Obversion

Last updated

In traditional logic, obversion is a "type of immediate inference in which from a given proposition another proposition is inferred whose subject is the same as the original subject, whose predicate is the contradictory of the original predicate, and whose quality is affirmative if the original proposition's quality was negative and vice versa". [1] The quality of the inferred categorical proposition is changed but the truth value is the same to the original proposition. The immediately inferred proposition is termed the "obverse" of the original proposition, and is a valid form of inference for all types (A, E, I, O) of categorical propositions.

Contents

In a universal affirmative and a universal negative proposition the subject term and the predicate term are both replaced by their negated counterparts:

The universal affirmative ("A" proposition) is obverted to a universal negative ("E" proposition).

"All S are P" and "No S are non-P"
"All cats are animals" and "No cats are non-animals"

The universal negative ("E" proposition) is obverted to a universal affirmative ("A" proposition).

"No S are P" and "All S are non-P"
"No cats are friendly" and "All cats are non-friendly"

In the particular affirmative the quantity of the subject term remains unchanged, but the predicate term of the inferred proposition negates the complement of the predicate term of the original proposition. The particular affirmative ("I" proposition) is obverted to a particular negative ("O" proposition).

"Some S are P" and "Some S are not non-P"
"Some animals are friendly creatures" and "Some animals are not unfriendly creatures."

In the obversion of a particular negative to a particular affirmative the quantity of the subject also remains unchanged, and the predicate term is changed from simple negation to a term of the complementary class. The particular negative ("O") proposition is obverted to a particular affirmative ("I" proposition).

"Some S are not P" and "Some S are non-P"
"Some animals are not friendly creatures" and "Some animals are unfriendly creatures."

Note that the truth-value of an original statement is preserved in its resulting obverse form. Because of this, obversion can be used to determine the immediate inferences of all categorical propositions, regardless of quality or quantity.

In addition, obversion allows us to navigate through the traditional square of logical opposition by providing a means to proceed from "A" Propositions to "E" Propositions, as well as from "I" Propositions to "O" Propositions, and vice versa. However, although the resulting propositions from obversion are logically equivalent to the original statements in terms of truth-value, they are not semantically equivalent to their original statements in their standard form.

See also

Footnotes

  1. Quoted definition is from: Brody, Bobuch A. "Glossary of Logical Terms". Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 5–6, p. 70. Macmillan, 1973. Also, Stebbing, L. Susan. A Modern Introduction to Logic. Seventh edition, pp. 65–66. Harper, 1961, and Irving Copi's Introduction to Logic, p. 141, Macmillan, 1953. All sources give virtually identical explanations. Copi (1953) and Stebbing (1931) both limit the application to categorical propositions, and in Symbolic Logic, 1979, Copi limits the use of the process, remarking on its "absorption" into the Rules of Replacement in quantification and the axioms of class algebra.

Bibliography

Related Research Articles

In classical logic, disjunctive syllogism is a valid argument form which is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement for one of its premises.

First-order logic—also known as predicate logic, quantificational logic, and first-order predicate calculus—is a collection of formal systems used in mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and computer science. First-order logic uses quantified variables over non-logical objects, and allows the use of sentences that contain variables, so that rather than propositions such as "Socrates is a man", one can have expressions in the form "there exists x such that x is Socrates and x is a man", where "there exists" is a quantifier, while x is a variable. This distinguishes it from propositional logic, which does not use quantifiers or relations; in this sense, propositional logic is the foundation of first-order logic.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Syllogism</span> Type of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning

A syllogism is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.

In predicate logic, an existential quantification is a type of quantifier, a logical constant which is interpreted as "there exists", "there is at least one", or "for some". It is usually denoted by the logical operator symbol ∃, which, when used together with a predicate variable, is called an existential quantifier ("x" or "∃(x)" or "(∃x)"). Existential quantification is distinct from universal quantification ("for all"), which asserts that the property or relation holds for all members of the domain. Some sources use the term existentialization to refer to existential quantification.

In logic and mathematics, the converse of a categorical or implicational statement is the result of reversing its two constituent statements. For the implication PQ, the converse is QP. For the categorical proposition All S are P, the converse is All P are S. Either way, the truth of the converse is generally independent from that of the original statement.

In logic, an inverse is a type of conditional sentence which is an immediate inference made from another conditional sentence. More specifically, given a conditional sentence of the form , the inverse refers to the sentence . Since an inverse is the contrapositive of the converse, inverse and converse are logically equivalent to each other.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Square of opposition</span>

In term logic, the square of opposition is a diagram representing the relations between the four basic categorical propositions. The origin of the square can be traced back to Aristotle's tractate On Interpretation and its distinction between two oppositions: contradiction and contrariety. However, Aristotle did not draw any diagram; this was done several centuries later by Apuleius and Boethius.

Understood in a narrow sense, philosophical logic is the area of logic that studies the application of logical methods to philosophical problems, often in the form of extended logical systems like modal logic. Some theorists conceive philosophical logic in a wider sense as the study of the scope and nature of logic in general. In this sense, philosophical logic can be seen as identical to the philosophy of logic, which includes additional topics like how to define logic or a discussion of the fundamental concepts of logic. The current article treats philosophical logic in the narrow sense, in which it forms one field of inquiry within the philosophy of logic.

In logic and formal semantics, term logic, also known as traditional logic, syllogistic logic or Aristotelian logic, is a loose name for an approach to formal logic that began with Aristotle and was developed further in ancient history mostly by his followers, the Peripatetics. It was revived after the third century CE by Porphyry's Isagoge.

De Interpretatione or On Interpretation is the second text from Aristotle's Organon and is among the earliest surviving philosophical works in the Western tradition to deal with the relationship between language and logic in a comprehensive, explicit, and formal way. The work is usually known by its Latin title.

In traditional logic, contraposition is a form of immediate inference in which a proposition is inferred from another and where the former has for its subject the contradictory of the original logical proposition's predicate. In some cases, contraposition involves a change of the former's quality. For its symbolic expression in modern logic, see the rule of transposition. Contraposition also has philosophical application distinct from the other traditional inference processes of conversion and obversion where equivocation varies with different proposition types.

The laws of thought are fundamental axiomatic rules upon which rational discourse itself is often considered to be based. The formulation and clarification of such rules have a long tradition in the history of philosophy and logic. Generally they are taken as laws that guide and underlie everyone's thinking, thoughts, expressions, discussions, etc. However, such classical ideas are often questioned or rejected in more recent developments, such as intuitionistic logic, dialetheism and fuzzy logic.

In logic, a categorical proposition, or categorical statement, is a proposition that asserts or denies that all or some of the members of one category are included in another. The study of arguments using categorical statements forms an important branch of deductive reasoning that began with the Ancient Greeks.

In propositional logic, transposition is a valid rule of replacement that permits one to switch the antecedent with the consequent of a conditional statement in a logical proof if they are also both negated. It is the inference from the truth of "A implies B" to the truth of "Not-B implies not-A", and conversely. It is very closely related to the rule of inference modus tollens. It is the rule that

In logic and philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic. It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion. Thus, a formal fallacy is a fallacy where deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process. This may not affect the truth of the conclusion, since validity and truth are separate in formal logic.

Logic is the formal science of using reason and is considered a branch of both philosophy and mathematics and to a lesser extent computer science. Logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and the study of arguments in natural language. The scope of logic can therefore be very large, ranging from core topics such as the study of fallacies and paradoxes, to specialized analyses of reasoning such as probability, correct reasoning, and arguments involving causality. One of the aims of logic is to identify the correct and incorrect inferences. Logicians study the criteria for the evaluation of arguments.

The False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures Proved is an essay published by Immanuel Kant in 1762.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Logic</span> Study of correct reasoning

Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the science of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It studies how conclusions follow from premises due to the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content. Informal logic is associated with informal fallacies, critical thinking, and argumentation theory. It examines arguments expressed in natural language while formal logic uses formal language. When used as a countable noun, the term "a logic" refers to a logical formal system that articulates a proof system. Logic plays a central role in many fields, such as philosophy, mathematics, computer science, and linguistics.