A syllogism is three lines, each containing a quantifier, a subject, and a possibly negated predicate. It is a really rigid form of argument, and not tree-like at all. You may be thinking of a sorites, which is a bunch of syllogisms put together. Tree structured arguments are incredibly common in all kinds of logic, proof theory, and argumentation theory. Leaping from “tree-shaped” to “sorites” is like leaping from “flattish” to “flat-earthers”.
Regardless of my nitpicking, I agree with you: we need progeny of these experiments. I may disagree about the details (predicate logic? lojban?!).
Thank you for the information on syllogisms. I know I was using the term wrong below, and I really should have known better. It may be nitpicking, but I think rationalists more than others are probably interested in making sure they use words correctly.
If you’re familiar with Lojban, I’d be very interested in a post on how you think it would or wouldn’t help with rationality.
A syllogism is three lines, each containing a quantifier, a subject, and a possibly negated predicate. It is a really rigid form of argument, and not tree-like at all. You may be thinking of a sorites, which is a bunch of syllogisms put together. Tree structured arguments are incredibly common in all kinds of logic, proof theory, and argumentation theory. Leaping from “tree-shaped” to “sorites” is like leaping from “flattish” to “flat-earthers”.
Regardless of my nitpicking, I agree with you: we need progeny of these experiments. I may disagree about the details (predicate logic? lojban?!).
Thank you for the information on syllogisms. I know I was using the term wrong below, and I really should have known better. It may be nitpicking, but I think rationalists more than others are probably interested in making sure they use words correctly.
If you’re familiar with Lojban, I’d be very interested in a post on how you think it would or wouldn’t help with rationality.