10.

Standard Categorical Syllogisms Introduction The discussion of categorical statements has paved the way for consideration of two particular syllogism types, the categorical syllogism and the sorites. What will be covered are definitions, mood, terms, figure, validity rules, and the mood/figure chart. 1A. Definitions We will build up the definition of the categorical syllogism and the sorites in the following stages: syllogism, categorical syllogism, standard categorical syllogism, and finally, the standard categorical syllogism chain (the sorites). 1B. Syllogism A syllogism is a three-part argument consisting of two premises and a conclusion. The word, syllogism, comes from two Greek words ( logos = reason + sun = with ) and literally means "what you reason with." Aristotle thought that most reasoning involves the use of two premises and a conclusion to which he gave the title, syllogism. 2B. Categorical syllogism Adding the adjective, categorical, brings two things to our attention. First, the categorical syllogism is a syllogism in which every statement expresses a relationship between two categories. Thus, we move now from categorical statements to categorical arguments. Second, the two premises of a categorical syllogism are specifically identified asmajor premise and minor premise. Therefore, the three parts of a categorical syllogism are major premise, minor premise and conclusion. We will note how to identify the major verses the minor premise when we deal with the terms of the categorical syllogism. 3B. Standard categorical syllogism When a categorical syllogism is standardized, or put into standard form it will exhibit two qualities. 1C. AEIO forms Premises and conclusion will each express the relationship between two categories in one of the standard AEIO forms. 2C. Prescribed order Standard order for a syllogism means that the major premise is first followed by the minor premise then the conclusion. In this way we move down the argument:

Major Premise (1st statement position)

Minor Premise (2nd statement position) Conclusion (3rd statement position)

These are fixed positions. Therefore, we can speak of the first position as the major premise position, the second as the minor premise position, and the third as the position of the conclusion. 4B. The sorites The sorites, literally, a heap, is simply a chain of categorical syllogisms. For any chain argument, it is important to determine the method by which the parts are linked together. In this compound argument form, the syllogisms are linked when the conclusion of one argument becomes a premise in the next. The arrow diagram form of a sorites of two syllogisms looks like this: 1+3

4 + 5A

7 Keep in mind, of course, that the numbering pattern can be very different than this example depending on the location of the statements being represented. What does it mean that no 2 appears on the diagram? What does the 5A and the 7 tell you (more than one thing each)? 2A. Mood All standard categorical syllogisms are moody. Mood refers to the pattern of AEIO forms down the argument. Using our symbolic forms, consider the pattern of the following: 1. Some z are y All x are z Some x are y 2. All x are z All z are y All x are y

If you identify the statement form for each statement and list them from top to bottom, you will have the mood of the argument. Thus, you should be able to see why example 1 above is IAI mood and example 2 is AAA mood. As we will see, however, neither of these examples are in prescribed order. 3A. Terms

As we take up the theme of the terms of a standard categorical syllogism, keep in mind that we are now dealing with arguments and not statements per se. 1B. Number How many terms do we have in a standard categorical syllogism? Put this in context. If you look down an argument, you should note that there are six available category slots. How many categories could be cited in a syllogism? If we knew nothing else, we would have to say that there could be six categories in a syllogism with each statement comprised of two categories and there are three statements (2 x 3 = 6). But this is incorrect. A second suggestion is that there are two terms since terms are categories and each statement has only two terms, subject term and predicate term. This is also incorrect. There are three terms in a standard categorical syllogism, exactly three. To fill out the six possible slots, each term will do double duty. Often a fallacy occurs by equivocation, a change of meaning of a term within an argument. One of the terms has two different meanings and there is therefore now four terms in the argument (hence, the four-term fallacy even though the argument otherwise has valid form). Here is an example: "All bears are dangerous, this animal toy is a bear, so this animal toy is dangerous." 2B. Names The three terms are the major term, the minor term, and the middle term. Take note of the fact that the three terms do not correspond precisely with the two premises and the conclusion of a syllogism. But they do overlap somewhat as we shall see. 3B. Location Where will we find these terms in the argument? In a word, they will be scattered over the category slots with a great deal of fluidity. 4B. Distinctiveness 1C. Statement terms verses syllogism terms Although there is an overlap between these terms, we can keep them distinct. The following comparison should reveal the way in which statement terms differ from syllogism terms: Statement Terms Number i.d. position 2 S/P fixed Syllogism Terms 3 M/M/M fluid

There are only two statement terms; subject and predicate with fixed logical position. The three syllogism terms are major, minor, and middle with fluid logical position. The only place where the

syllogism terms are locked in or have fixed position is in the conclusion (of course in standard form). Keep in mind that the three categories of a categorical syllogism have certain functions in the statements at the same time that they have certain functions in the argument. So, statement terms and syllogism terms could refer to the same category and when they do they refer to the different functions it has as an element in a statement, on one hand, and as an element in an argument on the other. 5B. Recognition Since there is an overlay between statement terms and argument terms, the next pertinent question is "how do we recognize argument terms? Reviewing statement terms for a moment, they are recognized as that of which something is being said (subject term) or that which is said of something (predicate term). Also, if statement terms are in standard order, and this is a key "if" given English grammar, then the subject term will be found before the copula and the predicate term will follow the copula. Our present concern is recognition of the argument terms: major term, minor term, and middle term. We need to know how to put our finger on these terms; when we do so we will find a fringe benefit. 1C. Major term The major term of the argument is the predicate term of the conclusion. Of course, this assumes that the conclusion is first put into standard categorical form. Furthermore, once the major term is identified, then we know which premise is the major premise. The major premise is the premise that has the major term in it. For standard order, the major premise is to be put in the first or top position coming down the argument. 2C. Minor term The minor term of the argument is the subject term of the conclusion. Again, having the correct analysis of the conclusion by means of proper order is central. Also, once the minor term is identified, by reference to the conclusion, then we know which premise is the minor premise. The minor premise is the premise that has the minor term in it. For standard order, the minor premise is to be put in the second position coming down the argument. 3C. Middle term The middle term is the term that functions between the premises and is never found in the conclusion. Consider the following example:

All thieves are subtle people All TV preachers are thieves So, all TV preachers are subtle

The term, thieves, is not found in the conclusion. However, it does work between the premises. It functions in the middle ground between each premise.

4A. Figure 1B. Definition Figure is the pattern of the middle term. There are only four possible arrangements of the terms of an argument and these are identified by the location of the middle term. 2B. Schematization We can build up the figure diagram in stages in order to reveal the four possible patterns of the middle term. 1C. There are four patterns The arrangements of the middle term are referred to as figure 1, figure 2, figure 3, and figure 4 so we place them on the top row of this diagram: 1 2 3 4

2C. Add focus on the subject and predicate terms Since each statement of every possible argument has a subject term in the subject position and a predicate term in the predicate position, then a second row is needed to indicate each statement term: 1 S P S 2 P S 3 P S 4 P

3C. Add rows for the major and minor premises A category slot is present to indicate the subject and predicate positions for each premise ( why is there no row for the conclusion?) 1 S Maj Min P S 2 P S 3 P S 4 P -

4C. The four locations of the middle term can now be indicated Figure 1 is split left with the middle term in the subject position in the major premise and in the predicate position in the minor premise. Figure 4 is split right with the middle term in the predicate position in the major premise and in the subject position in the minor premise. Figure 2 has both middle terms (both uses of the middle term) in the predicate position, and Figure 3 has both middle terms in the subject position. Hence the completed diagram:

1 S Maj Min Midd P Midd S -

2 P Midd Midd S

3 P S -

4 P Midd -

Midd Midd

Midd

3B. Comparison/contrast Note the distinction between figure and mood. Both deal with patterns or arrangements. Figure is the mix of the argument terms, especially of the middle term; whereas, mood refers to the mix of AEIO statements. 5A. Validity There are four basic rules of validity for categorical syllogisms. When violated, four corresponding fallacies result. For analysis sake, it may be helpful to note that two of the rules are distribution related (middle and balance rules) and two are mood related (universal premises and exclusion). 1B. The middle term principle The first rule is that the middle term must be distributed at least one time or the argument is invalid. When this fallacy occurs, as it does in the following example, it is called the middle term fallacy or the undistributed middle:

All athletes are vegetarians Some vegetarians are happy people So, some happy people are athletes

2B. The balance principle The balance in view here is from the conclusion back to the premises. Balance simply means that if a term is distributed in the conclusion, it must also be distributed in the premises. The fallacy that breaks this principle of balance is often called "illicit distribution." Of course, the undistributed middle term fallacy is also illicit distribution. Therefore, it seems sufficient to use "the balance fallacy" to designate this failure. 3B. The universal premises principle The third rule insists that the movement from premises to conclusion stay on the universal track. Thus, if the premises are universal, then the conclusion must also be universal. In other words, it is claimed that we cannot be sure of validity when a particular conclusion is derived from premises that have universal scope. And more technically, we should say that such an argument may be valid but its validity depends

on what is being presupposed about the universal premises. Thus, the move from universal premises to a particular conclusion is not straightforward; hence, the form is judged invalid. It should be noted that this principle is based on the modern interpretation of a universal premise. The idea is that actual membership in the subject class in a universal statement is not necessarily part of the meaning of the statement. For example, the claim "all of Lee Iacoca's Toyota's are pink" does not carry with it the assumption that there are any actual members in this subject class (the class consisting of Iacoca's Toyota's). From this it is deduced that the meaning of a universal is hypothetical (therefore, this is also called modern/hypothetical interpretation). That is, the Iacoca example must be qualified by the phrase "if there are any" since the class referred to may or may not have any members: "All of Iacoca's Toyota's, if there are any members in this class, are pink." On the other hand, particular statements presumably carry the meaning that members of the class exist, at least one. Thus, to speak of "some of Iacoca's Toyota's" presupposes that he has at least one actual Toyota (it may be true or false, but the claim has as part of its meaning the assumption that there is at least one; whereas, the universal claim does not have actual membership as necessarily a part of its meaning). In light of the above interpretation, it is obvious why one needs to stay on the universal track in order to preserve good form. To jump track is to move down the argument from an "if" to an "is" (from two universals you can neither be sure in the conclusion that there is one of the class in question nor that there is none). The fallacy is thus called "the existential fallacy" because we change from "if it is" in the premises to "it is" in the conclusion. Note the parallel schemes below in this regard: All All some (should have all) If If is (should have is)

We must, according to modern interpretation, simply stay on track by moving down from universal premises (with the implied "if there are any actual members") to a universal conclusion. Because of the modern hypothetical interpretation, arguments that Aristotle thought were valid are now questioned. You should note the fact that in the mood/figure chart below of all valid categorical syllogisms the non-bold forms were thought valid by Aristotle but are not valid according to the hypothetical interpretation. We will adopt the hypothetical viewpoint keeping the thought in mind that here by ~DV we mean that from the form alone we cannot be sure that the argument is DV though it may be. Before leaving this matter of hypothetical interpretation, it may be useful to consider the following example:

All tiny people are fickle. All Leprechauns are tiny people.

So, some Leprechauns are fickle.

The shift to some in the third statement may seem innocent enough since one might reason that the premises imply that all leprechauns are fickle and this in turn implies that some are fickle. Note that the premises here could be true even if no Leprechauns are presumed to actually exist, but the conclusion could not be true unless some Leprechauns, at least one, are presumed to actually exist. In other words, the modern interpretation argues that it could not be true that some leprechauns are fickle if there are none; but it could be true that all leprechauns are tiny even if none exist! It is this difference regarding what could be the case that makes the move from universal premises to a particular conclusion uncertain for modern interpreters. Finally, let me repeat that this debate can perhaps be discussed as either a matter of soundness regarding the truth of the premises or a matter of validity. It seems simple enough to claim that this leprechaun argument is valid but not sound when the first premise is based on the false presupposition that some leprechauns exist. Or, if the false assumption enters only at the conclusion then the argument would be ~DV because it has true premises with a false conclusion. However, the conclusion could have the form "some, at least one, if there are any." Then we have "some leprechauns (at least one) are fickle, if there are any in the first place." Therefore, we will consider that the violation of the universal premises rule leaves an argument questionable as to its DV status because the conclusion of this kind of argument may be false (when it is false, the false assumption may have infected the premises as well; if it is unconsciously granted in the premises that leprechauns exist then the premises are false and then the argument is not technically invalid but it is unsound). 4B. The exclusion principle Exclusion refers to statements that contain the notion of denial. Thus, if there is any exclusion in an argument, it must occur twice and these exclusions must be split between the premises and the conclusion. Put another way, no argument will be valid if it contains a single exclusion; no argument will be valid if it has two exclusions and they are both in the premises; and no argument will be valid if it has three exclusions. 6A. The mood/figure chart Arguments with any mood/figure listed below that are in bold are DV (on the assumption of modern interpretation). Of course, this chart need not be memorized, but it does serve as a reference guide by which to check argument evaluation. Look at the invalid forms and observe what is common about them all. This will give you the simplest look at modern interpretation. Figure: Mood: 1 AAA EAE 2 EAE AEE 3 AAI IAI 4 AAI AEE

AII EIO AAI

EIO AOO AEO

AII EAO OAO EIO

IAI EAO EIO AEO

EAO EAO

Categorical Syllogism ws1 For more examples see Churchill, p185 (1, 10) pp202-203 (A, 1-10) p210 (B, 1-5) pp202-203 (A, 11-20) p211 (C, 1,5,8,10) A. Define 1. Syllogism: 2. Sorites 3. Mood 4. Figure B. Truth Values 1. Why is the following argument not in standard form:

All pirates are cruel people All cruel people are people with cruel parents So: All pirates are people with cruel parents

2. t f You can determine the major premise of an argument by isolating the middle term with no other information. 3. t f Once you find the middle term in the conclusion you can then deduce argument figure. 4. t f The "between term" must be distributed in each premise for argument validity. 5. t f The major term is in the predicate position of the major premise. C. Explain the difference between statement terms and argument terms. D. How do you find a predicate term in a categorical statement?

E. How do you determine the minor term in a categorical syllogism? F. How do you determine the major premise of a categorical syllogism? G. Name the fallacies committed in arguments of the following mood and figure. Sketch each argument for its structure (that is, show the mood and figure on the six category slots). Apply the four rules of validity for categorical syllogisms. If there is no fallacy indicate DV. After completing your work, check your answers by the figure/mood. 1. AAA - 2 2. EIE - 4 3. EIO-3 4. EAO-4 5. AII-4 6. AOO-2 7. AII-1 8. AIO-2 9. EIO-1 10. IAI-3 H. Given this argument, follow the directions below:

1. All philosophy students are responsive students. 2. All responsive students are teachable persons. 3. No teachable persons are unintelligent persons. 4. So, All philosophy students are intelligent persons.

__________________________ a. t f The argument is a sorites. b. Exercising charity, how can the argument be stated so as to avoid committing the four term fallacy? c. Arrow diagram the argument. Include any enthymemes.

Categorical syllogisms ws2 Working with standard form, determine if DV or ~DV by means of the four rules of a valid categorical syllogism. 1. Only flying things have wings. Not all birds fly. So, there are some birds that do not have wings.

2. All quadrupeds are small mammals. An elephant is a quadruped. So, an elephant is a small mammal.

3. Voluntary euthanasia runs the risk of involuntary euthanasia. To risk killing innocent people without their consent is to risk committing murder. Therefore, voluntary euthanasia runs the risk of committing murder.

4. People who believe in universal atonement must limit the power of the cross. Any position that limits the power of the cross holds to "a limited atonement." Therefore, people who believe in universal atonement hold to "a limited atonement."

5. An Arminian must limit the power of the cross because he believes that the cross does not save everyone for whom it was intended and anyone who believes this must limit the power of the cross.