Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3):227-234 (1999)
Since Aristotle it is recognised that a valid syllogism cannot have two particular premises. However, that is not how a lay person sees it; at least as long as the premises read many, most etc, instead of a plain some. The lay people are right if one considers that these syllogisms do not have strict but approximate (Zadeh) validity. Typically there are only particular premises available in everyday life and one is dependent on such syllogisms. – Some rules on the usage of particular premises are given below.
|Keywords||approximate reasoning fuzzy logic possible worlds syllogisms with particular premises undetermined quantifiers|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Legal Concepts as Inferential Nodes and Ontological Categories.Giovanni Sartor - 2009 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (3):217-251.
Similar books and articles
Everyday Life and Cultural Theory: An Introduction.Ben Highmore - 2002 - Routledge.
Propositions as Premises of Syllogisms in Medieval Logic.Jorge J. E. Gracia - 1975 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 16 (4):545-547.
Contemporary Syllogistics: Comparative and Quantitative Syllogisms.Niki Pfeifer - 2006 - In G. Kreuzbauer & G. J. W. Dorn (eds.), Argumentation in Theorie Und Praxis: Philosophie Und Didaktik des Argumentierens. Lit. pp. 57--71.
Solving Categorical Syllogisms with Singular Premises.Hugo Mercier & Guy Politzer - 2008 - Thinking and Reasoning 14 (4):434-454.
Syllogisms with Fractional Quantifiers.Fred Johnson - 1994 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 23 (4):401 - 422.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads45 ( #112,840 of 2,153,830 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #398,274 of 2,153,830 )
How can I increase my downloads?