Recently, I have read a book called New History of Western Philosophy by Anthony Kenny.
In this book, he starts chapter 4 Logic with a section called Mill’s Empiricist Logic, which contains an introduction to his logic and Kenny’s critiques on him.
My question is about the meaning of the term ‘syllogism’ and ‘non-syllogistic’ used by Kenny there.
What follows is his explanation and critique to it, where he use those terms.
Mill distinguished real inference, which is informative, and verbal inference, which brings no new knowledge about the world.
“He accepted that all reasoning was syllogistic, and he claimed that in every syllogism the conclusion is actually contained and implied in the premisses.”
Since he considered the major premisses in every syllogism as general proposition collected by induction, those were informative, but not justified.
This is why he thought that the syllogism was not a genuine inference.
However, Kenny thinks that “Mill’s criticism of deductive argument involves a confusion between logic and epistemology.”
Because “syllogism is not the only form of inference, and there are many valid non-syllogistic argument (e.g. arguments of the form ‘A=B’, ‘B=C’, therefore ‘A=C’) which are quite capable of conveying information.”
Why is an argument of the form (‘A=B’, ‘B=C’, therefore ‘A=C’) non-syllogistic?
This is my first question.
And second one is what exactly the confusion between logic and epistemology means.
I’m not sure whether I give you enough context to understand my questions, because I don’t understand!