Some Reflections on the Set-based and the Conditional-based Interpretations of Statements in Syllogistic Reasoning
This work addresses foundational issues in logical reasoning for researchers in philosophy and cognitive science, but it is incremental as it builds on existing interpretations without introducing new methods or data.
The paper compares set-based and conditional-based interpretations of syllogistic statements, analyzing their impact on existential import, singular statements, and non-proportional quantifiers to inform the development of syllogistic reasoning.
Two interpretations about syllogistic statements are described in this paper. One is the so-called set-based interpretation, which assumes that quantified statements and syllogisms talk about quantity-relationships between sets. The other one, the so-called conditional interpretation, assumes that quantified propositions talk about conditional propositions and how strong are the links between the antecedent and the consequent. Both interpretations are compared attending to three different questions (existential import, singular statements and non-proportional quantifiers) from the point of view of their impact on the further development of this type of reasoning.