معارف منطقی

This study uses an analytical-comparative approach to examine the criteria for the validity of inference in two contemporary logical traditions: the Masha'i and the analytic. In the Masha'i tradition, the validity of inference is not only a function of the formal correctness of the syllogism, but also relies on the conceptual necessity and epistemological connection between premises and conclusion. In contrast, contemporary analytic logic, inspired by the works of Frege and Tarski, defines validity in a formal and model-based framework, such that the conclusion must be true in all possible interpretations of the premises. The study of the original texts of both traditions provides a three-dimensional framework for comparative analysis, including the formal dimension, thematic dimension, and epistemological dimension. The findings show that the Masha'i and the analytic have two distinct approaches to validity, but combining these two perspectives allows for the presentation of a two-dimensional model that takes into account both the formality of the inference and its conceptual necessity. This model can provide a basis for a philosophical and interdisciplinary rethinking of the theory of inferential validity.