• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.141
• /
• pp.187-202
• /
• 2017

The aim of this paper is to clarify the difference between the concept of deduction-induction and Aristotle's concept of syllogismos-epagoge. First, Aristotle does not use the expression 'invalid syllogismos'. But a valid deduction is distinguished from a invalid deduction in modern logic. Second, from Aristotle's point of view syllogismos is paralleled by epagoge. Because syllogismos is equivalent to epagoge in logical form. But a disturbing lack of parallelism exists between deduction and induction by which the standards for establishing inductive conclusions are more demanding than those for deductive ones. Third, instructors in introductory logic courses ordinarily stress the need to evaluate arguments first in terms of the strength of the conclusion relative to the premises. Accordingly, students may be told to assume that premises are true. But Aristotle does not assume that premises are true. A syllogismos start from the conceptually true premise and a epagoge start from the empirically true premise.