UNIT 1 NATURE AND SCOPE OF LOGIC

Contents
1.0 Objectives
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Various Definitions of Logic
1.3 Two Types of Logic: Formal and Material
1.4 Logic: Science orArt?
1.5 Logic: Positive Science or Normative Science?
1.6 Logic and Other Disciplines
1.7 Deductive and Inductive Logic
1.8 Let Us Sum Up
1.9 Key Words
1.10 Further Readings and References
1.11 Answers to Check Your Progress

1.0 OBJECTIVES
This unit titled Nature and Scope of Logic aims at:
 introducing and familiarizing the definition, nature and scope of the subject
exposing the students to various definitions of logic.
 discussing the question whether it is an art or a science, a positive science or a
normative science
 discussing the extension and scope of logic

1.1 INTRODUCTION
“Reasons are the coin we pay for the belief we hold,” so says Schipper in his
monumental work on Model logic. But reasons given are not always good enough.
With reasoning we produce arguments – some good, some bad – that often get
converted in writing. Every argument confronted raises this question: Does the
conclusion reached follow from the premises used or assumed? There are objective
criteria with which that question can be answered, in the study of logic we seek to
discover and apply those criteria.
Usually logic is associated with Greek tradition and philosophy. Most of us think
logic as a branch of knowledge originated in ancient Greece. But this is not true
since as a matter of fact almost all great civilizations developed logic as an academic
discipline.Ancient Indians,Arabs, and Chinese made significant contributions to the
growth and development of logic. However, our study is restricted logic developed
by Europeans over several centuries.

1.2 VARIOUS DEFINITIONS OF LOGIC

The word ‘logic’ comes from the Greek word logos, literallymeaning, word, thought,
speech, reason, energy and fire. But in due course of time these literal meanings 5
Nature of Logic were given up to make way for more accurate meaning hinting at what we actually
learn when we do logic. This is how it came to be understood as a discipline
dealing with thought, reasoning and argument at different points of time.
It is our experience that emotional appeal is sometimes effective. But it has no place
in logic. Only appeal to reason pays effectively in the long run and which can be
objectively verified and appraised. One needs to discern the criteria involved in
rational method. The goal of the study of logic is to discover and make available
those criteria that can be used to test the correctness of arguments. Against this
background we shall evaluate various definitions of logic held at different times and
their merits and demerits.
One of the definitions of logic states that it is the study of reflective thinking. This
particular definition was proposed by Susan Stebbing in her work ‘A Modern
Introduction to Logic’. She, surely, made progress over H.W.B. Joseph who regarded
thought in its unqualified sense as the main theme of logic when he wrote ‘Introduction
to Logic’. However, the fact is that one has to concede in both the cases that the
content of logic is essentially psychological and what is psychological is invariably
subjective. This position is unacceptable to any student of logic.A clarification is
needed on this issue. One of the important topics of logic is what is known as ‘Laws
of Thought.’There are three laws of thought, law of identity, law of excluded middle
and law of of contradiction. On this ground, it is possible to conclude that at least
indirectly logic deals with thought. However, this is a mistaken notion. Laws of
thought, in reality, have nothing to do with thought.Theymerelyshow or demonstrate
the nature of statements. Therefore even in this sense thought cannot enter the domain
of logic.
Another discarded definition of logic states that it is the study of the methods or
principles which we use to distinguish good (correct) reasoning from bad (incorrect)
reasoning.As it has been claimed ‘All reasoning is thinking but all thinking is not
reasoning’. There are manypsychological processes that are different from reasoning,
such as imagining, regretting, day dreaming and so on. There seems to be same laws
governing all these activities, but they are not studied by logicians. Reasoning is a
special kind of thinking in which problems are solved and conclusions are drawn
from premises. The logician is primarily concerned with the correctness of the
completed process of reasoning and only with this species of thinking.
This definition does not imply that only a student of logic can reason well. Nor does
it imply that a student of logic necessarily does it. Just as an athlete need not be
aware of the complex processes going on inside his body while he performs the
athletic fete, people need not be conscious of the complex logical processes involved
in reasoning when they scrupulously perform the task of reasoning. However, a
person, who has studied logic, is more likely (there is no rule that he should do) to
reason correctly than one who has never thought about the principles involved in
logical activity.There are multiple reasons for it. To begin with, a student of logic will
approach the discipline as an art as well as a science, and he or she will engage
herself in doing exercises in all parts of the theory being learned. It is a continuous
practice that will help the student fare better and make him perfect. Second, a
significant part ofthe studyoflogicconsists in theexaminationandanalysis of fallacies,
which may be viewed as quite natural mistakes in reasoning. Knowledge of such
pitfalls gives anincreased insight into theprinciples of reasoningingeneral and thereby
we can avoid stumbling upon them. Finally, a study of this discipline empowers the
student with techniques and methods for testing the correctness of many different
kinds of reasoning, and when errors are detected, they are removed at once. Again,
6 problem with this definition is that whatever may be its merit, it is also subjective
because reasoning depends upon the person who reasons. If there is no one who Nature and Scope of Logic
reasons, then there is no reasoning at all. Therefore this definition also does not take
us far.
As an alternative, logic was defined as the science of inference by some logicians.
Though this definition is better than the older definitions, even this definition is not
free from defect completely. Inference is aspecial form of mental activity. Its subjective
nature becomes obvious when we notice that if there is some one who infers, then
there is inference; not otherwise. However, very shortly we notice that inference is
not banished altogether from the domain of logic and that it has a definite role to play
in the development of logic.
If so what is an acceptabledefinition of logic? Logic concerns with distinction between
good argument and bad argument. This itself constitutes the definition or essence of
logic.An argument always points to a certain relation between two sets of statements
or propositions. One set is called premise or premises and another is called
conclusion. If the conclusion follows from the premises, then the argument is said to
be good; otherwise bad. How do we know whether the conclusion follows from the
premises or not? As in the case of games here also total adherence to rules makes
an argument good. Even if one rule is violated the argument turns out to be bad. It
only means that conclusion follows from the premises only when all rules are
scrupulouslyfollowed.
At this stage, we introduce a technical word. We say that the premises imply the
conclusion if the same follows from the given premises. Therefore implication is the
desired relation between the premises andthe conclusion. Implication is not something
which is brought from outside. It is latent in the premises only. It is left to the intellect
of human being to discover or to extract what is latent. Implication is objective and,
therefore, man-independent because if it exists, it exists independent of any thinking
mind. No amount of effort on the part of thinking minds can impose implication
when it does not exist. It can only be discovered, but cannot be created. The process
of discovering what is latent is known as inference. Logic is not concerned with the
process as such, but with the end product of process, i.e., presence or absence of
implication.
This will bring us to the crucial distinction to be made. Inference can be valid or
invalid. If inference has its basis in implication, then it is valid. On the other hand, if it
does not enjoythe support of implication, then it is invalid. However, there is nothing
like valid or invalid implication. Either there is implication or there is no implication.
That is all. Secondly, statements imply; they do not infer. On the contrary, humans
infer; they do not imply. Therefore any error lies onlyin human activity. No error can
be discerned in the relation between statements. In the third place, implication without
inference (valid) is possible, but valid inference without implication is neither possible
nor plausible.
This sharp distinction has its tell-tale impact. Contrary to inference which is man-
dependent implication is man-independent. Suppose that logic is defined as a study
of inference. Then it becomes subjective. If I infer then only there is logic; otherwise
not. On the contrary, if implication replaces inference, then logic becomes man-
independent and hence objective. Rivalrybetween subjective and objective elements
now surfaces. If knowledge is to be viewed as objective, then logic, automatically,
ought to remain objective. Therefore implication replaces inference when we are
concerned with the subject matter of logic.
Though inference loses its place in this scheme, philosophers like Russell continued
to use ‘inference’only. Later we will learn that we have only rules of ‘inference’but 7
Nature of Logic not rules of implication. The point to be noted is that in all these cases inference,
paradoxically, means implication only. It is very important that this point is borne in
our mind throughout our study of logic.

1.3 TWO TYPES OF LOGIC: FORMALAND

MATERIAL
Traditionally logic has been classified into two types 1) Formal and 2) Material
logic. Formal logic is otherwise known as deductive logic and material logic as
inductive logic. Formal logic is concerned with the form or structure of argument
whereas material logic is concerned with the matter or content of argument. When
matter is irrelevant, material truth also is irrelevant. What matters in deductive logic
is formal truth. By formal truth we mean logical relation between the premises and
the conclusion. It is possible to know this kind of truth without knowing the content
of the argument. In this case, it is sufficient if the argument follows the rules of the
game. This whole explanation can be put in a nut-shell in this manner.An argument
consisting of only true propositions can very well be invalid whereas an argument
consisting of only false propositions can very well be valid. It also means that in our
study of deductive logic it is possible to know whether an argument is valid or not
without knowing the contents of the argument (and manytimes this is what precisely
happens) provided we are in a position to decide whether the argument has followed
all the rules are not. However, the case of material logic is different. In this case it is
possible to judge the truth or falsity of the conclusion only when we know what the
argument is all about. What is more important than the previous statement is the
controversy surrounding the relevance of rules. The burning question is whether
there is anything like rule or rules governing the structure of inductive argument (for
more details see, 1.4 of block 2). Suppose that there are no rules regulating inductive
arguments as maintained bysome philosophers. Then inductivearguments are neither
valid nor invalid. If so, what is its status? A question like this is easier asked than
answered. Attempts to answer this question occupy a good deal of discussions on
inductive logic.

1.4 LOGIC: SCIENCE OR ART?

Questions have been raised on the issue whether logic is a science or an art or both.
Let us stayfor a while on this problem. Inancient times science just meant a systematic
study of anything. But todaythe term science has developed into a discipline distinct
from several other activities of mankind. Science has been defined as that branch of
knowledge which aims at explanation of phenomena. Used in this technical sense,
logic is no science at all. Does this mean that logic is an art? Art is concerned with
doing something. Logic, if defined as an art, is so only in derivative sense. In order
to decide whether or not logic is an art we have to consider the aim of logic. Is the
aim of logic to give us knowledge about valid argument forms or to make us better
thinkers? No one will deny that a study of logic results in improving our reasoning
ability. But there is a restriction. Just like a moralist who may not himself be moral as
a person, a logician may not be logical in his reasoning. We can say that the effect of
such a study is the acquisition of knowledge regarding valid argument forms. It is
not for logic to consider whether or not this knowledge is put into practice. In view
of this feature we can say that logic is a science and not an art. It is a science not in
the technical sense, but in a general sense.

8
 Nature and Scope of Logic
1.5 LOGIC: POSITIVE SCIENCE OR NORMATIVE
SCIENCE?
Granted that logic is a science, what type of science is it? Science has been classified
into two types, viz., 1) positive Science and 2) normative Science. Positive science
describes what the case is. Normative science, on the other hand, tells us what
ought to be the case. Let us now examine whether logic is a positive science or a
normative science. Some logicians consider logic to be a formal science and regard
it as a normative science. Just like object thought is made up of form and matter.
According to Latta & Macbeath ‘the form of thought is the way in which we think of
things, the matter of thought is the various particular objects we think of. Aform is
something which may remain uniform and unaltered, while the matter thrown into
that form may change and vary.
A normative science attempts to find out the nature of forms (standards) on which
our judgments of value depend. Normative sciences have before them a standard
with reference to which everything within the scope of science is to be judged. A
normative science gives us judgments of value, i.e., it tells us what ought to be the
case. Logic has an important normative aspect; but a norm or ideal in logic has a
special meaning. The main business of logic is to discover the general conditions on
which the validity of inference depends. In our discussion of logic we try to force
these conditions on the way of arguing. We do so because there are certain objective
relations between statements. This means that statements must possess a certain
structure and there must be certain objective relations between them if our inferences
are to be valid. These structures of statements and their mutual relations are pure
forms, which serve as norms in logic. Traditional logicians while considering logic to
be a normative science meant that it is a science concerned with those principles
which ought to be followed in order to attain the ideal of truth.
Some other logicians consider logic to be a descriptive science or a positive science
and not a normative science since it does not lay down any norm for thinking. Its
nature is descriptionas it aims at describingand classifyingvarious types of arguments.
In fact the classification of sciences into positive and normative cannot be applied to
logic. Logic cannot be characterized either as positive or as normative science. If
logic were a positive science, it would merely describe different argument forms.
Logic however, does not do so. The logician aims to build a deductive system
whose elements are logically true propositions (tautologies). These propositions are
purely formal and hence have no reference to context. Similarly, logic cannot be
considered normative. It does not search for principles on which value judgments
depend. In fact, the starting point for logic is our ability to distinguish between valid
and invalid arguments. The logician only makes explicit the principles involved in
valid arguments. This discussion reveals that positive-normative distinction is not
relevant in the context of logic.
Check Your Progress I
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.
1) Bring out the various definitions of logic.
.................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................. 9
Nature of Logic .................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
2) Is logic a Positive science or a Normative Science? Substantiate your position.
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................

1.6 LOGIC AND OTHER DISCIPLINES

Logic as a discipline has widescope and this will be clear if weexamine its relationship
to various empirical and social sciences. Logic is closely associated with almost all
disciplines. Some are very significant. Therefore a cursory reference to some of
them is desirable.
Logic and Epistemology:
Epistemology is that branch of philosophywhich deals with theories of knowledge.
It investigates the structure, conditions, sources as well as limitations of human
knowledge. Epistemology, though, is not a formal science like logic since it must
deal subjective entities like belief it does make use of logic and its methods widely
to form theories about it. In fact there is a subdivision within epistemology called
epistemic logic which specifies the limits of logical norms applicable in epistemic
situations. Though logic and epistemology are interrelated, we cannot attribute any
genus – species relation between the two. Logic is the science of reflective thinking
in so far as implications are concerned. The province of logic is confined to certain
formal methodologies. Epistemologyconsists of a number of cognitive affairs which
goes beyond logic. Similarlylogic too extends outside the concerns of epistemology.
Logic and Metaphysics:
Traditionally, the subject matter of metaphysics is regarded as the nature of Being or
Reality. Since Greek times metaphysics has been conceived as the mother of all
knowledge and it is this subdivision of philosophy which examines every
presupposition of various sciences. For instance, physics assumes the existence of
matter, motion, force, time and space. It is metaphysics which takes upon itself this
task of examining these presuppositions of various sciences. The basic assumption
of logic is that thought gives knowledge. It is necessarythat we enquire into this very
presupposition. In this endeavour metaphysics comes to our aid. Again it is common
to make a distinction between real and unreal. But inquiry into the basic nature of
this distinction is not common. Metaphysics deals with this problem as well. Not
only does it analyse the basis of all sciences, but also provides a criterion of reality.
Logic in fact stands between metaphysics and science. Abstraction of the bases of
the principles of science is done through logic which bridges the gap between
metaphysics and sciences.
Logic and Psychology: Tradition stipulates that logic and psychology are related
on the basis of the assumption that thought is a common factor to them. However, a
crucial point is missing in this correlation. The traditional approach is something like
this. Psychology takes up the study of origin and evolution of thought process by
examining the functions of animals, infants, abnormal persons, criminals etc. Its main
10 concern is mind and thought is a mental process. Logic gets confined to the study of
inferential thinking of onlynormal adult human beings.Again while logic attempts to Nature and Scope of Logic
abstract the forms in which human mind thinks, psychologystudies the actual process
of thinking. The forms of thinking which logic abstracts from our thought processes
are not events in our mind and, therefore, are not of interest to psychologists. Being
a formal science, logic looks upon those principles as regulative elements of reflective
thinking. Psychology is concrete because its subject – matter is concrete, i.e., actual
psychological events. Logic is abstract because its subject matter is abstract, i.e.,
forms of reflective thinking. Therefore in one sense they are related and in some
other sense they are poles apart.
Ironically, this is just a matter of historyof psychologyas well as logic because today
psychology does not regard mind as the topic of its concern and thought is no longer
reckoned as mental. It is at once transformed into a sort of neurological process
though its subjective nature remains unaltered. Onlyin this sense psychologystudies
thought. And logic is anything but a study of thought. Hence it is really obsolete to
relate logic and psychology. Therefore logic and psychologyare distinct disciplines
and have nothing in common. However, we can remark that there is something
logical in psychologythough there is nothing psychological in logical enterprise. This
is so because no science can afford to be illogical and, admittedly, at least some
sciences can progress without recourse to psychological elements.
Aquestion is frequentlyasked; which one has wider application; logic or psychology?
This is an unanswerable question. In one sense the province of psychology is wider
than that of logic since the former studies the entire activities of the human mind. In
a different sense logic is wider than psychology because the latter follows logical
principles while dealing with its own subject matter. The two sciences are mutually
complementary.
Logic and Language:
Language is only a means of expression, yet the nature of language affects logical
thinking. Just as the success of an operation depends upon the quality of surgical
instruments apart from the skill of the surgeon, the quality of the argument depends
upon not merely the validity of the forms of thinking the agent resorts to, but on the
language in which the arguments are expressed as well.
Natural language performs multiple functions, like conveying information, evoking
emotions, stimulating action, making reference and so on. The structure of natural
language is so constituted that it enables the language to perform these diverse
functions. However, language of logic needs to convey only information. Hence it
calls forth the use of emotively neutral language. Logicians take extra care in using
plain and non-sophisticated language so that they just convey information, which is
either true or false. Logical statements pronounce that something is or is not the
case. For instance, ‘Atom has been split’ is a factual statement which carries a
definitive truth-value. Logic demands statements which convey exact information
through a neutral use of language.
Language is so subtle and complicated an instrument that we often lose sight of the
multiplicity of its uses. But there is real danger in our tendency to over simplify. On
the staggering variety of uses of language some order can be imposed by diving
them into very general categories: the informative, the expressive and the directive.
Among these three uses, logic is concerned onlywith the informative use of language.
Many philosophers, however, have claimed that the structure of logic and language
are identical. Therefore, a better understanding of logic depends upon the elimination
of ambiguity and vagueness of language.
11
Nature of Logic Logic and Physical Sciences:
Of late, science and scientific culture seem to shape human life. The goal of science
is to study the natural events of various types and discover generalization regarding
them. The generalisations are utilized to yield comprehensive theories about the
working of nature. The procedure of science involves both observation of facts and
reflective thinking. The principles of logic help science to analyse the observed facts
and draw valid conclusions from them.
Logic and Mathematics:
Let us briefly dwell on the background before proceeding further. Though the
beginnings of modern logic are found in the writings of Leibniz, it was not until the
end of the nineteenth century that logic discovered new path of development. The
shift in track was partly due to certain topics in mathematics which received the
impetus and partly due to the discovery of paradoxes. These developments resulted
not just in the overlapping of logic and mathematics, but at some point of time, it
became ‘extremely difficult to draw a non-arbitrary line between logic and
mathematics’. In this section, only cursory reference can be made to important
milestones which led to constant interplay between logic and mathematics.
The ball was set rolling by George Boole when his work on ‘The Mathematical
Analysis of Logic’ was published in 1847. The essence of his work was with his
treatment of the logic of classes.This was followed byGeorge Cantor’s investigations
on theory of sets. What made Cantor’s work on theory of sets significant were his
studies inanalysis in general, andtheoryof trigonometric series in particular. However,
the required breakthrough was provided by Gottlob Frege when he attempted to
base mathematics on pure logic. In his own words, arithmetic is only a development
of logic. Not only arithmetic became an extension of logic, but also due to the
discoveries of non-Euclidean schools of geometryand certain paradoxes by Russell,
Cantor and others at a later stage, mathematics itself was regarded as an extension
of logic and this thesis came to be known as Frege-Russell thesis. This extension
was described by Russell and Whitehead in their preface to the ‘Principia
Mathematica’ as backward extension, thereby meaning extension to roots.
G. Peano tried a different route to connect mathematics and logic. Instead of trying
to secure a sound base in logic to mathematics, he analysed the methods of
mathematics which were structurally similar to the calculus of logic and in this way
he tried to link the two.
None of these attempts aimed at ‘mathematicising’ logic so much as ‘logicising’
mathematics. Consequently, logic became the foundation of mathematics. Serious
reservations against this theory came only from two quarters. Kronecker questioned
the ideas of Cantor onlyto challenge the ‘ostensible’ essence of mathematics because
he believed that Cantor’s theory was not mathematics but sort of mysticism, a view
partly endorsed by Cantor himself. Poincare was another philosopher who reacted
in the same spirit to Zermelo’s axiomatic set theory. Poincare’argued that the nature
of natural number system is such that it is incapable of being reduced to logic. He
was more emphatically opposed to ‘reducing’ mathematical induction to logic.
Surprisingly, he argued that mathematical concepts should be built up inductively by
proceedings from ‘particular’to ‘general’. Perhaps he subscribed to the view that
induction is not logic.
A brief reference to of mathematical induction mentioned above is relevant.
Mathematical inductionis a misnomer because,in reality, there is no inductive element
12 at all involved here, even though the principle proclaims that ‘every natural number
has a successor’, i.e., if n is a natural number, then n+1 is also a natural number. This Nature and Scope of Logic
is the essence of mathematical induction.This theorem involves rigorous logical proof
which is essentially deductive in nature with no semblance of inductive inference. It
should be mentioned that Poincare’ did not oppose mathematics following deductive
model. Following a certain logical method is not the same as reducing a certain
science to logic. Poincare’was only against making the latter.
If we go by the modern definition of mathematics as the science of formal proof or
logical demonstration, then the relation between logic and mathematics becomes
very intimate. Both logic and mathematics are formal sciences. They deal with
relations between propositions which are independent of the content of the
propositions. In arithmetic, for instance, we may use numbers to count anything.
What we actually count makes no difference to counting. Thus two plus two will be
four whether we add books, balls, tables or anything else. Since the relations with
which logic and mathematics deal are independent of content these sciences are
able to use symbols in place of words. Also, both logic and mathematics deal with
relations which are applicable to actual as well as possible objects.
Further, both logic and mathematics are deductive in character. They begin with
certain axioms and deduce conclusions from them. Moreover, the method of both
is a priori. Though both logical and mathematical operations may take place with
reference to any empirical entity, knowledge of the principles of these disciplines is
not gained by observation or sense experience. Such knowledge is called ‘a priori’,
i.e., independent of experience.

1.7 DEDUCTIVEAND INDUCTIVE LOGIC

Traditionally arguments have been classified into two types, viz., deductive and
inductive arguments. Accordingly there are two divisions of logic, viz., deductive
logic and inductive logic. Deductive logic has arguments that consist of premise or
premises and a conclusion. In a deductive argument the conclusion necessarily
follows from the premises. Furthermore, it is the characteristic of the deductive
argument that if one accepts the premises one has to accept the conclusion. Such
arguments are available in mathematics and geometry. Deductive argument is not
concerned with truth and falsity, but it is concerned with validity and invalidity or
consistencyand inconsistencyof arguments.Validityand invalidityare characteristics
of arguments whereas truth and falsity are characteristics of propositions.
There is another kind of argument which is known as inductive argument, the concern
of inductive logic.According to one group of philosophers, inductive arguments are
found in empirical sciences such as physics, sociology, psychology etc. This view is
hotly debated. Law of causality constitutes the very basis of inductive arguments.
Generalisations and predictions are the objectives of inductive arguments.
Generalization is an important parameter of inductive logic. Therefore a brief
description of what it means is necessary. Suppose that I observe ten crows which
are black. Then I jump to the conclusion that all crows are black without observing
other crows. Therefore the conclusion includes and goes beyond observation. Such
conclusion is called generalization. Therefore mereacceptance of the truthof premises
do not warrant acceptance of the truth of conclusion. The conclusion is rendered
probable because it may be true or false. This is how probability enters the field of
inductive logic.

13
Nature of Logic
Check Your Progress II
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

1) State the relation between logic and language.

.................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................

2) Distinguish between deductive and inductive arguments.

.................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................

1.8 LET US SUM UP

Humans are endowed by nature with powers of reasoning. Logic is the study of the
use of those powers. In the study of logic we come to recognize our own native
capacities, and practice helps us to sharpen them. The study of logic helps one to
reason well by illuminating the principles of correct reasoning. Correct reasoning is
useful wherever knowledge is sought. Whether in science, politics or in the conduct
of our private lives, we use logic in reaching defensible conclusions. In formal study
we aim to learn how to acquire reliable information and how to evaluate competing
claims for truth.Various definitions of logic were discussed and also types. Questions
regarding the status of logic as an academic discipline were addressed subsequently.
Arguments for and against logic as a science/ art, and logic as a positive science/
normative science, were discussed. The relevance scope of logic was examined by
looking into the relation logic has with various other branches of knowledge. At the
close of the unit, deduction and induction, the two major types of logic have been
introduced to the student.

1.9 KEY WORDS

Logos: Logos is an important term in philosophy, analytical psychology, rhetoric
and religion. Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BCE) established the term in Western
philosophy as meaning both the source and fundamental order of the cosmos. The
sophists used the term to mean discourse, andAristotle applied the term to rational
discourse.After Judaism came under Hellenistic influence, Philo adopted the term
into Jewish philosophy. The Gospel of John identifies Jesus as the incarnation of the
Logos, through which all things are made. The gospel further identifies the Logos as
divine (theos).
Positive Science: In the humanities and social sciences, the term positive is used in
14 a number of ways. One usage refers to analysis or theories which only attempt to
describe how things are, as opposed to how they should be. In this sense, the Nature and Scope of Logic
opposite of positive is normative.An example for positive, as opposed to normative,
could be economic analysis. Positive statements are also often referred to as
descriptive statements.

1.10 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Copi, Irving M. & Cohen, Carl. Introduction to Logic. New Delhi: Prentice Hall
of India, 1997.
Copi, Irving. M. Symbolic Logic. Delhi: Prentice Hall of India, 2005.
Das, G. Logic: Deductive & Inductive. Delhi: King Books, 1684.

1.11 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Check Your Progress I
1) Bring out the various definitions attributed to logic?
Logos – literal meaning: word, thought – eventually logic acquired a technical
meaning –definition: Studyofmethodsandprinciples whichweuse todistinguish
good (correct reasoning) from bad (incorrect) reasoning – also defined as science
of the laws of thought – again as science of reasoning.
2) Logic: is it a positive science or normative science? Substantiate your position.
Positive science: describes what is the case – Normative science: tells us what
ought to be the case – Formal science is that which takes up the form of the
subject content for study – Normative science follows the norms – gives
judgments of value – some logicians characterize it as positive science as well
for its nature is description. It aims at describing and classifying various types
of reasoning.
Check Your Progress II
1) What is the relation between logic and language?
Language affects logic – Natural language is an inconvenient tool to operate
logical functions – Natural language being endowed with potency to attend
divergent functions cannot get confined to the single function of conveying
information – hence it calls forth the use of emotively neutral language – three
functions of language: informative, expressive and directive – of these only
informative use is conducive to logic.
2) Distinguish between deductive and inductive logic
Historically logic has been divided into two – deductive and inductive. In
deductive logic an argument’s conclusion necessarilyfollows from the premises.
Such arguments are available in mathematics and geometry. In a deductive
argument we are concerned with validity and invalidity. Inductive logic has
arguments that are found in empirical and social sciences. Generalizations and
predictions are the objectives of inductive arguments.

15