> a complete expression in L is uniquely determined by its *form*
> (i.e., syntax) without any consideration of any background
> In this sense, Aristotle's syllogisms are formal, even though they
> use a subset of the words and syntax of a natural language. For
> example, following is the *form* of the pattern named Barbara: (01)
> Every A is a B.
> Every B is a C.
> Therefore, every A is a C. (02)
> When the letters A, B, and C are replaced by arbitrary common nouns,
> the interpretation of the syllogism is uniquely determined --
> provided that the middle term B is required to apply to exactly
> the same individuals in both premises. (03)
> John Sowa (04)
By saying "provided X" aren't we introducing background knowledge? I.E
aren't we considering background knowledge implicitly? (05)
In the absurd we could say (06)
"Every lightning rod is a conductor"
"Every conductor studied music"
"Therefore, every lightning rod studied music" (07)
Aren't we introducing the background knowledge of the word 'lightning rod'
in determining why this is false? (08)
Vasco Calais Pedro (09)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (010)