Correctness of Syllogistic Reasoning

Mircea Adrian MARICA

doi:10.18662/lumproc.rsacvp2017.42

Mircea Adrian MARICA Associate Professor. PhD, Ovidius University, Constanta, Romania

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18662/lumproc.rsacvp2017.42

Keywords: syllogism, syllogistic modes, syllogistic figures, cognitive psychology

Abstract

The syllogistic inferences with cognitive statements are formal structures of thinking researched even from the Greek antiquity and make the subject of logics. The research of the modalities in which ordinary people reason in syllogistic structures is of a much more recent date, since the last century, and make the object of cognitive psychology. Our empirical study aims to investigate the correctness of thinking in various schemes of syllogistic reasoning. For this purpose we applied a set of four questionnaires, comprising 16 syllogisms each, of which 8 with affirmative conclusion and 8 with negative conclusion; 8 modes with universal conclusion, 8 modes with particular conclusion; each questionnaire includes four modes of each syllogistic figure. The first questionnaire contains complete syllogisms in formal expression, which the respondent must evaluate in terms of correctness. The second questionnaire contains the same premises as the first one, but the subjects are required to draw the proper conclusion themselves. Questionnaires 3 and 4 are analogous to the first two, except that this time syllogisms are formulated in natural language. Statistical processing involved comparing the number of correct answers in relation to the variables studied – syllogistic figure, valid/invalid syllogistic mode, affirmative/negative, universal/particular conclusion. The research was replied having been obtained similar results.

References

[1] Begg I, Hariss, G. On the interpretation of syllogisms. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1982; 21: 595-620.
[2] Braine, M. D. S, Rumain, B. Logical reasoning. In: Editor Flavell J. H, Editor Markman E. M. Carmichael`s handbook of child psychology, vol III, Cognitive development. New York: Wiley: 1983, pp. 263 – 340.
[3] Bucciarelli, M, Johnson-Laird, P. N. Strategies in Syllogistic Reasoning. Cognitive Science. 1999; 23 (3): 247-303.
[4] Chapman L. J, Chapman, J. P. Atmosphere Effect Re-Examined. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1959; 58 (3): 220.
[5] Didilescu, I, Botezatu, P. Silogistica clasică şi interpretările modern [Classical syllogistics and modern interpretations]. Bucharest: Didactic and Pedagogical Publishing House; 1976, p.17.
[6] Faiciuc, L. E. Recent theories on the processes of syllogistic reasoning and their explanatory limits. History Institute „G. Bariţ” of Cluj-Napoca, Series Humanistica. 2007; tom. V: 115–136.
[7] Goel, Dolan, Functional Neuroanatomy of Three-Term Relational Reasoning. Neuropsychologia. 2001; 39: 173-204.
[8] Iancu, L. Locul silogismului categoric în studiile de psihologie a raționamentului [Position of Categorical Syllogism in Studies of Psychology of Reason]. ANNALS of the University of Bucharest, Philosophy, Series. 2006; LV(1): 135–152.
[9] Johnson-Laird, P. N. Experimental psycholinguistics. Annual Review of Psychology. 1974; 25: 135-160.
[10] Khemlani S, Johnson-Laird P. N. Theories of the Syllogism: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 2012; 138(3): 427-457.
[11] Revlin R., Leirer, V. O. The effects of personal biases on syllogistic reasoning: Rational decision from personalized representations. In: Editor Revlin R, Editor Mayer R. E. Human reasoning. New York: John Wiley; 1978.
[12] Rips, L. J. The Psychology of Proof: Deductive Reasoning in Human Thinking. Mass: Cambridge; 1994.
[13] Roberts, M. J., Newstead, S. E., Grigss, R. A. Quantifier Interpretation and Syllogistic Reasoning. Thinking an Reasoning. 2001; 7: 901-909.
[14] Surdu, A. Semnificaţia psihologică a silogismului categoric [Psychological Meaning of Categorical Syllogism]. In Cercetări filosofico-psihologice [Philosophical and Psychological Research], Year I, 2009 oct., Nr.1, Bucharest.
[15] Woodworth, R.S, Seels, S. B. An atmosphere effect in formal reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1935; 18: 451-460.