Categorical Syllogisms (part 3)

This short video is the third part of the series on setting up and evaluating syllogisms in Aristotelian, or Term, Logic. In this video we explore how to use Venn diagrams to test for validity, as well as the five rules for valid Categorical Syllogisms.

[arsalashoab]

Thanks to you, my final exam went great, thank you!

[beegraves]

thanks bro im cramming for my philosophy final rn ur a real one

[AsianEnoch]

Now I know why there are moods that are weak... they are conditionally valid on the the Aristotelian point of view. Not something discussed in my Logic class. Thanks.

[reinrayos]

Thank you for this video! It's really a big help

[ZenobiaII]

Why is AOO-4 invalid? (not in the video)

[testallthings]

Is there a way to dowlowd these slides?

[Syllogist]

AFTER the CORRECT FORMAL RECORDING OF the INITIAL JUDGMENTS OF ANY POLYSYLLOGISM AND/OR A SYLLOGISM, ITS INFERENCE IS EASILY CALCULATED IN FULL ACCORDANCE WITH THE USUAL LAWS OF THE ALGEBRA OF LOGIC. Seems, for example yours example EII-1 (19:08):

1. No Fish are birds
2. Some parrots are not fish
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3. Therefor, some parrots are birds

You think this conclusion is wrong. Yes, you're right. Only a legitimate question arises: On the basis of what did you make this stupid (19:48) conclusion?

Algebraic calculation: x - fish, y - berds, z - parrots
1. No Fish are birds (x’y)
2. Some parrots are not fish (zx’+zx)
- - - Calculate: ((x’y)* (zx’+zx))/X = (x’yz)/X = yz = zy
3. There is birds which a parrots. [=There is parrots which a birds].

This is only one VALID conclusion.
ANY POLYSYLLOGISM AND/OR A SYLLOGISM, ITS INFERENCE IS EASILY CALCULATED IN FULL ACCORDANCE WITH THE USUAL LAWS OF THE ALGEBRA OF LOGIC ! :-)))