syllogism

(redirected from Deductive inference)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus.
Related to Deductive inference: Inductive inference

syllogism

1. a deductive inference consisting of two premises and a conclusion, all of which are categorial propositions. The subject of the conclusion is the minor term and its predicate the major term; the middle term occurs in both premises but not the conclusion. There are 256 such arguments but only 24 are valid. Some men are mortal; some men are angelic; so some mortals are angelic is invalid, while some temples are in ruins; all ruins are fascinating; so some temples are fascinating is valid. Here fascinating, in ruins, and temples are respectively major, middle, and minor terms
2. a deductive inference of certain other forms with two premises, such as the hypothetical syllogism, if P then Q; if Q then R; so if P then R
3. a piece of deductive reasoning from the general to the particular
4. a subtle or deceptive piece of reasoning
Collins Discovery Encyclopedia, 1st edition © HarperCollins Publishers 2005

syllogism

[′sil·ə‚jiz·əm]
(mathematics)
A statement together with a conclusion; this usually has the form “if p then q.”
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms, 6E, Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
The following article is from The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979). It might be outdated or ideologically biased.

Syllogism

 

a type of deductive inference, the two premises and the conclusion of which have the same subject-predicate structure.

The term “syllogism” is most often applied to the “categorical” syllogisms, the premises and conclusions of which are statements (judgments) expressed in simple sentences, with the verb “to be” (indicative mood, singular or plural, with or without negation) as the grammatical predicate linking the terms of the sentence—the subject and the predicate in the logical sense (the designation of a class). The sentences in categorical syllogisms are formed with quantifying words, such as “all,” “any,” “each,” “every,” and “some” (or “there is,” “there exists,” and so forth). They may take any of four forms (the terms of the sentences are designated by capital letters): all R are Q (a universal affirmative, usually designated by the letter A); no R is Q (universal negative, designated by E); some R are Q (particular affirmative, designated by I), and some R are not Q (particular negative, designated by O).

The following judgment is an example of a categorical syllogism: no P is M; some S are M; therefore some S are not P. This may also be stated as a conditional sentence: if no P is M and some S are M, then some S are not P. The following is also an example of a categorical syllogism: every M is P; every S is M; therefore every S is P. (The latter type of syllogism is represented by the literary example “All humans are mortal; all Greeks are humans; therefore all Greeks are mortal.”) The premise containing the predicate of the conclusion (the major term P) is called the major premise, and the premise containing the subject of the conclusion (the minor term S), the minor premise.

Syllogisms are divided into four figures, depending on the middle term M, which is included only in the premises of the syllogism. In the first, M serves as the subject in the major premise and as the predicate in the minor premise; in the second, as the predicate in both premises; in the third, as the subject in both premises; and in the fourth, as the predicate in the major premise and the subject in the minor premise.

Different moods of syllogisms are distinguished, depending on the form of the syllogistic sentences (A, E, I, or O). In each figure there are 4 X 4 X 4 = 64 conceivable moods, or a total of 256 moods. However, only 24 prove to be valid (that is, guaranteeing a true conclusion from true premises). Of these, five are weakened moods—that is, it is possible to strengthen them by the substitution of a particular sentence for a universal one in the conclusion. Thus, there are 19 unweakened, valid syllogistic moods in the four syllogistic figures. (In the following list, the first letter denotes the type of major premise; the second, the type of minor premise; and the third, the type of conclusion.) The 19 unweakened moods are AAA, EAE, All, and EIO in the first figure; EAE, AEE, EIO, and AOO in the second; AAI, IA I, All, EAO, OAO, and EIO in the third; and AAI, AEE, IAI, EA O, and EIO in the fourth. (See for a discussion of the validity of these moods and the invalidness of the others.)

The term “syllogism” is also used in a broader sense to refer to deductions drawn from other types of sentences. Thus, there are conditional, conditional-categorical, disjunctive-categorical, and conditional disjunctive syllogisms. Sometimes, the term “syllogism” is used as a synonym for “deduction.”

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition (1970-1979). © 2010 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
In response, realists might embrace the inferentialist functional thesis that a mathematical sentence can perform the function of facilitating deductive inferences from concrete sentences to other concrete sentences, while adhering to the realist semantic thesis that a mathematical sentence performs the function of describing the abstract world.
More specifically, it should reveal the actual reckoning process that the reasoning subject more or less consciously carries out when he makes a deductive inference. That the common logical words used in everyday reasoning--words such as "and," "if," "some," "is," "not," and "all"--have fixed positive and negative charges has escaped the notice of modern logic.
Leibniz's chief stress is on the heuristic and probabilistic aspects of argumentation which escape strict deductive inference (as well as the purely mathematical analysis of probabilities).
Bradley's problem, we are told, is to explain how deductive inference can be "useful" (that is, go beyond what is stated in the premises) while at the same time remaining "legitimate" (that is, justified in a non *Books received are acknowledged in this section by a brief resume, report, or criticism.
If deductive inference abstracts directly from data, while inductive inference is based on but extrapolates partially beyond data, abductive inference extrapolates still further (p.
Boghossian attempts to show that these are incompatible, because together they imply that a person can come to know empirical facts a priori, by deductive inference from their knowledge of their own thoughts and knowledge of the doctrine of externalism.
For example, although it may not be immediately obvious that this is the case, it is true that the information initially presented in the problem's text affords some particular deductive inferences more readily than it affords others.