Origin of Articles

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

So how do you manage to account for laws of logic and why should I follow them if truth is relative?

(1) They are called 'the rules of inference',and are not laws.

(2) Logic does NOT guarantee truth.

A logical inference (conclusion) may be valid yet untrue. The conclusion is true IF AND ONLY IF the premise is true.

Neither logic nor science deals in absolute truths,( neither do I) In my experience it is only arrogant ,dogmatic believers who try to do such a thing. The rest of us assert "X is true as far as we can tell [now]" All question remain open for new evidence.

As for why 'you should'. Sorry,to tell you this,but you already do,in the very way you think, albeit badly. Eg your religious beliefs are based on syllogistic argument, but the premises have not be shown to be true.

Of course,you may continue to largely ignore the conventions of rational discussion used here. In that case, people here will continue to decline to take your seriously and continue to treat you as the fool you seem to be.


00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

In logic, a rule of inference, inference rule, or transformation rule is the act of drawing a conclusion based on the form of premises interpreted as a function which takes premises, analyses their syntax, and returns a conclusion (or conclusions). For example, the rule of inference modus ponens takes two premises, one in the form of "If p then q" and another in the form of "p" and returns the conclusion "q". The rule is valid with respect to the semantics of classical logic (as well as the semantics of many other non-classical logics), in the sense that if the premises are true (under an interpretation) then so is the conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_inference

A syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός – syllogismos – "conclusion," "inference") is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two or more others (the premises) of a certain form. In antiquity, there were two rival theories of the syllogism: Aristotelian syllogistic and Stoic syllogistic.[1]

Basic structure

A categorical syllogism consists of three parts: the major premise, the minor premise and the conclusion.

Each part is a categorical proposition, and each categorical proposition contains two categorical terms.[4] In Aristotle, each of the premises is in the form "All A are B," "Some A are B", "No A are B" or "Some A are not B", where "A" is one term and "B" is another. "All A are B," and "No A are B" are termed universal propositions; "Some A are B" and "Some A are not B" are termed particular propositions. More modern logicians allow some variation. Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion: in a major premise, this is the major term (i.e., the predicate of the conclusion); in a minor premise, it is the minor term (the subject) of the conclusion. For example:

Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: All Greeks are men.
Conclusion: All Greeks are mortal.

Each of the three distinct terms represents a category. In the above example, "men," "mortal," and "Greeks." "Mortal" is the major term; "Greeks", the minor term. The premises also have one term in common with each other, which is known as the middle term; in this example, "man." Both of the premises are universal, as is the conclusion.

Major premise: All mortals die.
Minor premise: Some men are mortals.
Conclusion: Some men die.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism