عنوان مقاله [English]
The problem of this paper is “Matter mistake” and “Formal mistake” and its result is "Matter mistake is meaningless; what are in principle described as correct and incorrect, are forms". Studies showed Avicenna has no statement or proof about Matter Mistake and his definition of logic can be a start point for Classical logic. By accepting this statement, we need to accept a role for Matter Mistake in fallacy argument. Khajeh has used it and neglect all Matter Mistakes in fallacy, but on the other hand, Ghotb considered a place for it and so his argument is not consistent with this statement. Ghotb believes that Matter Mistake has no meaning by comparing it to the real world due to casual and necessity of foundations of knowledge. This belief also exists in Khajeh's thought but it is due to premises of syllogism and logical definitions. Now I think since these traditional logical discussions are so general and denotation criteria is not the same, so it has no contradiction to consider mistakes accompanying matter.