David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Solving Syllogism problems are usually time consuming by Traditional methods and considered difficult by most of the students. New RAVAL NOTATION solves Syllogism problems very quickly and accurately. This method solves any categorical syllogism problem with same ease and is as simple as ABC… In RAVAL NOTATION, each premise and conclusion is written in abbreviated form, and then conclusion is reached simply by connecting abbreviated premises.NOTATION: Statements (both premises and conclusions) are represented as follows: Statement Notation a) All S are P SS-P b) Some S are P S-P c) Some S are not P (S / P) d) No S is P SS / PP (- implies are and / implies are not) All is represented by double letters; Some is represented by single letter. Some S are not P is represented as (S / P) in statement notation. This statement is written uniquely in brackets because one cannot include this statement in deriving any conclusion. (Some S are not P does not implies some P are not S). No S is P implies No P is S so its notation contains double letters on both sides. RULES: (1) Conclusions are reached by connecting Notations. Two notations can be linked only through common linking terms. When the common linking term multiplies (becomes double from single), divides (becomes single from double) or remains double then conclusion is arrived between terminal terms. (Aristotle’s rule: the middle term must be distributed at least once) (2)If both statements linked are having – signs, resulting conclusion carries – sign (Aristotle’s rule: two affirmatives imply an affirmative) (3) Whenever statements having – and / signs are linked, resulting conclusion carries / sign. (Aristotle’s rule: if one premise is negative, then the conclusion must be negative) (4)Statement having / sign cannot be linked with another statement having / sign to derive any conclusion. (Aristotle’s rule: Two negative premises imply no valid conclusion) (5)Whenever statement carrying / sign is involved as first statement in deducting conclusion then terminating point in statement carrying – sign should be in double letters to have any valid conclusion. (When the terminating term is in double letters, it limits the terminating term to the maximum up to common term. Hence valid conclusion follows only in this case when / sign is involved) Syllogism conclusion by Raval’s Notation is in accordance with Aristotle’s rules for the same. It is visually very transparent and conclusions can be deduced at a glance, moreover it solves syllogism problems with any number of statements and it is quickest of all available methods.Venn and Euler introduced their respective methods for categorical syllogism considering Aristotle method very cumbersome. By new Raval method for solving categorical syllogism, solving categorical syllogism is as simple as pronouncing ABC and it is just continuance of Aristotle work on categorical syllogism.Any apology for the method pursued would be either needless or useless.It is in accordance with Aristotle’s rules for categorical syllogism. Author wants acknowledgement of Raval notation method by concerned scholars of the subject.
|Keywords||Syllogism Venn's diagram Euler circles|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
John R. Welch (1991). Reconstructing Aristotle: The Practical Syllogism. Philosophia 21 (1-2):69-88.
Paolo Crivelli & David Charles (2011). In Aristotles Prior Analytics. Phronesis 56 (3):193-203.
Edward M. Engelmann (2007). Aristotle's Syllogystic, Modern Deductive Logic, and Scientific Demonstration. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 81 (4):535-552.
Mario Savio (1998). AE (Aristotle-Euler) Diagrams: An Alternative Complete Method for the Categorical Syllogism. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 39 (4):581-599.
David Hitchcock (2000). Fallacies and Formal Logic in Aristotle. History and Philosophy of Logic 21 (3):207-221.
Günther Patzig (1969). Aristotle's Theory of the Syllogism. Dordrecht, D. Reidel.
Ruggero Pagnan (2012). A Diagrammatic Calculus of Syllogisms. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 21 (3):347-364.
Maroun Aouad & Gregor Schoeler (2002). The Poetic Syllogism According to Al-Farabi: An Incorrect Syllogism of the Second Figure. Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 12 (2):185-196.
Peter Kreeft (2005). Socratic Logic. St. Augustine's Press.
S. V. Bhave (1997). Situations in Which Disjunctive Syllogism Can Lead From True Premises to a False Conclusion. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 38 (3):398-405.
Augustus De Morgan (1966). On the Syllogism. New Haven, Yale University Press.
Gemma Robles & José M. Méndez (2010). Paraconsistent Logics Included in Lewis’ S4. Review of Symbolic Logic 3 (03):442-466.
Added to index2012-01-10
Total downloads771 ( #53 of 1,009,294 )
Recent downloads (6 months)303 ( #29 of 1,009,294 )
How can I increase my downloads?