Dictum de omni et nullo

Last updated

In Aristotelian logic, dictum de omni et nullo (Latin: "the maxim of all and none") is the principle that whatever is affirmed or denied of a whole kind K may be affirmed or denied (respectively) of any subkind of K. This principle is fundamental to syllogistic logic in the sense that all valid syllogistic argument forms are reducible to applications of the two constituent principles dictum de omni and dictum de nullo. [1]

Contents

Dictum de omni

Dictum de omni (sometimes misinterpreted as universal instantiation) [2] is the principle that whatever is universally affirmed of a kind is affirmable as well for any subkind of that kind.
Example:

(1) Dogs are mammals.
(2) Mammals have livers.
Therefore (3) dogs have livers.

Premise (1) states that "dog" is a subkind of the kind "mammal".
Premise (2) is a (universal affirmative) claim about the kind "mammal".
Statement (3) concludes that what is true of the kind "mammal" is true of the subkind "dog".

Dictum de nullo

Dictum de nullo is the related principle that whatever is denied of a kind is likewise denied of any subkind of that kind.
Example:

(1) Dogs are mammals.
(4) Mammals do not have gills.
Therefore (5) dogs do not have gills.

Premise (1) states that "dog" is a subkind of the kind "mammal".
Premise (4) is a (universal negative) claim about the kind "mammal".
Statement (5) concludes that what is denied of the kind "mammal" is denied of the subkind "dog".

Discussion

In Aristotelean syllogistic, these two principles correspond respectively to the two argument forms, Barbara and Celarent.

These principles correspond roughly to a valid argument form known as universal hypothetical syllogism in first-order predicate logic. Nevertheless Aristotelean syllogistic does not employ the formal machinery of first-order quantification. This by itself accounts for why it is incorrect to identify Dictum de omni as universal instantiation. The latter mistake is more easily explained by the fact that universal instantiation is a single-premise form of deduction that is not even a syllogism.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chrysippus</span> Greek Stoic philosopher

Chrysippus of Soli was a Greco-Phoenician Stoic philosopher. He was a native of Soli, Cilicia, but moved to Athens as a young man, where he became a pupil of the Stoic philosopher Cleanthes. When Cleanthes died, around 230 BC, Chrysippus became the third head of the Stoic school. A prolific writer, Chrysippus expanded the fundamental doctrines of Cleanthes' mentor Zeno of Citium, the founder and first head of the school, which earned him the title of the Second Founder of Stoicism.

<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.

<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.

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.

The fallacy of the undistributed middle is a formal fallacy that is committed when the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed in either the minor premise or the major premise. It is thus a syllogistic fallacy.

Illicit major is a formal fallacy committed in a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is undistributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Illicit minor</span> Type of formal fallacy in syllogism

Illicit minor is a formal fallacy committed in a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term is undistributed in the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion.

The fallacy of exclusive premises is a syllogistic fallacy committed in a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.

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 predicate logic, universal instantiation is a valid rule of inference from a truth about each member of a class of individuals to the truth about a particular individual of that class. It is generally given as a quantification rule for the universal quantifier but it can also be encoded in an axiom schema. It is one of the basic principles used in quantification theory.

The Posterior Analytics is a text from Aristotle's Organon that deals with demonstration, definition, and scientific knowledge. The demonstration is distinguished as a syllogism productive of scientific knowledge, while the definition marked as the statement of a thing's nature, ... a statement of the meaning of the name, or of an equivalent nominal formula.

Early Islamic law placed importance on formulating standards of argument, which gave rise to a "novel approach to logic" in Kalam . However, with the rise of the Mu'tazili philosophers, who highly valued Aristotle's Organon, this approach was displaced by the older ideas from Hellenistic philosophy. The works of al-Farabi, Avicenna, al-Ghazali and other Muslim logicians who often criticized and corrected Aristotelian logic and introduced their own forms of logic, also played a central role in the subsequent development of European logic during the Renaissance.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Logical form</span> Form for logical arguments, obtained by abstracting from the subject matter of its content terms

In logic, logical form of a statement is a precisely-specified semantic version of that statement in a formal system. Informally, the logical form attempts to formalize a possibly ambiguous statement into a statement with a precise, unambiguous logical interpretation with respect to a formal system. In an ideal formal language, the meaning of a logical form can be determined unambiguously from syntax alone. Logical forms are semantic, not syntactic constructs; therefore, there may be more than one string that represents the same logical form in a given language.

In 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.

The practical syllogism is an instance of practical reasoning which takes the form of a syllogism, where the conclusion of the syllogism is an action.

Stoic logic is the system of propositional logic developed by the Stoic philosophers in ancient Greece.

References

Notes

  1. John Stuart Mill (15 January 2001). System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation. Elibron.com. p. 114. ISBN   978-1-4021-8157-3 . Retrieved 6 March 2011.
  2. See “Dictum de omni et nullo.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictum%20de%20omni%20et%20nullo. Accessed 18 Jul. 2023.