"Apodictic"
or "apodeictic" (Ancient Greek: "ἀποδεικτικός", "capable of
demonstration") is an adjectival expression from Aristotelean logic that refers topropositions that are demonstrable, that
are necessarily or self-evidently the case or that, conversely,
are impossible.[1] Apodicticity or apodixis is the corresponding abstract noun, referring to logical certainty.
Apodictic
propositions contrast with assertoric propositions, which merely
assert that something is (or is not) the case, and with problematic
propositions, which assert only the possibility of something being true. Franz Brentano writes in The True and
the Evident, "judgments may be either assertoric or apodictic.
Assertoric judgments are judgments which are possibly true but are
unproven." Apodictic judgments are judgments which are clearly provable
and logically certain. For instance, "Two plus two equals four" is
apodictic. "Chicago is larger than Omaha" is assertoric. "A
corporation could be wealthier than a country" is problematic. In Aristotelian logic, "apodictic"
is opposed to "dialectic," as scientific proof is opposed to probable reasoning. Kant contrasts "apodictic" with
"problematic" and "assertoric" in the Critique of Pure Reason, page A70/B95.
The
expression "apodictic" is also sometimes applied to a style of
argumentation in which a person presents his reasoning as being categorically
true, even if it is not necessarily so. An example of such a usage might be:
"Demonstrate less apodicticity! You haven't considered several
facets of the question."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apodicticity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Francesco_Hayez_001.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apodicticity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Francesco_Hayez_001.jpg