In 20th century, Classic Logic allowed logicians to look at Aristotelian Logic from a broader perspective. With the fruition of the studies and research of Lukasiewicz about Aristotelian Logic in the first half of the 20th century, a new path opened for logicians. In the framework of Classic Logic and using its rules and principles, Lukasiewicz introduced Aristotelian syllogisms as Axiomatic System, providing a detailed explanation of his method. In this approach, Barbara and Datisi beside the Identity are axioms; therefore, other moods are deducible by applying these two and borrowing inference rules from Propositional Logic. Later, in the early 1970s, Smiley and Corcoran disagreed with Lukasiewicz’s view. Smiley and Corcoran introduced Aristotelian syllogism as Natural Deduction System, The upcoming research aim is to present reasons based on the deductive nature of the Aristotelian Logical System after introducing each approach and comparing them with Aristotle's statements .

The relationship between ethics and religion is an important issue especially when facing with different ethical and religious perspectives. Separating religion from ethics, new concepts such as secular ethics emerges. In this field, special attention has paid to the commentary of derivation of ethics from religion which we are going to discuss about that.Our data have been collected from reliable Islamic sources from the library of the National Museum of Medical Sciences History. We also did search in the Yahoo and Google using key words such as ethics and religion, divine command theory and Islam.Taking a look at the human history shows us that in many societies religious and ethical claims have a close relationship. Controversy among Ashaere and Motazele shows the long history of the issue among Muslims. The relationship between ethics and religion can be fundamental or structural. Fundamentally, the common aims between religion and ethics and the requirement of ethics to the religion can be mentioned. In fact, both of them seek human perfection; however, human s intellect has intrinsic deficiencies. Religion compensates it by offering divine commands. In addition, regarding the wide spectrum of religious claims, religion will have an organic relationship with ethics like a tree with its trunk. For acting morally and preventing unethical actions, human beings need to be encouraged or punished. Religious comments can support and clarify ethical commands. On the other hand, with the promise of heaven and the threat of hell, people would behave morally.From theoretical point of view, there is controversy among Muslims. Ashaere don t believe in reasonable deductions and regard the religion as the only source for ethical commands. However, Moetazelis accept rational deductions as a source for ethical claims.Therefore the Theory of derivation of ethics from religion , can be evaluated from different aspects. The common aims have supportive effect on these two aspects. The ethics based on wisdom, requires religious guidance in order to compensate its limitations. The religious confirmation on the definitions of common ethics guaranties the social behavior. From theoretic point of view, there is controversy among Muslims (Ashaere and Moetazelis) as well.

In recent years, using fuzzy sets theory in modeling of complex and uncertain hydrological phenomena has attracted research workers. For this reason, in this research for river flow forecasting, we have used models of FIS and ANFIS which are based on fuzzy logic. Data of daily flow discharges were provided from Lighvanchay watershed for 6 years. For considering the randomness of data, return points test was used. Then correlogram of data was employed to determine the input optimum models and finally 5 models of discharge forecasting designed based on previous days' discharge. The results showed that ANFIS was more precise and less disperse (RMSE=0.0234) with compare to FIS (RMSE=0.1982). The ANFIS was also more precise in peak discharges simulation than FIS.

Interpretation is the method of law. It has sub methods. Any of these sub methods have basis and use technique that coordinate with its basis. One of the sub methods at law is the systematic method of interpretation. The major base of this method is to interpret a part of text in correspondence with the other parts so that the text’ s coherence is preserved. One of these techniques that is used in this method is Inference to the best explanation. It includes three phases: to observe the facts and cases, to propose the theories and guesses to explain those cases and facts, to choose the best explanation through the rival theories. The best theory is that can explain more cases and be less complicated and have more consistency with the legal system. Inference to the best explanation is used in law very much though its name is less known. This inquiry tries to explain this way of argument logically and analyze its position at law and clarify its application by several instances.

According to Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE), the hypothesis that provides the best explanation for a group of observed phenomena is probably true. One of the key objections against this line of thought is “the bad lot objection”. According to this objection, the idea that the best of available explanatory hypotheses will be more likely to be true presupposes that the truth is already more likely to be found among them. But we have no reason to believe it. The most prominent criticisms against this objection are argument from Bayesianism (Niiniluoto, 2004), argument from a pair of contradictories (Lipton, 1993), argument from self-destruction (Lipton, 1993) and argument from distinction between material content and form of IBE (Schupbach, 2013). In this paper, we evaluate these arguments and show that all the arguments but the last one misses the mark.

According to model-theoretic inferentialism (and despite proof-theoretic semantics and model-theoretic semantics), both proof-theoretic and model-theoretic notions play a role in the meaning of logical constants. However, proof-theoretic notions have a more fundamental role compared to model-theoretic notions, so that the semantics and its structure are determined by the proof-theoretic notions. In other words, in proof-theoretic inferentialism, we follow a method by which we can read the semantics from the proof theory. This approach is related to the problem of categoricity and Carnap's non-normal models for proof systems. In this paper we investigate this issue for two paraconsistent logics, mbC and LP. We show that while multi-succedent sequent calculi are categorical for mbC, they are not for LP. That latter has non-normal models. We argue that for the latter we cannot easily read the semantics from the proof theory, except at the cost of distorting the notion of logical consequence.