Is the premise ‘occupation promotes health’ logical? A syllogistic analysis

Abstract

ABSTRACTThis paper focuses on whether the premise “occupation promotes health” is logical. The objective is to use this premise as the basis of a logical puzzle to demonstrate potential contributions of logic to occupational science and to emphasize the complementary roles of rational logic and empirical observation. The paper employs syllogisms, a rationalist method, to test the logic of this premise with different lexicographic and professional understandings of the terms occupation and health, and with empirical findings of the relationship between occupation and health. The syllogistic analysis reveals this premise is illogical, and how empirical findings alone are incapable of improving the validity of a postulation. In the process, it also uncovers potential reasons why laypersons find this premise difficult to understand, and why occupation and health are still contested terms. This paper discusses the implications of this analysis for occupational science and argues that empiricism and rationalism should play complementary roles in the epistemic development of occupational science.