Month: October 2020

Syllogistic Reasoning

A syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός, syllogismos, ‘conclusion, inference’) is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.

In a form, defined by Aristotle, from the combination of a general statement (the major premise) and a specific statement (the minor premise), a conclusion is deduced. For example, knowing that all men are mortal (major premise) and that Socrates is a man (minor premise), we may validly conclude that Socrates is mortal. Syllogistic arguments are usually represented in a three-line form:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

In antiquity, two rival syllogistic theories existed: Aristotelian syllogism and Stoic syllogism.[1] From the Middle Ages onwards, categorical syllogism and syllogism were usually used interchangeably. This article is concerned only with this traditional use. The syllogism was at the core of traditional deductive reasoning, whereby facts are determined by combining existing statements, in contrast to inductive reasoning where facts are determined by repeated observations.

Within an academic context, the syllogism was superseded by first-order predicate logic following the work of Gottlob Frege, in particular his Begriffsschrift (Concept Script; 1879). However, syllogisms remain useful in some circumstances, and for general-audience introductions to logic.[2][3]

Dred Scott 60 U.S. 393

     DRED SCOTT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. JOHN F. A. SANDFORD.
               SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
                   60 U.S. 393; 15 L. Ed. 691
                       DECEMBER, 1856 Term


PRIOR HISTORY: THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from
the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of
Missouri.

     It was an action of trespass vi et armis instituted in the
Circuit Court by Scott against Sandford.

     Prior to the institution of the present suit, an action was
brought by Scott for his freedom in the Circuit Court of St.
Louis county, (State court,) where there was a verdict and
judgment in his favor. On a writ of error to the Supreme Court of
the State, the judgment below was reversed, and the case remanded
to the Circuit Court, where it was continued to await the
decision of the case now in question.

     The declaration of Scott contained three counts: one, that
Sandford had assaulted the plaintiff; one, that he had assaulted
Harriet Scott, his wife; and one, that he had assaulted Eliza
Scott and Lizzie Scott, his children.

     Sandford appeared, and filed the following plea:

     DRED SCOTT v. JOHN F. A. SANDFORD.

     Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court.

     APRIL TERM, 1854.

     And the said John F. A. Sandford, in his own proper person,
comes and says that this court ought not to have or take further
cognizance of the action aforesaid, because he says that said
cause of action, and each and every of them, (if any such have
accrued to the said Dred Scott,) accrued to the said Dred Scott
out of the jurisdiction of this court, and exclusively within the
jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Missouri, for that, to
wit: the said plaintiff, Dred Scott, is not a citizen of the
State of Missouri, as alleged in his declaration, because he is a
negro of African descent; his ancestors were of pure African
blood, and were brought into this country and sold as negro
slaves, and this the said Sandford is ready to verify. Wherefore,
he prays judgment whether this court can or will take further
cognizance of the action aforesaid.

     JOHN F. A. SANDFORD.

http://supremelaw.org/decs/dredscot/dredscot.htm

Pierce v. Society of Sisters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_v._Society_of_Sisters

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), was an early 20th-century United States Supreme Court decision striking down an Oregon statute that required all children to attend public school.[1] The decision significantly expanded coverage of the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to recognize personal civil liberties. The case has been cited as a precedent in more than 100 Supreme Court cases, including Roe v. Wade, and in more than 70 cases in the courts of appeals.