Cogito Ergo SUM!

Strong induction
All observed crows are black.
Therefore:
All crows are black.
Weak induction
I always hang pictures on nails.
Therefore:
All pictures hang from nails.
The conecting of the two statements, the so called premise and conclusion, are not logical in the weak inductively reasoned statement. And you could never really conclude that all crows are black becuase you could look into the crows genes and find out that some have the possibility of becoming albino crows.

The statement by Aristotle "Contemplation is the greatest good" was inductive reasoning because he used a lifetime of his own knowledge to which he reasoned from a large number of his own particular examples to an arrived general rule. Hence the famous Quote was born. I personally think he was referring to life. All thoughout our lives we constantly "contemplate" everything... we contemplate the future the past and then present (which always seems to be just beyond our grasp). Thus i think since he calls contemplation the greatest good, and what i think he's referring to is life... then life is the greatest good.. and i agree 100% to that. This certainly leads up to "cogito ergo sum" becuase contemplation is a gift of the mind which we accomplish thanks to something im not quite aware of. Mr.Rene Descartes seems to understand that he cannot deny that he's thinking that he's thinking and so forth till infinitum.
thank you.

BAD syllogism

All dogs have 4 legs.
My cat has 4 legs.
Therefore my cat is a dog.

this is a "bad" syllogism. All dogs do indeed have four legs, but also do cats for example, as stated in the syllogism, but just becuase all dogs or all of any living thing, have something, it doesn't mean that then everything else that have the same traits are dogs, or that particular living thing. In the above diagram it shows how the logic or fallacy occurs in a syllogism. In conclusion of the diagram we see that SP and SMP are both in the S circle and P Circle, so Sp and SMP are both true in relation to S and P. This is the reasoning behind syllogisms but, for me, its a false form of reasoning becuase two things may have the same trait as i showed above, and not neecesarily be the same thing.

We must do something.
This is something.
Therefore we must do this.

This syllogism is great, its a continous syllogism because once you do something then you keep on doing sosmething, because you always are doing something. So far we've see two syllogism and a diagram showing the logic of the latter.
so we know that a syllogism is a pattern of deductive reasoning involving two premises and a conclusion. A bad syllogism gets the conclusion from the prior premises in a manner which doesn't necessarily follow. Also a syllogism may be correct in the conclusion but not in the prior sentences conjuring to the conclusion. So saying a bad syllogism which may mean a false syllogism is incorrect, the correct way to state if a syllogism is "bad" would be using the word invalid.

animal language

Do animals use language?! I do not think so. Language is different from just plain communication. The dictionary definition of language is:
communication by voice in the distinctively human manner, using arbitrary sounds in conventional ways with conventional meanings; speech.

us humans in our languages have various forms of meanings attributed to them.
these are:

*Arbitrariness: There is no rational relationship between a sound or sign and its meaning. (There is nothing intrinsically "housy" about the word "house".)
Cultural transmission: Language is passed from one language user to the next, consciously or unconsciously.
Discreteness: Language is composed of discrete units that are used in combination to create meaning.
Displacement: Languages can be used to communicate ideas about things that are not in the immediate vicinity either spatially or temporally.
Duality: Language works on two levels at once, a surface level and a semantic (meaningful) level.
Metalinguistics: Ability to discuss language itself.
Productivity: A finite number of units can be used to create a very large number of utterances. *

To find an animal discussing language itself, is never going to happen. Animals communicate on a context based manner in order to obtain primarly food, or social reinforcement. Theyre "languages" or means of communicating do not fall into our human category of language. They can maybe through instinct emit a common noise to mean predator or prey, but cannot sit around the fire and communicate about the predator and how mean it is, or how tasty the prey is. It is a very simple form of communication, it does not have dualistic meaning, doesnt have a written representation of the communication language, like ours, and does not have a cultural reinforcement. So i guess animal language is just a tag we have merely placed upon the simple and straightforward sounds or lights or smells they emit. We are fascinated about this becuase we would have another view of the world from a different species. It would be really nice speaking to my pet dog sparky, and ask him exactly what he thinks abou the moons and the stars and jupiter.