy, it seems to be losing space to point. The next one is just
so easy.

p q p+q

T T T

T F T

F T T

F F F
The disjunction p+q is true in any case where at least one of p or q is true; and,

Therefore, it can be false only in line four, where both are false.

Another easy truth table concerns implication:

p q p<q

T T T

T F F

F T T

F F T

The first line says: When both are true, p < q is valid.
The second line is, when it is true it is false, because it does not imply. The lines

three and four indicate two more cases of validity.

Of course, when we talk about 'peq', it refers to categorical.

propositions, and the rule still stands that the conclusion can contain none
the term is no longer in place. It is invalid to discuss, since two is a
same number (T), Washington was
our first president (T), at least this can only be valid in a
complete Hegelianism with which we have nothing to do here.

Now let's try a slightly complicated problem in chemistry. First, the

English argument:

The chemical compound contains hydrogen or silicon, but not both. It has lithium.
or not hydrogen. If it contains silicon, it must also contain lithium. And if it contains
lithium, which also contains hydrogen. What does this x contain and what does it not?

Note that there are three chemicals involved, l, h, es. We must

first determine all possible combinations of del, h, es, in relation to
your being contained, that is, true or false. Three elements, each with two
3
values mean 2 or eight possibilities. These are established in the three
first columns of the table below. It is easy to construct such columns, no matter
how many elements exist If it is 24just divide the first column in half
and place F in each of the eight lower squares.
Next, divide the second column into four, the third column into two, and the fourth
the column will alternate between A's and F's. The problem you are working on has only

three elements, and therefore, eight lines.

I h s h + (hs) ' l+ s l
s h' <1 <h
T T T T F T T T

T T F T T T T T

T F T T T T T F

T F F F T T T F

F T T T F F F T

F T F T T F T T

F F T T T T F T

F F F F T T T T

The first sentence of the problem stated in English was a compound sentence.
e, portanto, eram duas proposições. Estes dois são representados nas colunas
four and five. Observe the first line of the tables The three elements are everything
truth, which is, everything contained
in chemistry compound. For this condition (h + s) is true and (hs)' is false.
The last one is false because in line one a compound does not contain Hothhes.
second English sentence (the third proposition), that is, it has, whether of lithium or
no hydrogen, is represented in column six. This condition is met
it is false in lines five and six and is true in the
lines seven and eight. The student can now easily understand under what conditions
(s < l) is true and under what conditions (l < h) is true. These are the
columns seven and eight.

These are all the possibilities. But what are the realities of the problem?
inglês? Isso é perguntar, em quais linhas as colunas quatro a oito inclusive são
true?

The answer is only line two. Only line two adjusts all the conditions of
English problem. Therefore, the chemical compound contains lithium and hydrogen, but
no silicon. It's not easy chemistry!

Now, let's try another problem in English.

Tom is not good in history or in science. Either he is good at logic or

bad in history If he is good at science, he is good at logic. If he is good at
logic, he is good at history. What do these four premises imply: Tom is
good at something? In what?

Oops! This is another problem in English, but it is precisely the same problem.
logical. Instead of hydrogen, we have history; instead of silicon, we have science; and
instead of lithium, we have logic.

Here is another example, but the student must build the table for themselves.

Either D. L. Moody was a successful evangelist or Billy Sunday was a failure.

If Billy Sunday was not a failure, then Billy Graham is. Or D. L. Moody was not.
a failure or Billy Graham is not. If Billy Sunday was a failure, then Billy
Graham is not.

Here is an 'example of this. Either the birds are singing or the baby
is crying. If the baby is not crying, then the wind is blowing. Or the
birds are not singing or the wind is not blowing. Are the birds singing?
Is the baby crying? Is the wind blowing? The first three columns are always
the same. Since the second condition of the problem contains a negative, we are going to
insert a fifth column to avoid confusion. the student can insert another such
column for the negative in the third and fourth columns, if he wishes.
 a b c a+ b' <c um + b < c
b c' '
T T T T F T F F

T T F T F T T T

T F T T T T F T

T F F T T F T T

F T T T F T T F

F T F T F T T T

F F T F T T T T

F F F F T F T T

After checking the table to see that the editor made typographical errors that the
the reviewers did not catch it, the student will notice that lines two and six, and those

Only, they represent the conditions of the problem. Now you should look back.
for the first three columns and find what is true in each case. From the
Line two says that the birds sing and line six says that they are not, no.
we can say nothing about the birds. But notice that the baby is crying.
twice. Note also that the wind is not blowing on lines two and six.
So this is the solution to the problem.
 THE DEDUCTION OF THE SYLLOGISM

CHAPTER 11

In the chapter on the syllogism, Barbara and Celarent were treated as axioms and
the other twenty-two were theorems deduced from these two. But it is not
it is necessary to use Barbara and Celarent as axioms. They can also be
theorems deduced from even simpler assumptions.

The trick is to develop Barbara from the law of transitivity. We

we assume (a < b) (b < c)
(a < c). Of course, I could write this (x < y) (y < z) < (x < z); or like (b
<a) (a <c) < (b <c). Estas não são três suposições. Eles são únicos, só que os
terms are different. It doesn't matter if we say that 'the class cats are
included in the class of mammals; the mammals of the class are included in
animals of the class; therefore, the cat class is included in the animal class "; or
Athenians are included among the Greeks; Greeks are included in the
Europeans and, therefore, the Athenians of the class are included in those of the class.

Europeans

With this principle in mind, it is allowed to write the right to

transitivity in six different ways:

(1) (c <b) (b <a) <(c <a).

Now since this procedure will take up some space and will be a
a little boring, he will save printer ink if he simply omits the
signs of inclusion and write our formulas as follows:

(1) cb ba < ca
(2) ab bc < ac
(3) bc (ba ')' <(ca ')

Note that this third line comes, by contradiction and exchange, from bc ca ' < ba',
what is in itself an evident form of transitivity:

(4) (a'b)' cb < (a'c)'

(5) ba (bc ')' < (ac ')'
(6) (c'b) 'ab <(c'a)'.
The derivation of the syllogism from the law of transitivity expressed these six ways,
It can be boring, but with one exception, it is very easily followed.

First, multiply both sides of lines one and two.

Secondly, multiply both sides of the lines
one, three and four. In third place, the same for the
lines one five and six.
Fourth the same for lines one, four, and five. But now attach to
antecedent here the factors (ba ')' and (c'b) '.'

Now, add all four of these together as follows:

I.cb ba ab bc < ca ac
II.cb ba bc (ba ')' (a'b) ' cb < ca (ca') ' (a'c)'
III.cb ba ba (bc ')' (c'b) ' ab < ca (ac') ' (c'a)'
IV.cb ba (a'b) ' cb ba (bc') ' (ba') ' (c'b)' < ca (ac) ' (ac') .

These are the four expressions that should be added. As the sum of
The background would be a long line, we will add the conclusions first:

ca ca + ca (ca ')' (a'c) '+ ca (ac') '(c'a)' + ca (a'c) '(ac') .

Note that this occurs in each of the four factors and, therefore, may

be taken outside: ca [AC + (ca ')' (A'C) ' + (ac ')'(C'A)' + (A'C ) '(ac') ']

Now look at the last two parentheses, the last two factors at the end
of the supports, Note that they, (A'C)' (ac '), are the same as the previous two,
'(ac ')'(c 'uma)'. The (ac ')') looks identical; the other two are identical as well.
because by contradiction and exchange (a'c) = (c'a) '. Hence it can be discarded
the last two factors in brackets because it is of no use to say it
the same thing twice in a syllogism that does not have three installations, two
of which all dogs are animals and all non-animals are non-
dogs. Once is enough.

Now, observe for the same reason that the two intermediate parentheses are
redundant because they, (ac ')' (c'a) '= (ca') '(a'c)'. That is,

(ac ')' = (ca ')' e

(ca)' = (a'c)'

Therefore, the addition of the conclusions in the four implications, numbered 1, II, III, IV,
decreases the

100
(c <a) [(a <c) + (c <a ')' (a '<c)'].

And this is the definition, as it has already been given, of A (ca), the conclusion of Barbara.

If you now add the four antecedents, the result will be the product of the ones of
definitions fi of A (BA) and A (cb). Remember that implication IV had two
factors included (multiplied) in its antecedent. The justification for this
the trick is this: Sexy <z, then xypqr <z. Op, q, r may be unnecessary, but
your insertion does not affect the validity of the implication. Therefore, the premises of

Bárbara is more than enough to imply your conclusion. Thus, Bárbara is

a deduction from the law of transitivity, and another twenty-two years can come as
explained previously. this logical way is simplified by deducing more
conclusions of fewer axioms.

It is certain that almost all contemporary logicians will reject our symbolization.
from A (for), but it became clear that its definition does not express the English meaning of

All dogs are animals. But a deeper study is at a level

taller than this book.

In conclusion, the student should remember for the rest of their life that if they are

logically, he will never be wrong - unless he starts with false premises. A

Logic does not guarantee the truth of the premises, but without logic, no progress is possible.

possible.

101
 God Postscript eLogic
When thinking of God, Calvinists almost immediately repeat the Catechism.
They say: "God is an infinite, eternal, and unchanging spirit." Perhaps not.
let's stop to clarify our ideas of spirit, but let's hurry for the
attributes of 'wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.' But pause:
Spirit, Wisdom, Truth. Psalm 31:5 addresses God as 'O Lord'
God of truth. John 17:3 says: "This is eternal life, that they may know you
meet, the only true God... "1 John 5:6 says: "the Spirit is the truth."
Verses like these indicate that God is a rational and thinking being whose
thought displays the structure of Aristotelian logic.

If no one objects to Aristotelian logic in this connection and, presumably,

he does not want to replace this with symbolic Russellian boolean logic
let him ask and answer if it is true for God that, if all the dogs
Do they have teeth, do some spaniel dogs have teeth? Not the ones that compare to this.

"merely human logic" with divine logic means that for God all
Dogs can have teeth while spaniels do not? In the same way, with the
arithmetic 'merely human': two plus two equals four for man, but
Is it eleven for God? Since Bernard had already suspected Abelard, who has been a
brand of pity in some sectors to denigrate "mere human reason"; and in
At the current moment, neo-orthodox existentialist authors object to the inference of
"straight line" and insist that faith must "restrain" logic. Thus, they not only
they refuse to make logic an axiom, but reserve the right to repudiate it.
In opposition to the last view, the following argument will continue to insist on
necessity of logic; axiomatic because logic must be, will be necessary
spell out in greater detail the meaning of the revelation of the Scriptures.

Now, since in the present verbal context revelation is a revelation of

God, the discussion will begin with the relationship between God and logic. Then it will come to

relationship between logic and Scripture. And finally, the discussion will revolve around logic in

man.

Logic and God

It would be better to start by drawing attention to some of the characteristics

what the Scriptures attribute to God. There is nothing surprising involved in
to emphasize that God is omniscient. This is a common place in Christian theology.
But, besides that, God is eternally omniscient. He has not learned His
102
knowledge. And since God exists by Himself, independent of everything else,
indeed the Creator of everything else, he

103
he himself must be the source of his own knowledge. This important point
there was a story.

At the beginning of Christianity, Philo, the Jewish scholar from Alexandria, made a

adjustment in Platonic philosophy to bring it into harmony with theology of

Old Testament. Plato based his system on three original principles and
independents: the World of Ideas, the Demiurge and the chaotic space. Although
the three were equally eternal and independent from one another, the chaotic way
Demiurge space for this visible world by using ideas as his
model. Hence in Plato, the world of ideas is not uniquely independent of, but
even in a higher sense, to the creator of heaven and earth.
He is morally obligated, and in fact he claims goodwill for the ideas.
of justice, man, equality, and number.

Philo, however, says, "God has been classified according to the one and the
unit; or rather, even the unit has been classified according to
Oh a God, for all the numbers, like time, is younger than the cosmos,
while God is older than the cosmos and its creator.

This means that God is the source and determinant of all truth. Christians
in general, even uneducated Christians understand that water, milk,
alcohol and gasoline freeze at different temperatures because God created them.
Thus, God could have created an intoxicating fluid freezing at zero,
Fahrenheit and that he could have done the cow freezing product in
quarenta anos. Mas ele decidiu o contrário. Portanto atrás 7the ato de criação
it is not an eternal decree. It was God's eternal purpose to have such
liquids, and therefore, we can say that the peculiarities of nature
they were determined before it was of any nature.

In the same way, in all other varieties of truth, God must be

considered sovereign. It is your decree that makes one proposition true and another
false. If the proposition is physical, psychological, moral, or theological, what is God
Who did this in what way. The proposition is true because God thinks of it that way.

Perhaps for a certain formal integrity, a sample of biblical documentation.

may be appropriate. Psalm 147: 5 says: "God is our Lord and of great
power; your understanding is infinite." If we cannot strictly conclude the
from this verse that the power of God is the source of his understanding, by
there is no doubt that omniscience is affirmed. 1 1 Samuel 2:3 says: "the
104
The Lord is a God of knowledge. Ephesians 1:8 speaks of the wisdom of God.
prudence. In Romans 16:27 we have the

105
phrase, 'only wise God', and in1 Timothy 1:17 the similar phrase, "the only God"
wise.

Other references and an excellent exhibition of them can be found in

Stephen Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God, chapters VIII and IX.
From this illustrious author, a few lines should be included here.

God knows himself because his knowledge with his will is the cause
of all other things; ... he is the first truth and, therefore, he is the first
the object of your understanding ... As it is all knowledge, it also has
It is indeed the most excellent object of knowledge ... No object is as intelligible
for God is to God as He is to Himself ... for His understanding is His essence,
He himself. God knows His own decree and will and, therefore, must
to know all things. God must know what he has decreed that comes for
to pass .... God must know why he wanted them ... he, therefore, knows them,
because he knows what he wanted. God's knowledge cannot arise from
own things, for then the knowledge of God would have a cause outside of Him ...
As God sees the possible things in the cup of His own power, so He sees the
future things in the glass of your life. free will.

A large part of Charnock's material aims to list the objects of the

knowledge of God. Here, however, the quotations have been made to point out
for the knowledge of God depends on His will and nothing external
to him. As one can repeat with Philo that God is not to be classified under
the idea of unity, or of goodness, or of truth; but the unity, the goodness and the
Truths must be classified under the decree of God.

Logic is God

He is to be expected that these observations about the relationship between God and the

truth will be seen as relevant to the discussion of logic. In any

in this case, the subject of logic can be introduced more clearly by one more
Biblical reference. The well-known prologue of the Gospel of John can be
In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic
it was God ... In the logic was life and life was the light of men.

This paraphrase—in fact, this translation—may not sound unique to devotees.

ears, it can actually sound unpleasant and annoying. But the unique shock
with the devotees of the person at a distance from the language and thought of
106
new Greek

107
Testament. Why is he the 'ensive to call Christ Logic, when he ...
not the end of calling it a word, it is hard to explain. But that is
this is often the case. Even Augustine, by insisting that God is the truth,
was subjected to the anti-intellectual accusation of 'reducing' God to a
proposition. In any case, the strong intellectualism of the word Logos is
["seen in its several possible translations: namely, computing, accounts"]
(financeiras) , estima, proporção e proporção (matemática) , explicação, teoria
or argument, principle or law, reason, formula, debate, narrative, speech
deliberation, discussion, oracle, sentence, and wisdom.

Any translation of John 1:1 that obscures this emphasis on the mind or reason is
a bad translation. And if someone complains that the idea derailed the debate obscures

the personality of the second person of the Trinity, he should change his concept
of personality. At first, then, it was Logic.

That logic is the light of men is a proposition that could well introduce
the following section about the relationship of logic with man. But thought
that logic is God will lead us to the conclusion of the present section. Not only
Bernard's followers fuel suspicions about the logic, but also
more systematic theologians are suspicious of any proposal that makes
An abstract principle superior to God. The present argument, in accordance
with Philo and Charnock, do not do that. The law of contradiction is not to
taken as a prior axiom for or independent of God. The law is the
thought of God.

For this reason, the law of contradiction is not subsequent to God. If a

It must be said that logic is dependent on God thinking, he is dependent.
only in the sense that it is the characteristic of God to think. He is not posterior.
temporarily, for God it is eternal and there was never a time when God existed,
without thinking logically. 1 must not suppose that the will of God existed as
an inert substance before he wanted to think.

Since it is not a priority at any time, it is also not any.

logic or analytical priority. Not only was logic the beginning, but logic was
God. If this unusual translation of the prologue of John still bothers someone, he
still allows God to be your thought. God is not a substrate
passive or potential; it is actuality or activity. This is the terminology.
philosophical to express the biblical idea that God is a living God. Hence the logic

108
it is to be considered as the activity of the will of God.

109
Although Aristotle's theology is not better (and perhaps worse) than his
epistemology, he used a phrase to describe God, which, with a slight
change, it can be useful. He defined God as "thought-thought-
thought." Aristotle developed the meaning of this phrase as well as
to deny divine omniscience. But if we are clear that the thought that
I thought that thinking includes the thought about a world to be created - in
Aristotle states that God does not have knowledge of things inferior to Him - the

Aristotelian definition of God as 'thought-thought-thought'

can you help us understand that logic, the law of contradiction, is neither
neither before nor after God's activity.

This conclusion may disturb some analytical thinkers. They may want to
separating logic and God. By doing this, they complain that the current construction
mix two axioms into one. And if two, one of them must be previous; in which one?
if we had to accept God without logic, or logic without God; and the other
later. But this is not the assumption proposed here. God and logic are one and the
the same first principle, for John wrote that Logic was God.

For now, this should be enough to indicate God's relationship with the
logic. We now move on to what initially seemed to be the most pertinent question
of logic and of the Scripture.

Logic and Writing

It is not a lesser misunderstanding that can easily be dismissed beforehand.

of discussing the relationship of logic to the Scriptures. Someone with a sense
animated history may ask why the Scriptures and revelation are
equated, when the direct speech of God to Moses, Samuel, and the prophets
is even more clearly revelation.

This observation became possible simply due to brevity.

previous. Of course, God's speech to Moses was revelation, indeed,
revelation par excellence, if you wish. But we are not Moses. Therefore,
If the problem is to explain how we know at this age, one cannot use
the people experience of Moses. Today we have the Scripture like the Westminster
Confession says, 'He pleased the Lord ... to reveal himself ... and then ... to commit the
even totally up to the writing, what makes the Sacred Scripture to be more
necessary, these ancient ways of God revealing Himself to His people being

110
agora cessado ". O que Deus disse a Moisés está escrito na Bíblia; as palavras são
identical; the revelation is the same.

111
This can anticipate the relationship of logic with Scripture. First of all, the
Scripture, the written words of the Bible, is the mind of God. What is said in
Scriptures are the thoughts of God.

In contemporary religious controversy, the biblical view of the Bible, the position
historical of the Reformation, or - which is the same thing - the doctrine of inspiration

plenary and verbal is punished as Bibliolatry. The liberals accuse the Lutherans and
the Calvinists prefer to worship a book rather than worship God. Apparently,
they think that we genuinely reflect on the Bible from the pulpit, and they mock us
to kiss the ring of a paper pope.

This caricature originates from its materialist turnaround - a materialism that

it may not be apparent in other discussions - but it comes to light when driving
your fire against fundamentalism. They think of the Bible as a book of
material with paper content and a leather binding. That the contents
they are the thoughts of God, expressed in God's own words, it is a
the position that they are so invincible antagonistically that they cannot even
to admit that it is the position of a fundamentalist.

However, we maintain that the Bible expresses the mind of God. Conceptually,
it is the mind of God or, more precisely, a part of the mind of God. For this
reason, the apostle Paul, referring to the revelation given to him, and indeed given to the

Corinthians through him is able to say: 'We have the mind of Christ'. Also in
Philippians 2:5 he urges them: "Let this mind be in you, which also
was in Christ Jesus." For the same purpose is its modest claim in
1 I also think that I have the Spirit of God.

The Bible, then, is the mind or thought of God. He is not a physicist.

fetish, like a crucifix. And I doubt that there has ever been even
a backcountry fundamentalist ignorant enough to pray to a book
black with red edges. Similarly, the accusation that the Bible is
a paper loses its mark for the same reason. The Bible consists of
thoughts, not on paper; and the thoughts are the thoughts of
omniscient, infallible God, not those of Innocent III.

On this basis, that is, based on the fact that Scripture is the mind of God - the relationship with the...

Logic can easily be made clear. As can be expected, if God has

spoken, he spoke logically. The Scriptures, therefore, must and display
logical organization.
112
For example, Romans 4:2 is a hypothetical destructive syllogism in entimematic form. R
o m um n s 5 : 1 3 i s um H y p o t h e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t i v e s y all andsIm . 1 C
or in t h I um n s 1 5 : 1 5 - 1 8 i s a sorites. Obviously, examples of
standard logical forms, like these, can be listed in great extent.

It is not, of course, so in the Scripture that it is non-syllogistic. The historical sections are

widely narratives; however, every declarative sentence is a unit

logic. These sentences are truths; as such, they are objects of knowledge.
Each of them has, or perhaps we should say, that each of them is a
Predicate linked to a subject. Only then can they convey meaning.

Even in the isolated words themselves, as is seen more clearly in the cases of
nouns and verbs, the logic is incorporated. If the Scripture says, David was king of
Israel, this does not mean that David was the president of Babylon; and certainly
this does not mean that Churchill was the prime minister of China. This is for
to say that the words of David, king, and Israel have finite meanings.

The old diatribe that the Scripture is a rubber nose and that interpretation is
definitely elastic is clearly wrong. If there were limits to the
interpretation, which can interpret the indictment of oneself as an acceptance of
verbal and plenary inspiration. But as long as defamation cannot be like this
interpreted, nor can the Virgin Birth be interpreted as a myth, nor the
resurrection as a symbol of spring. Without a doubt, there are some
hard things to be understood that the illiterate twist for their own
destruction, but the difficulties are no greater than those encountered in
Aristotle or Plotinus, and against these philosophers no defamation is always.
indicated. Furthermore, only a few things are difficult. For the rest, the
Protestants have insisted on the clarity of Scripture.

There's no need to waste time repeating Aristotle's explanation of ambiguities.

words. The fact that a word must mean one thing and not its
Contradiction is the evidence of the law of contradiction in all rational language.

This exposition of the logic embedded in Scripture explains why Scripture in

the time of the law of contradiction is selected as the axiom. If we assume
only the law of contradiction, which would be no better than Kant was. Its
Notion that knowledge requires a priori categories deserves great
Respect. Once and for all, in a positive manner - the complement of
Negative and non-intentional path - Kant demonstrated the necessity of
113
axioms, assumptions, or a priori equipment. But

114
The condition sine qua non is not sufficient to produce knowledge.
Therefore, the law of contradiction as such and by itself is not made the axiom of this
argument.

For a similar reason, God, unlike the Scriptures, is not made the
the axiom of this argument. Undoubtedly, this turnaround will seem strange to
many theologians. It will seem particularly strange after the previous emphasis.
in the mind of God as the origin of all truth. Shouldn't God be the
axiom? For example, the first article of the Augsburg Confession gives the doctrine
of God, and the doctrine of Scripture hardly appears anywhere in
every document. In the French Confession of 1559, the first article is about God;
Scripture is discussed in the next five. The Belgian Confession has the same
The Scottish Confession of 1560 begins with God and arrives at Scripture
only in article nineteen. The Thirty-Nine Articles begin with the Trinity, and
The Scriptures come in articles six and following. If God is sovereign, it seems very
reasonable to place the first in the system.

But several other creeds, especially the Westminster Confession, declare

the doctrine of the Scriptures from the beginning. The explanation is quite simple: our

knowledge of God comes from the Bible. We can affirm that every proposition is
true because God thinks this way, and we can follow Charnock in all respects
its great details, but the whole is based on the Scriptures. Suppose that this is not
it would be like this. So, 'God' as an axiom, beyond the Scriptures, is just a
name. We must specify which God. The best-known system in which
"God" was created is Spinoza's axiom. For him, all theorems are
deduced from God or Nature. But it is Nature that identifies the God of Spinoza.
Different gods can be made axioms of other systems. Therefore, the
It is not important to assume God, but to define the mind of the assumed God.
Therefore, the Scriptures are presented here as the axiom. This provides clarity and
content, without which the axioms are useless.

This is how God, Scripture, and logic are connected. The pietists should not...
complain that the emphasis on logic is the definition of an abstraction or reason
human divorced from God. The emphasis on logic is strictly in accordance with
The Prologue of John is nothing more than a recognition of the nature of God.

Doesn't it seem peculiar, in the present context, that a theologian might

to be so strongly linked to the doctrine of Atonement, or a pietist to the idea

115
of sanctification, which, however, is explained only in some parts
from the Scripture, and still be hostile to or suspicious of rationality and logic that everyone
What does the verse of the Scripture display?

116
Logic in Man

With this understanding of the mind of God, the next step is the creation of
man in the image of God. Non-rational animals were not created in his
image; but God breathed His spirit into the ground form, and Adam became
a type of soul superior to animals.

To be precise, one should not speak of the image of God in man. Man does not
It is something in which, somewhere, the image of God can be found together.
with other things. Man is the image. This, of course, does not refer to the body of
man. The body is an instrument or tool that man uses. He himself is
the breath of God, the spirit God breathed into the clay, the mind, the thought ego.
Therefore, man is rational in the likeness of God's rationality. His mind is
structured as Aristotle's logic described it. That is why we believe
that spaniels have teeth.

In addition to the well-known verses in chapter one, Genesis 5:1 and 9:6 repeat the idea.

1 Corinthians 11:7 says: 'man ... is the image and glory of God.' See also
Colossians 3:10 and James 3:9. Other verses, not explicitly, however,
add to our information. Compare Hebrews 1:3, Hebrews 2:6-8 and Psalm 8.
But the conclusive conclusion is that throughout the Bible, the rational God gives to man

a comprehensible message.

It is strange that someone who thinks they are a Christian should belittle the
logic. Such a person does not clearly express the intention to depreciate the mind of

God; but he thinks that logic in man is sinful, even more so

more sinful than other parts of man's fallen nature. This, in
Meanwhile, it doesn't make sense. The law of contradiction cannot be sinful.
Quite the opposite, it is our violations of the law of contradiction that are
sinful. However, the restrictions that some devotional writers
placing in the 'merely human' logic is surprising. Could such
pious stupidity really means that a syllogism that is valid for us
is invalid for God? If two plus two equals four in our arithmetic, God
Is there a different arithmetic in which two and two make three or maybe five?

The fact that the Son of God is the reason of God - for Christ is the wisdom of
God, as well as the power of God - more the fact that the image in man is the
called 'human reason', shows that this is so The so-called 'human reason'

110
it is not so much human as divine.

111
Of course, the Scriptures say that God's thoughts are not ours.
thoughts and their paths are not our paths. But it is good exegesis
to say that this means your logic, your arithmetic, your truth is not ours? If
If that were the case, what would be the consequences? He would say no only that
our additions and subtractions are all wrong, but also that all of our
thoughts - both in history and arithmetic - are wrong. If, by
For example, I think that David was the king of Israel, and the thoughts of God are
Not ours, then he follows that God does not think that David was the king.
from Israel. David in the mind of God was by chance prime minister of
Babylon.

To avoid this irrationalism, which is essentially a denial of the divine.

image, which must insist that the truth is the same for God and man.
Naturally, we may not know the truth about some subjects. But if we
We know nothing in everything, what we must know must be identical to what God knows.

sabe. Deus conhece toda a verdade e, a menos que saibamos algo que Deus
You know, our ideas are not true. It is absolutely essential.
therefore, to insist that it is not an area of coincidence between God's mind and
our mind.

Logic and Language

This point brings us to the central issue of language. Language does not
developed from, nor was its purpose limited to, the physical needs of
terrestrial life. God gave Adam a mind to understand the divine law, and He gave him
a language to empower you to speak with God. From the beginning, the language
was destined for worship. In the Te Deum, through language, and despite the fact
that it is sung for music, we pay "metaphysical praises" to God. The
debate on the adequacy of language to express the truth of God is a
false question. Words are mere symbols or signs. Any sign would be
adequate. The real question is: does a man have the idea of symbolizing? If he
you can think of God, then He can use the sound God, God, Theos, or Elohim.
The word makes no difference and the sign isipso factoliteral and appropriate.

The Christian view is that God created Adam as a rational mind. The structure of
Adam's mind was the same as God's. God thinks that stating the
consequent is a fallacy; and Adam's mind was formed on the principles of
identity and contradiction. This Christian view of God, man, and language does not

112
does not fit into any empirical philosophy. It is rather a type of rationalism that

priori. The mind of man is not initially empty. It is structured.

Indeed, an unstructured void is not at all intelligent. Nor could it be.
any such sheet of white paper extract any universal law of logic from

113
finite experience. No universal and necessary proposition can be deduced
From sensory observation. Universality and necessity can only be a priori.

This does not mean that every truth can be deduced solely from logic. The
17th-century rationalists took on an impossible task. Even if the
for the ontological argument to be valid, it is impossible to deduce Cur Deus Homo, the

Trinity or the final resurrection. The axioms to which the forms of logic...
The prior ones to be applied are the propositions that God revealed to Adam and to the

later prophets.

Conclusion

Logic is irreplaceable. It is not an arbitrary tautology, a useful structure between

others. Various book cataloging systems in libraries are possible, and
various are equally convenient. They are all arbitrary. History can be
designated by 800 as easily as by 400. But it is no substitute
for the law of contradiction. If dog is the equivalent of non-dog, and if 2 = 3
= 4, not only zoology and mathematics disappear, Victor Hugo and Johann Wolfgang
Goethe also disappeared. These two men are examples.
particularly appropriate, as both are, especially Goethe, novelists.
Even so, illogically, Goethe could not have attacked the logic of Joh n 's Lo
s p e l ( I , 1 22 of 4 - 1 2 3 7 ) .

In the beginning was the Word!

I'm stocking up here! Who can help me further?
strong?

The spirit helps me! Suddenly I see advice

And write confidently: 'In the beginning was the deed!'3

But Goethe can express his rejection of the divine Logos of John 1:1, and
express your acceptance of a romantic experience, unique by using logic that
he despises.

Repeating, even if it seems tedious: the logic is fixed, universal, necessary and
irreplaceable. Irrationality contradicts the biblical teaching from beginning to end. The
God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is not insane. God is a rational being, the architecture
of whose mind is Logic.

114
3
' It is written: "In the beginning was the ! Word"
Here I am trapped! Who can help me to go?
Even more, the spirit helps! Everything in me.
once I see the answer
And confidently write: "In the beginning was the Act!" - Editor

115
 Glossary
Note: The numbers defining each definition are the pages: of the text about directors
can be found.

abusive ad hominem - An informal logical fallacy in which irrelevancies of character

are used as reasons to reject a position. Example: Proposition X does not
It may be true, because y, who believes in x, is a drunk.

accent - An informal logical fallacy in which the meaning of a phrase, the

phrase, orw o r d i s m i s u n d e r s t oo d b e c at s of thei t i s d e p e n d e n t o n
t h e i n fl e c t i o n of t h e v I c e .( 9 - 10 )

accident - An informal logical fallacy in which an irrelevant and accidental factor

becomes the essential point of an argument.

to the stick - latin meaning 'for pau'. An informal logical fallacy in

what an appeal to force and threats is made, (18)

to the person - The meaning of Latin A form of argument that accepts a proposal
"for the man." defended by another for the purpose of deducing that
contradictory propositions or propositions that would be rejected by another person.
One must distinguish between a person and the abusive informal fallacy ad hominem.

to the people - Latin meaning 'for the people' An informal logical fallacy
involving an appeal to public opinion (17).

affirmative form - One of " our categorical forms (A, E, I, O) of a

proposition; an aggressive form does not distribute its predicate (38-39)

ambiguity - A word susceptible to multiple meanings, (5-6)

ambivalence- A phrase or statement susceptible to more than one meaning,

also written as amphibole. (9)

argument - A connected series of statements or reasons to establish

a conclusion. (1)

116
appeal to pity - meaning of the argument of
misericórdia”,que é um informal lógico falácia em que um apelo é feito para a
listener's sympathy. (17)

axiom - A first principle or premise that, being the first, does not need
it can be demonstrated and it cannot be demonstrated. It is the basis of every argument and

demonstration. (2)

categorical syllogism - Both categorical and hypothetical syllogisms

are categorical and hypothetical: "categorical", because their forms are
related to predicates or categories, 'hypothetical'. Because the logic is that
not asserting the truth of a premise. "Hypothetical syllogism" also does
refer to modus ponens and modus tollens.

category - A name given to certain general classes of terms, things, or ideas,

(120)

complex question - An informal logical fallacy that consists of two or

more questions or a question with two or more assumptions in it. Example:
Have you stopped hitting your wife?

Composition- An informal logical fallacy in which the characteristic of the part is

assigned to the Todo. (12—13)

Conclusion - A proposition deduced from the reasoning of previous propositions.

(28)

connotative definition - The definition of which list the necessary aware attributes
and on the defined deadline. (21)

contradiction~ one of the four types of opposition (contradiction, contrariety,

subcontrariety, subalternation).; a statement containing propositions, a
which denies or is logically inconsistent with the other; a statement
Or a self-contradictory phrase about her face. Two propositions.
contradictory statements cannot both be true and cannot both be false.
false. (43)

contraposition - Contradict and exchange the subject and the predicate. One (ab)
be
c o m e s A ( b ' um ' ) , I t i s v a li d i n t h e c um s e s of A a N dO;in va
li d f o r E um n d I . ( 5 1 )

Contradiction - Two propositions that cannot both be true,

117
but both can be false, they are contrary.

118
conversion by accident - The process of inferring I from A or O from E in the second figure.
The conclusion of Bramantip is an example.

copula - This part of a proposition that connects the subject and the predicate; the
present tense of the verb to be. (28)

denotative definition - A definition that lists the members of the term or class
defined.

- An argument whose conclusion follows (or seems to follow) from premises

dilemma
contradictory. (94)

hypothetical disjunction syllogism- Symbolically: Either x or y; not in;

therefore, y. (91)

distributed term - A term of a proposition fi modified by the adjectives

everyone or not. (38)

division- An informal logical fallacy in which a characteristic of the whole is a

tt r i b u t um and d ta op m r t .( 12 - 13)

- An argument in which one or more of the premises is omitted.

enthymeme
or taken for granted. (3)

misunderstanding
- A word susceptible to more than one meaning,

import existential - The opinion of symbolic logic that universals

statements that do not imply the existence of the subject, but particular statements
do. Everything that is a does not imply that there is some; but some.
Private statements no. Existential import is a fiction. (83)

fallacy (formal and informal)- An error An informal fallacy is an error in grammar

In the use; a formal fallacy is an error in the form of the argument itself.

figure - A forma de uma inferência determinada pelas diferentes posições dos

terms in (the) premise(s) and conclusion (49).

shape - The arrangement of subject and predicate in a proposition; there are four.
formas:Todos um é b(A),n um é b(E),Alguns um é b(I),Alguns um é não b
(O). Sometimes they are called categorical forms. (27)

119
gender - A class or type of things that includes various subordinate types
(species) as having certain common attributes. Plural, genders. (24)

hypothetical syllogism- See modus ponens, modus tollens.

ignorance of the conclusion

- latin meaning 'ignorance of the refutation'.

Immediate inference - An argument with a proposition as a premise and a

proposition as conclusion; there is no middle term. (32, 47)

inference - The formation of a conclusion from premises by methods

inductive or deductive; the conclusion itself. (37)

inferior species - lower species. (24)

Law of contradiction - The same attribute cannot simultaneously belong and

not belonging to the same subject and in the same respect. One word, in the

the sense of meaning something must also mean not- something else.

logic - The science of necessary inference, here and there.

major premise - The premise of a syllogism that contains the main term.
(56)

main term - The predicate of the conclusion of an inference. (55)

- The branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of reality,

metaphysics
There are three other main branches: epistemology, ethics, and politics.

average term - The term that appears in both premises of a syllogism,

but not in the conclusion. (56)

minor premise - The premise of a syllogism that contains the minor term.
(56)

smaller term - The subject of the conclusion of an inference.

modus ponens - method or way of building

symbolically: if
p, then q; p; therefore, q.

modus tollens - method or way of destroying

symbolically: Sep, thenq; noq; therefore, nãop.(89)

humor - An individual case of an inference. (50)

120
Negative form - This is one of the four categorical forms (A, E, I, O) of a
proposition that distributes its predicate.

obversion- Replacing one form of a proposition with another, contradicting.

the predicate of the first and changing the quality of the proposition: Everything that is by

The obversion becomes Not a is b.

offensive of fination - Defining a term by pointing to things -

references - to which the term refers. Augustine showed that ostensibly of fi
The notion is impossible (25).

particular form - That one of the four categorical forms (A, E, I, O) of a

proposition that does not distribute its subject. (41)

petition of principle - Latin meaning 'asking pleading.' He is

really a valid form of argument in which one of the installations that
conclusion is deduced and is the conclusion of itself in disguised form. It is
considered as an informal logical fallacy because it is not convincing to
someone who does not accept the premise-conclusion. (14,15)

post hoc ergo propter hoc - "Latino means 'after this, therefore because of this'"

because of this”. An informal fallacy. (17)

premise - A proposition of an argument from which a conclusion is drawn.

obtained. (2)

proposition - A form of words in which something (the predicate) is confirmed or

denied something (the subject); the meaning expressed by a sentence
declarativa. (28)

reduction to the impossible- Latin means 'to reduce to the impossible.'

process of deducing a known conclusion to be false from a

given premise. , thus, demonstrate the falsity of the premise (66)

reflexive relationship - A relationship that is maintained between one of

your objects and that object in itself. Equality in arithmetic and implication in logic
they are reflexive relationships.

sentence - A series of words in connected speech or writing forming the

grammatically complete expression of a single thought (27)

121
simple conversion - The transposition of the subject and predicate of a proposition
to form a new proposition: Without one, it becomes Not b is one.

sorites - A series of propositions in which each one is the subject of the next,
conclusion being formed from the first subject and last predicate. (86)

species - Uma classe composta de indivíduos com algumas qualidades ou

common common characteristics. (24)

subalternation - One of the four types of opposition (contradiction,

contrariety, subcontrariety, subalternation); the opposition that exists between
proposition both in quality, but different in quantity: subordinate
It can be true and it can be false (43)

subcontrariety - One of the four types of opposition (contradiction,

contrariety, subcontrariety, subalternation); the opposition that exists between
a similar proposition in quantity but different in quality. The
subcontrary propositions cannot both be false, but both can be true.
true (43).

syllogism - An argument consists of two premises and a conclusion.

with the predicate of the conclusion in one, the subject of the conclusion in the other, and one

third term in both installations. There are not 256 possible modes of
syllogisms.

symmetric relationship - A relationship that, if it is maintained between two

objects, aeb, also remains between. Cousin is a relationship
symmetric. It is a big pain.

- Each of the words that denote a thing or idea in a

deadline
proposition; the subject or predicate of any of the propositions that
they compose a syllogism, forming one of its three elements (term
principal, minor term, medium term), each of which occurs twice.

Theorem - A proposition deduced from an axiom. (2)

transitive relationship - A relationship is transient if, when it is held between

two of its objects, aeb, and also entrebec, maintain as a good betweenumec.
(42)

tree of Porphyry - An ancient method for defining terms by a series of

122
dichotomies. (23)

123
non-distributed term - A term of a proposition not modified by the
adjectives all or none. (38)

universal form - The four categorical forms (A, E, I, O) of a

proposition that distributes its subject. (41)

univocal - To have a meaning.

valid - A quality of arguments in which the conclusion results

necessarily from the premises; an argument is valid if the form of the conclusion is
true whenever the forms of the premises are true. (32—33)

124