How to Think #4: CELARENT

As I said earlier there are 256 syllogisms and 24 of them are valid. Nine of the valid ones however are controversial. How can a valid syllogism be controversial? We'll get to that later.

For now, here is the third non-controversial valid syllogism which is named Celarent.

In symbols Celarent looks like this:...

1. No M's are P's
2. All S's are M's
3. Therefore: No S's are P's

Using words instead of symbols we could come up with something like this:

1. No college professors are rich
2. All the attendees at a scientific conference are college professors
3. Therefore: no attendees at a scientific conference are rich

Compare Celarent to Barbara and you will see they are close relatives. Kind of opposites in a way.

One more example of Celarent:

1. No government employes are trustworthy
2. Police officers are government employees
3. Therefore: No police officers are trustworthy

My examples are intended to show valid syllogisms. I do not claim that my premises are always true!

***

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below and "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

https://amzn.to/3wquCn3

***

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Wayne Gadway