Syllogistic Fallacy - When logic fails...

Logical analysis of situations is a human approach to life, in general. And logic, is not always universally justified, and has multiple implications and associations, for perceptions vary. Fallacies frequently mark the process of logical dissection of any situation.

Of the various "wrong" logical approaches, the Syllogistic fallacy is one which I extrapolate to in a vast number of situations. It falls under the category of reasoning which goes by the name "Syllogysms".

Syllogisms are arguments which consist of 2 statements, which include a "major premise" which is a general statement, and a "minor premise", which is a specific statement. There is a conclusion based on the two premises. Syllogisms can be tactfully used to persuade people regarding something wrong, which directly said would be rejected, but presented as a Syllogism, would lead to its acceptance.

A general representation for Syllogisms can be approximated to the following:

If A, then B. If B then C.

Since A, therefore C.

And a simpe example would go something like:

"If I get up late, I miss classes. If I miss classes, I run short of attendance. Hence if I wake up late, I lose attendance."

A Syllogistic fallacy, au contraire, is a widely misinterpreted form of the same, often seen in the intellectual iconoclasts who prefer to apply a partially understood logical musing than to grapple its nuances completely prior to experimentation. The various kinds of Syllogistic fallcaies can be enumerated as "Affirming the consequent", "Denying the antecedent", "Illicit Minor/Major" to name a few.

Here's a veritable digression from an acceptable approach.

"If I was Isaac Newton, I could solve this piece of calculus." Now I go ahead and actually solve the problem and then say, "I just proved I'm Isaac Newton", while I did no such miraculous feat...

The problem is evident now.

If A, then B : is true. But : since B, therefore A; is wrong to its very core.

It is a logically inappropriate approach, which people tend to follow with an ease of familiarity.

Teacher's, often tend to bask in Syllogistic fallacies, and use them as means, although inappropriate, to prove their students' subordination. How often does a teacher call upon a student to the board, when he is caught off guard sleeping, talking or not paying attention in his infinite appetite for distractions, and asks him to solve a seemingly obscene problem. Their approach is, approximately, this: "If you are a fool, you cannot solve it. Now you couldn't solve it, therefore, you are a fool." I would strongly disagree as to WHO the fool is, here, yes offence...

Other day to day encounters (from my perspective, needless to mention) include:

"We won the match, the people watching it are shouting." I cannot extrapolate, confined in my room, to the fact that "Since the people watching the match are shouting, we won". (This is a firsthand recollection. And I am not proud of it.)

"If you proxy for someone, there would be 2 similar handwritings on the paper. Now since there are 2 similar handwritings here, you have proxied". (A habitual fallacy my Strength of Materials teacher literally lives in.)

"Its thursday, the mess food is inedible. Now the mess food being inedible could lead you back to ANYDAY and ANYTIME" (Which is a universal truth)

If you liked this article, you probably read it to the end.

Now since you read it to this point, I'm sure you liked it.

Syllogistic fallacy.

- Vitruvius.