Chapter 66 <Tiger is an old animal>

A and B have a dialogue. A: Is language a tool of communication? B: Yes. A: Based on the premise that language is a tool of communication, is it possible to conclude that the language of the Han nationality is a tool of communication for the Han nationality? B: It can be rolled out completely. A: Is a tiger an animal? B: Of course. A: Based on the premise that tigers are animals, can we draw the conclusion that tigers are old animals? B: No. A: Why can the previous reasoning be established, but this reasoning cannot be established?Aren't they the same? B: Can't answer. The above two inferences are called the inference of the attached method, referred to as the attached method.The so-called supplementary method refers to the front and back of the subject and predicate of a full-name affirmative judgment or singular affirmative judgment.Both add the same concept, so as to get a direct reasoning of a new judgment (conclusion).

From the point of view of words, the additional words can be adjectives (indicating properties), numerals (indicating quantities), or verbs (indicating actions).In order to ensure that a true conclusion is deduced from a true premise, the adjunctive method must abide by the rules of reasoning.One of the rules is: when combined with the subject and predicate of the premise, the additional concept cannot have different meanings, and the objects reflected must be the same. For example: the students of Shandong University are college students; therefore, most of the students of Shandong University are the majority of college students.

This reasoning violates this rule.From the point of view of words, although most of the same words are added, when it is combined with the subject and predicate, it expresses different concepts, and the objects reflected are different (different extensions).The main item refers to the majority of students in Shandong University, and the predicate item refers to the majority of college students. Taking the two inferences mentioned above, the reason why the former reasoning is correct is because it abides by this rule, and the reason why the latter reasoning is wrong is because it violates this rule.

As we all know, the concept of tiger already has a definite meaning in natural language, which refers to a ferocious animal. In terms of words, this is a proper name for an animal, and the old does not reflect the physiological attributes, that is, it does not mean Older; and old in old animals reflects physiological attributes, that is, older.It can be seen that this reasoning is a sophistry reasoning that uses different contexts to secretly replace concepts.