Negative conclusion from affirmative premises: Difference between revisions
MichaelMaggs (talk | contribs) Per WP:SDSHORT and WP:SDNOTDEF |
Ira Leviton (talk | contribs) Fixed a reference. Please see Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter. |
||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
:Therefore, some C is not A. |
:Therefore, some C is not A. |
||
This is valid only if A is a [[proper subset]] of B and/or B is a proper subset of C. However, this argument reaches a faulty conclusion if A, B, and C are [[equivalence relation|equivalent]].<ref>{{cite book |title=The use of words in reasoning |author=Alfred Sidgwick |year=1901 |publisher=A. & C. Black |url=https://archive.org/details/useofwordsinreas00sidgiala |pages=[https://archive.org/details/useofwordsinreas00sidgiala/page/297 297]–300}}</ref><ref>{{cite |
This is valid only if A is a [[proper subset]] of B and/or B is a proper subset of C. However, this argument reaches a faulty conclusion if A, B, and C are [[equivalence relation|equivalent]].<ref>{{cite book |title=The use of words in reasoning |author=Alfred Sidgwick |year=1901 |publisher=A. & C. Black |url=https://archive.org/details/useofwordsinreas00sidgiala |pages=[https://archive.org/details/useofwordsinreas00sidgiala/page/297 297]–300}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |page=16 |title=Equivalence of syllogisms |author=Fred Richman |date=July 26, 2003 |publisher=Florida Atlantic University |url=http://www.math.fau.edu/richman/docs/syllog-4.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100619151753/http://math.fau.edu/Richman/Docs/syllog-4.pdf |archive-date=June 19, 2010 }}</ref> In the case that A = B = C, the conclusion of the following simple aaa-1 syllogism would contradict the aao-4 argument above: |
||
:All B is A. |
:All B is A. |
Latest revision as of 15:00, 23 August 2023
Negative conclusion from affirmative premises is a syllogistic fallacy committed when a categorical syllogism has a negative conclusion yet both premises are affirmative. The inability of affirmative premises to reach a negative conclusion is usually cited as one of the basic rules of constructing a valid categorical syllogism.
Statements in syllogisms can be identified as the following forms:
- a: All A is B. (affirmative)
- e: No A is B. (negative)
- i: Some A is B. (affirmative)
- o: Some A is not B. (negative)
The rule states that a syllogism in which both premises are of form a or i (affirmative) cannot reach a conclusion of form e or o (negative). Exactly one of the premises must be negative to construct a valid syllogism with a negative conclusion. (A syllogism with two negative premises commits the related fallacy of exclusive premises.)
Example (invalid aae form):
- Premise: All colonels are officers.
- Premise: All officers are soldiers.
- Conclusion: Therefore, no colonels are soldiers.
The aao-4 form is perhaps more subtle as it follows many of the rules governing valid syllogisms, except it reaches a negative conclusion from affirmative premises.
Invalid aao-4 form:
- All A is B.
- All B is C.
- Therefore, some C is not A.
This is valid only if A is a proper subset of B and/or B is a proper subset of C. However, this argument reaches a faulty conclusion if A, B, and C are equivalent.[1][2] In the case that A = B = C, the conclusion of the following simple aaa-1 syllogism would contradict the aao-4 argument above:
- All B is A.
- All C is B.
- Therefore, all C is A.
See also[edit]
- Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise, in which a syllogism is invalid because an affirmative conclusion is reached from a negative premise
- Fallacy of exclusive premises, in which a syllogism is invalid because both premises are negative
References[edit]
- ^ Alfred Sidgwick (1901). The use of words in reasoning. A. & C. Black. pp. 297–300.
- ^ Fred Richman (July 26, 2003). "Equivalence of syllogisms" (PDF). Florida Atlantic University. p. 16. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 19, 2010.
External links[edit]
- Gary N. Curtis. "Negative Conclusion from Affirmative Premisses". Fallacy Files. Retrieved December 20, 2010.