[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Arms into wings
In a message dated 3/5/99 7:59:20 PM EST, email@example.com writes:
<< That is not a syllogism. If you're going to be such nitpickers, better
study your medieval logic more carefully. >>
Bah. From my Webster's unabridged:
"Syllogism: ... 2. deductive reasoning. ..."
According to this singularly simple definition, all that's needed for there to
be a syllogism is for there to be a deduction from a premise.
Strictly, however, a syllogism in logic requires a major premise and a minor
premise in which the major premise contains the predicate of the conclusion
and the minor premise contains the subject of the conclusion. I had in mind
the second definition of the term, the more general one, rather than the
strict (or "medieval") definition. Who needs medieval definitions in a
dinosaur discussion? Dinosaurs were essentially unknown during the Middle
You want nitpicking? I'm a professional editor. I'll pick nits until the cows