A friend once asked me if philosophy-cum-theology was opposed to science. It seems clear in hindsight that this is not the case since phil.-cum-theol. actually discovered the formal systems on which science relies. Syllogistic reasoning describes the basic rules of logic which we use to test the soundness of our reasoning. Lets examine some examples:
- All a are b; x belongs to a; therefore x belongs to b.
- if c then d, not d, therefore not c.
Which should not be mistaken for the false counterparts:
- All a are b; b (is true); therefore a (is true).
- if c then d, not c, therefore not d.
The first of these logical fallacies fails because b being true does not necessarily imply a to be true. The arrow of implication goes one way.
The second fallacy arises because of a misunderstanding of entailment.
The next part in this series of logic might consider induction and its relation to empiricism.