10.04.2013 Views

An introductory text-book of logic - Mellone, Sydney - Rare Books at ...

An introductory text-book of logic - Mellone, Sydney - Rare Books at ...

An introductory text-book of logic - Mellone, Sydney - Rare Books at ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

78<br />

<strong>of</strong> I, the falsity <strong>of</strong> E :<br />

falsity<br />

IMMEDIATE INFERENCE.<br />

and<br />

from the truth <strong>of</strong> O, the<br />

<strong>of</strong> A. But the term Immedi<strong>at</strong>e Inference is<br />

usually restricted to certain formal transform<strong>at</strong>ions <strong>of</strong><br />

which a proposition is capable, and to which Pro<br />

fessor Bain has given the name <strong>of</strong><br />

positional<br />

been proposed.<br />

&quot;<br />

equivalent pro-<br />

forms.&quot; The name &quot;eductions&quot; has also<br />

There are two fundamental processes <strong>of</strong> eduction :<br />

conversion, by which we obtain an equivalent pro<br />

position in which S and P have changed places; and<br />

obversion, in which the equivalent has for predic<strong>at</strong>e the<br />

contradictory term<br />

&quot;<br />

&quot;<br />

not-P instead <strong>of</strong> P. 1<br />

All other<br />

processes <strong>of</strong> Immedi<strong>at</strong>e Inference, in the proper sense <strong>of</strong><br />

the term, consist <strong>of</strong> an altern<strong>at</strong>e performance <strong>of</strong> these<br />

two elementary oper<strong>at</strong>ions. Aristotle recognised only<br />

Conversion ; for he did not admit the use <strong>of</strong> the<br />

definite name<br />

&quot;<br />

not-P as a Subject or Predic<strong>at</strong>e.<br />

9. The term conversion, though sometimes used in<br />

a wider sense, is best restricted to signify the process by<br />

which from a given proposition we infer another having<br />

the subject <strong>of</strong> the original proposition for its predic<strong>at</strong>e<br />

and the predic<strong>at</strong>e <strong>of</strong> the original proposition for its<br />

subject. From a proposition <strong>of</strong> the type SP we infer<br />

an equivalent one <strong>of</strong> the type PS ; no new term, such<br />

as S (not-S) or P (not-P) is introduced.<br />

The rules for conversion follow <strong>at</strong> once from the<br />

meaning <strong>of</strong> the proposition as we have agreed to accept<br />

it. It asserts a rel<strong>at</strong>ion between two classes. <strong>An</strong><br />

affirm<strong>at</strong>ive proposition st<strong>at</strong>es th<strong>at</strong> two classes are wholly<br />

or partly coincident ( 5, figs, i, 2, 4, 5); a neg<strong>at</strong>ive<br />

proposition, th<strong>at</strong> they are wholly or partly exclusive <strong>of</strong><br />

1 For the future we shall follow a suggestion made by Mr<br />

Keynes, and indic<strong>at</strong>e the <strong>logic</strong>al contradictory <strong>of</strong> any term P by<br />

the symbol P .<br />

&quot;<br />

in

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!