BEDANA, Joy Gabrielle A.

1C | 2010-019022

Categorical logic

Categorical logic seeks the universal standards that govern categorical arguments. A
categorical argument, on the other hand, is defined as one composed of categorical
statements. A categorical statement is a statement expressing a relation between two
categories or groups of things by stating either that all, none, or some of one category,
belong to, or do not belong to, a second category of things. There are thus four possible
forms that the sentences making up a categorical argument can take. Letting A and B stand
for categories of things, the four possible forms are:

 A-Statement (universal affirmative statement): All A are B.

 E-Statement (universal affirmative statement): No A are B.
 I-Statement (particular affirmative statement): Some A are B.
 O-Statement (particular negative statement): Some A are not B.

Standard-form categorical claims

Expressing thoughts in standard-form categorical claims is an important step in revealing

the relationship between the things or actions named in the claim. A categorical claim
always refers to two classes, which by convention are called S (for the subject) and P (for
the predicate) in discussions of the general principles of categorical logic. Categorical
claims either affirm or deny that one class (S) is partly or completely included in another
class (P). The four basic forms of categorical claims (A, E, I, O) say everything that there is
to say in this logic. By requiring the translation of natural language sentences into
standard-form categorical claims, the clarifying work of categorical logic begins before any
inferences occur.

The essential thing to recognize about the verbs in standard-form categorical claims is that
the four types all have the same verb connecting subject and predicate, specifically, some
form of the verb "to be." Logically, it does not matter whether the form is "are," "is," or
simply "be." Whichever form of the verb seems to fit best can be used to create a well-
formed standard-form claim.
Expressing standard form categorical claims in Venn diagrams

Translating ordinary claims into standard-form categorical claims

One requirement for a successful translation is that the result meets the grammatical and
syntactical rules of the language into which you translate. Thus, in translating ordinary
language claims into categorical standard form, the first thing to pay attention to is the
basic characteristics of standard form claims. Every categorical standard form claim has:

1. a subject term: a plural noun or pronoun

2. a predicate term: a plural noun or pronoun
3. a quantifier: "Some," "No," or "All"
4. a copula: "are" or "are not" (the latter never occurring after a
universal quantifier)

The second requirement of a successful translation is that the result should, so far as
possible, preserve the content or meaning of the original. Translation into categorical
standard form will not necessarily preserve the connotations or subtleties of ordinary
language; what we require instead is that the translation be logically equivalent to the
original.

Dealing with Missing and Nonstandard Components

Many ordinary language claims have missing or nonstandard components: terms without
nouns, nonstandard verbs, unexpressed quantifiers, or nonstandard quantifiers.

Some ordinary language claims lack only a standard subject or predicate term. To fix these
you need only supply a missing plural noun.
Others have a nonstandard verb, and need to be re-expressed using "are" or "are not.” Still
others have non-standard or missing quantifiers. Ordinary language quantifiers frequently
have connotations that can't be preserved, so the essential thing is to choose one that
preserves the basic logical content.

Note that claims beginning with "A" may be either universal or particular. To decide which,
use the principle of charity: work on the assumption that the author of the claim is making
a true claim. You'll also need to keep the principle of charity in mind in dealing with
ordinary language claims that are ambiguous or confusing because a universal quantifier is
followed by a negative copula.

Supplying missing terms and deciding subject/predicate term order

Many ordinary language claims are substantially different in structure that categorical
claims. To translate these claims, you need to be especially careful to preserve the logical
content conveyed by the original. You may find no plural nouns, in which case you will have
to supply a subject and predicate term by asking what classes or kinds of classes are under
discussion. You must also watch to make sure that you correctly identify the order of the
subject and predicate terms.

Adverbs and Pronouns

The first thing to remember: you can supply class terms, by focusing your attention on the
adverb. Use terms like “times,” “persons,” and “places.” The second is: Whatever follows the
adverb is the subject term.

Exclusive Propositions

Propositions that contain exclusive phrasing like "none but," "none except," "none unless,"
and "only" have to be studied carefully in order to get the subject and predicate terms in
the correct order. The rule to remember is that each of these exclusive phrases precedes
the phrase identifying the predicate term.

"The Only"

The phrase "the only" has a force opposite to the word "only"--it precedes the subject term.

Conditional Claims

Conditional claims are those containing the words "if" or "only if." The word "if", by itself,
always precedes the subject term. "Only if," on the other hand, precedes the predicate term.

Singular Propositions
Singular propositions are propositions are claims involving singular terms: terms that refer
to a single individual. Both requirement for successful translation have to be kept in mind
here.

The way to deal with singular terms is to use a parameter—a phrase which (somewhat
artificially) limits a class so that it the class consists of just the individual in discussion.

Exceptive Propositions

Exceptive phrases such as "all except" and "everyone but" convey two distinct propositions
and must be translated as two conjoined claims, rather than a single one. Note that these
differ from exclusive propositions in that the quantifier is affirmative rather than negative.

Three categorical operations

 Conversion

The converse of a claim is created by switching the positions of the subject and the
predicate terms. Such is valid for E and I; but is not valid for A and O.

 Obversion

The obverse of a claim is created by (1) changing the affirmative to negative or vise-versa;
and (2) replacing the predicate term with its complement. A, E, I, O all have valid obverses.

 Contraposition

The contrapositive of a claim is created by (1) switching the subject and predicate terms;
and (2) replacing both terms with their complements. Such is valid for A and O; but is not
valid for E and I.

Categorical syllogisms

A categorical syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly three categorical propositions

(two premises and a conclusion) in which there appear a total of exactly three categorical
terms, each of which is used exactly twice.

 Major, minor, and middle term

One of those terms must be used as the subject term of the conclusion of the syllogism, and
we call it the minor term of the syllogism as a whole. The major term of the syllogism is
whatever is employed as the predicate term of its conclusion. The third term in the
syllogism doesn't occur in the conclusion at all, but must be employed in somewhere in
each of its premises; hence, we call it the middle term.
  Major and minor premises

Since one of the premises of the syllogism must be a categorical proposition that affirms
some relation between its middle and major terms, we call that the major premise of the
syllogism. The other premise, which links the middle and minor terms, we call the minor
premise.

Testing for validity

 Venn diagram method

The modern interpretation offers a more efficient method of evaluating the validity of
categorical syllogisms. By combining the drawings of individual propositions, we can use
Venn diagrams to assess the validity of categorical syllogisms by following a simple three-
step procedure:

1. First draw three overlapping circles and label them to represent the major, minor,
and middle terms of the syllogism.
2. Next, on this framework, draw the diagrams of both of the syllogism's premises.
o Always begin with a universal proposition, no matter whether it is the major
or the minor premise.
o Remember that in each case you will be using only two of the circles in each
case; ignore the third circle by making sure that your drawing (shading or
× ) straddles it.
3. Finally, without drawing anything else, look for the drawing of the conclusion. If the
syllogism is valid, then that drawing will already be done.

Since it perfectly models the relationships between classes that are at work in categorical
logic, this procedure always provides a demonstration of the validity or invalidity of any
categorical syllogism.

Consider, for example, how it could be applied, step by step, to an evaluation of a syllogism
of the EIO-3 mood and figure,

No M are P.
Some M are S.
Therefore, Some S are not P.

First, we draw and label the three overlapping circles needed to

represent all three terms included in the categorical syllogism:
Second, we diagram each of the premises:

Since the major premise is a universal proposition, we may begin with

it. The diagram for "No M are P" must shade in the entire area in
which the M and P circles overlap. (Notice that we ignore the S circle
by shading on both sides of it.)

Now we add the minor premise to our drawing. The diagram for
"Some M are S" puts an × inside the area where the M and S circles
overlap. But part of that area (the portion also inside the P circle) has
already been shaded, so our × must be placed in the remaining
portion.

Third, we stop drawing and merely look at our result. Ignoring the M circle entirely, we
need only ask whether the drawing of the conclusion "Some S are not P" has already been
drawn.

Remember, that drawing would be like the one at left, in which there
is an × in the area inside the S circle but outside the P circle. Does that
already appear in the diagram on the right above? Yes, if the premises
have been drawn, then the conclusion is already drawn.

But this models a significant logical feature of the syllogism itself: if its premises are true,
then its conclusion must also be true. Any categorical syllogism of this form is valid.

Here are the diagrams of several other syllogistic forms. In each case, both of the premises
have already been drawn in the appropriate way, so if the drawing of the conclusion is
already drawn, the syllogism must be valid, and if it is not, the syllogism must be invalid.

AAA-1 (valid)

All M are P.

All S are M.

Therefore, All S are P.

AAA-3 (invalid)

All M are P.

All M are S.

Therefore, All S are P.

OAO-3 (valid)

Some M are not P.

All M are S.

Therefore, Some S are not P.

EOO-2 (invalid)

No P are M.

Some S are not M.

Therefore, Some S are not P.

IOO-1 (invalid)

Some M are P.

Some S are not M.

Therefore, Some S are not P.

 Rules method

Rule 1: The middle term must be distributed at least once.

Fallacy: Undistributed middle

Example:

All sharks are fish

All salmon are fish

All salmon are sharks

Justification: The middle term is what connects the major and the minor term. If the
middle term is never distributed, then the major and minor terms might be related to
different parts of the M class, thus giving no common ground to relate S and P.

Rule 2: If a term is distributed in the conclusion, then it must be distributed in a premise.

Fallacy: Illicit major; illicit minor

Examples:

All horses are animals

Some dogs are not horses

Some dogs are not animals

And:

All tigers are mammals

All mammals are animals

All animals are tigers

Justification: When a term is distributed in the conclusion, let’s say that P is distributed,
then that term is saying something about every member of the P class. If that same term is
not distributed in the major premise, then the major premise is saying something about
only some members of the P class. Remember that the minor premise says nothing about
the P class. Therefore, the conclusion contains information that is not contained in the
premises, making the argument invalid.

Rule 3: Two negative premises are not allowed.

Fallacy: Exclusive premises

Example:

No fish are mammals

Some dogs are not fish

Some dogs are not mammals

Justification: If the premises are both negative, then the relationship between S and P is
denied. The conclusion cannot, therefore, say anything in a positive fashion. That
information goes beyond what is contained in the premises.

Rule 4: A negative premise requires a negative conclusion, and a negative conclusion

requires a negative premise. (Alternate rendering: Any syllogism having exactly one
negative statement is invalid.)

Fallacy: Drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise, or drawing a negative

conclusion from an affirmative premise.

Example:

All crows are birds

Some wolves are not crows

Some wolves are birds

Justification: Take a positive conclusion from one negative premise. The conclusion states
that the S class is either wholly or partially contained in the P class. The only way that this
can happen is if the S class is either partially or fully contained in the M class (remember,
the middle term relates the two) and the M class fully contained in the P class. Negative
statements cannot establish this relationship, so a valid conclusion cannot follow.

Take a negative conclusion. It asserts that the S class is separated in whole or in part from
the P class. If both premises are affirmative, no separation can be established, only
connections. Thus, a negative conclusion cannot follow from positive premises.

Note: These first four rules working together indicate that any syllogism with two
particular premises is invalid.

Rule 5: If both premises are universal, the conclusion cannot be particular.

Fallacy: Existential fallacy

Example:

All mammals are animals

All tigers are mammals

Some tigers are animals

Justification: On the Boolean model, Universal statements make no claims about existence
while particular ones do. Thus, if the syllogism has universal premises, they necessarily say
nothing about existence. Yet if the conclusion is particular, then it does say something
about existence. In which case, the conclusion contains more information than the
premises do, thereby making it invalid.

The Aristotelian Standpoint

Any syllogism that violates any of the first four rules is invalid from either standpoint. If a
syllogism, though, violates only rule 5, it is then valid from the Aristotelian standpoint,
provided that the conditional existence is fulfilled. Thus, in the example above, since tigers
exist, this syllogism is valid from the Aristotelian point of view.

On the other hand, consider this substitution instance:

All mammals are animals

All unicorns are mammals

Some unicorns are animals

Since "unicorns" do not exist, the condition is not fulfilled, and this syllogism is invalid from
either perspective.
References

California State University: Chico. (n.d.). Retrieved March 4, 2016, from www.csuchico.edu:
http://www.csuchico.edu/phil/sdobra_mat/catclaims.html

Formal Logic. (n.d.). Retrieved March 4, 2016, from http://www.angelfire.com/az3/LDC/Logic.htm

Kemerling, G. (n.d.). Philosophy Pages. Retrieved March 6, 2016, from www.philosophypages.com:

http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e08a.htm

Myers, W. T. (n.d.). Birmingham-Southern College: Rules and Fallacies for Categorical Syllogisms.
Retrieved March 4, 2016, from bsc.edu: http://faculty.bsc.edu/bmyers/Section5.3.htm

The Many Worlds of Logic. (n.d.). Retrieved March 4, 2016, from www.manyworldsoflogic.com:
http://www.manyworldsoflogic.com/categoricallogic.html

Wishart, P. (n.d.). Cuesta College: Introduction to Philosophy. Retrieved March 4, 2016, from
http://academic.cuesta.edu:
http://academic.cuesta.edu/pwishart/Philosophy%208/Lecture%20Outlines/Unit%20Two/Ordinary%20
Language%20Claims.htm