In the previous essay we saw how replacing terms with definitions could reveal the empirical unproductivity of the classical Aristotelian syllogism. All humans are mortal (and also, apparently, featherless bipeds); Socrates is human; therefore Socrates is mortal. When we replace the word “human” by its apparent definition, the following underlying reasoning is revealed: All [mortal, ¬feathers, biped] are mortal; Socrates is a [mortal, ¬feathers, biped]; Therefore Socrates is mortal.
One potential problem with sylogistic logic.
