Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    The traditional syllogism is an informal proof, not a for... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Gaplessness and formality do not always go together

    The traditional syllogism is an informal proof, not a formal proof

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Gaplessness and formality do not always go togetherThe traditional syllogism 'All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; hence Socrates...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Judgments and syllogisms are the subject matter of traditional logic.86%A syllogism is defined as an argument that is an indemonstrable or red...81%A syllogism is a kind of motion where properties are deduced from the ...81%Syllogisms are certain kinds of formally valid arguments, but not all ...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: mathematics-nondeductive
    View source passageHide passage
    The reason for the condition that any rule be an explicitly stated rule of inference for the system is because we want to make room for gappy yet valid proofs. For example, “2 + 2 = 4, hence there are infinitely many primes” is a valid argument, but clearly there is a large gap between its premise and its conclusion. On the other hand, despite the above definition only working for formal proofs, gaplessness and formality do not always go together. Thus a traditional syllogism such as, “All men a

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective