World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Polysyllogism

Article Id: WHEBN0000673094
Reproduction Date:

Title: Polysyllogism  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Syllogism, Outline of logic, Sorites, Syllogistic fallacy, Term logic
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Polysyllogism

A polysyllogism (also called multi-premise syllogism, sorites, climax, or gradatio) is a string of any number of propositions forming together a sequence of syllogisms such that the conclusion of each syllogism, together with the next proposition, is a premise for the next, and so on. Each constituent syllogism is called a prosyllogism except the very last, because the conclusion of the last syllogism is not a premise for another syllogism.

Contents

  • Example 1
  • Sorites 2
  • See also 3
  • References 4

Example

An example for a polysyllogism is:

It is raining.
If we go out while it is raining we will get wet.
If we get wet, we will get cold.
Therefore, if we go out we will get cold.

Examination of the structure of the argument reveals the following sequence of constituent (pro)syllogisms:

It is raining.
If we go out while it is raining we will get wet.
Therefore, if we go out we will get wet.


If we go out we will get wet.
If we get wet, we will get cold.
Therefore, if we go out we will get cold.

Sorites

A sorites is a specific kind of polysyllogism in which the predicate of each proposition is the subject of the next premise. Example:

All lions are big cats.
All big cats are predators.
All predators are carnivores.
Therefore, all lions are carnivores.

The word "sorites" comes from Ancient Greek: σωρίτης, "heaped up", from σωρός "heap" or "pile". In other words, a sorites is a heap of propositions chained together. A sorites polysyllogism should not be confused with the sorites paradox, a.k.a. fallacy of the heap.

Lewis Carroll uses sorites in his book (1896)Symbolic Logic. Here is an example:[1]

No experienced person is incompetent;
Jenkins is always blundering;
No competent person is always blundering.
Jenkins is inexperienced.

Carroll's example may be translated thus

All experienced persons are competent persons.
No competent persons are blunderers.
Jenkins is a blunderer.
Jenkins is not an experienced person.

See also

References

  • B. P. Bairan. An Introduction to Syllogistic Logic. Goodwill Trading. p. 342.  
  1. ^ p.113
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 



Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Hawaii eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.