Final Notes

Introduction to Logic and Reasoning

What is logic?
Logic is defined as a science of reasoning. This is does not mean that logic is an empirical
science like physics or biology.
Empirical sciences are based on concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience
rather than theory or pure logic.
When we say that logic is the science of reasoning it does not mean that this is a science of
evaluating mental process that would be psychology.
Meaning there are no wrong answers. One can come to a conclusion using a set of
arguments and another can come to another conclusion using another set of reasoning
argument.
Our objective is to distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning.
Reasoning is special mental activity called inferring.
To infer is to draw conclusion from premises.
What is a premise?
A previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a
conclusion.
Example
You see smoke (premise)?
Or
You count 19 people in a group of 20(premise)

What can you deduce?

There is fire
Or
1 is missing

Be careful with the difference between infer and imply!!

Infer: deduce or conclude (something) from evidence and reasoning rather than from
explicit statements
Imply: indicate the truth or existence of (something) by suggestion rather than explicit
reference.
When we infer fire on the premise of smoke we do not imply fire.
Smoke implies fire but does not infer the fire nor is it equivalent to insinuate.
What is an argument?
An argument is a collection of statement sone of which is designated as the conclusion and
the remainder of which are designated as the premises.
Usually the premise of a n argument are intended to support the conclusion of the argument.
When making an argument we work backwards
Example
We want to satisfy the court to state that our client is telling the truth so we say
He is a honest guy
His business dealings are based in truth
He is well renounced
He is well reputed!

We can deduce he is a honest guy

Argumentation

Argumentation is the action or process of reasoning systematically in support of an idea,

action, or theory

Argumentation is the process of forming reasons, justifying beliefs, and

drawing conclusions with the aim of influencing the thoughts and/or actions of others.

Argumentation (or argumentation theory) also refers to the study of that process.
Argumentation is an interdisciplinary field of study and a central concern of researchers in
the disciplines of logic, dialectic, and rhetoric.

Contrast writing an argumentive essay, article, paper, speech, debate, or presentation with
one that's purely persuasive. While a persuasive piece can be built with anecdotes, imagery,
and emotional appeals, an argumentive piece needs to rely on facts, research,
evidence, logic, and the like to back up its claim. It is useful in any field where findings
or theories are presented to others for review, from science to philosophy and much in
between.

You can use different methods, techniques, and tools when writing and organizing an
argumentive piece:

• dissoi logoi (showing a preponderance of evidence)

• expeditio (eliminating all the wrong items to come to a conclusion)
• Rogerian argument (appealing to common ground)
• Socratic dialogue (reaching a conclusion through answering questions)

Purpose and Development

Effective argumentation has many uses—and critical thinking skills are helpful even in
everyday life—and the practice has developed over time.

• "The three goals of critical argumentation are to identify, analyze, and evaluate
arguments. The term 'argument' is used in a special sense, referring to the giving of
reasons to support or criticize a claim that is questionable, or open to doubt. To say
something is a successful argument in this sense means that it gives a good reason,
or several reasons, to support or criticize a claim."
• The Argumentative Situation
"An argumentative situation...is a site in which the activity of arguing takes place,
where views are exchanged and changed, meanings explored, concepts developed,
and understandings achieved. It may also be a site in which people are persuaded
and disagreements resolved, but these popular goals are not the only ones, and too
 narrow a focus on them threatens to overlook much for which argumentation is a
central and important tool."

• Argumentative Theory of Reasoning" Now some researchers are suggesting that

reason evolved for a completely different purpose: to win arguments. Rationality,
by this yardstick...is nothing more or less than a servant of the hard-wired
compulsion to triumph in the debating arena. According to this view, bias, lack of
logic and other supposed flaws that pollute the stream of reason are instead social
adaptations that enable one group to persuade (and defeat) another. Certitude works,
however sharply it may depart from the truth."

• The Hitchhiker's Guide to Argumentation"The argument runs something like

this. 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith and without faith
I am nothing.'

Argumentation is a vital factor for communication and it endured in our society for
centuries. This theory had its origin in foundationalism, a theory of justification or
reasoning in the field of philosophy. But during those days the argumentation was based
on oration and logic. Soon afterwards, these theories which were put forward by Aristotle
were rejected and were questioned by the scholars. They found a broader premise for
argument than the formal philosophical systems. During 1960-1970 several scientists such
as Mr. Perelman tried to develop the techniques used by the people to get support of others
for their views and opinions. Likewise many scientists and authors have developed
argumentation in different ways.

Argumentation Theory
Communication is very important for human beings. In fact, through communication the
human beings begin to express their thoughts and thus played a good role in our evolution.
While communicating the speaker will share the information and the listener will listen to
it. Here the listener must be able to differentiate the trustworthy reliable information with
the lies and treachery. According to Dan Sperber the listener must be able to filter the
messages and he must have the mechanism of epistemic vigilance. It’s nothing but the
vigilant attitude towards the information that we get. For example, we believe the news
coming in the internet because we trust the source. Here instead of just trusting, we work
out different ways to be vigilant in filtering the trustworthy news with treachery. Argument
is a method to increase the reliability in communication. Here speaker give a validation to
receive the conclusion. But the listener can check this validation to accept the given
conclusion. Argumentation is also an activity of reason. When people argue, they place
their thinking in the domain of reason. They have used reasoning to assess and accept the
conclusion. Communication is perfected with proper reasoning and also a true conclusion
is supported by fair arguments. So the speaker could convince the listeners and the listeners
could gain a reliable piece of information. Thus the communication is successful.

Different Types of Arguments

• deductive.
• inductive.
• critical reasoning.
• philosophy.
• argument.
Stephen Toulmin’s structure of Argumentation
Stephen Toulmin an English philosopher and logician have come up with the elements of
arguments which generate categories through which it can be evaluated.

▪ Claim
▪ Ground
▪ Warrant
▪ Backing
▪ Qualifier
▪ Rebuttal

Claim is nothing but a statement. It is put forward by a speaker or listener in order to accept
the information as true. If someone asks you to do something you will not agree to do
anything what they want. You need to ask and also you need to know why you have to do
it. You will ask them to prove their claim and that is when ground comes in.

Ground is the reasoning behind the claim. It can be made up information used to persuade
the listener. It is the base where an argument is made up and it may also have the proof for
reasoning. Here information can be a very powerful element of persuasion. Each person
has their unique way of thinking as thus has a unique way of accepting information. For
men who think more logically will accept factual information than women who accept
things more emotionally. Some will accept without questioning others will ignore it and
some will research the facts even more for better explanation. Here warrant, the next step
become important.

Warrant justifies the claim by making the ground to be appropriate. A warrant can be a
small statement or a pursuing argument. It may be accurate, implicit or unspoken.

Backing – When the backing is given for an argument, it gives additional support to the
warrant.

Qualifier – It restricts the comprehensiveness of the claim. They usually use words such
as `most’, `usually’, `always’ and `sometimes’. Another alternative of qualifier is
reservation. It is a term which might state that the claim is incorrect.

Rebuttal – Even in a perfectly stated argument there still can use counter arguments. The
rebuttal can be given during the early stages of presentation or through a prolong discourse.

Scope Argumentation theory is an important area which is important to the scholars,

philosophers and logicians. It comes under interpersonal communication as it is vocal but
also can be applied to group and written communication.

Example

1. Women make excellent administrators- (claim)– argument

2. Women are multitasking and are good organizers-(grounds)

3. Women mostly are good listeners and are more sensitive in approaching
problems. This helps in the smooth functioning of the organization-(warrant)

4. Women today are well educated-(backing)

5. Women are home makers so most of them will have the ability to manage any
organization or country, in a better way- (qualifier)

6. Women can be good administrators unless they are given good education and
exposure- (reservation)
 7. If equal exposure is given women can achieve greater heights-(rebuttal)

Inductive and Deductive Logic

Inductive logic (or inductive reasoning) constructs arguments that support a conclusion,
but don't claim to show that the conclusion is necessarily true. A strong inductive
argument gives us reason to think that its conclusion is most likely true. Some examples
of inductive reasoning are generalizations, analogies, or statistical predictions. Many
arguments in natural sciences, social science, the humanities, and other academic fields
aim to show that a particular conclusion is likely to be true, and therefore they rely on
inductive logic.
Deductive logic (also called deductive reasoning or deduction) is a precise and well-
ordered system that aims to provide definite support for a conclusion. While inductive
reasoning can show that a conclusion is probably true, deductive reasoning can show that
a conclusion must be true. In other words, if we use deductive logic and if we have
a valid argument with premises that are definitely true, then we can guarantee that our
conclusion is true. Some examples of deductive reasoning are implication and syllogism.

Abductive reasoning
Another form of scientific reasoning that doesn't fit in with inductive or deductive
reasoning is abductive. Abductive reasoning usually starts with an incomplete set of
observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the group of
observations, according to Butte College. It is based on making and testing hypotheses
using the best information available. It often entails making an educated guess after
observing a phenomenon for which there is no clear explanation.

For example, a person walks into their living room and finds torn up papers all over the
floor. The person's dog has been alone in the room all day. The person concludes that the
dog tore up the papers because it is the most likely scenario. Now, the person's sister may
have brought by his niece and she may have torn up the papers, or it may have been done
by the landlord, but the dog theory is the more likely conclusion.

Abductive reasoning is useful for forming hypotheses to be tested. Abductive reasoning

is often used by doctors who make a diagnosis based on test results and by jurors who
make decisions based on the evidence presented to them.

Validity and truth

We said above that if a deductive argument is valid and its premises are true, then its
conclusion must be true. What do we mean by valid, and what do we mean by true?

Validity – the quality of being valid – refers to how an argument is constructed, and the
relationship among the premises and the conclusion. Remember that premises are the
reasons that support the conclusion. An argument is valid if the premises "necessarily
entail" the conclusion. In other words, based on the way the premises fit together, there is
only one conclusion that can be made. Said another way, "In some sense 'the truth' of the
conclusion is 'contained in' the truth of the premises" (Van Heuveln 2011). That may be
difficult to understand, so let's look at an example. Consider this syllogism:

All licensed doctors in Japan passed the Licensing Board Exam.

My doctors are licensed doctors in Japan.
Therefore, my doctors passed the Licensing Board Exam.
Syllogism
One common type of deductive argument is the syllogism (sometimes
called standard, categorical, Aristotelian, or deductive syllogism). A syllogism is an
argument with two premises that support a conclusion. This form of syllogism was
developed by the philosopher Aristotle more than two thousand years ago, and is very
well developed and widely used. A syllogism of this type consists of a set of categorical
propositions, which consist of terms. We will define categorical propositions and their
terms in the next section.

The system of reasoning with arguments, premises, and conclusions is called logic
Statement Vs Propositions
Statement is a definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing.
Proposition is a statement or assertion that expresses a judgement or opinion
Remember
What is the definition of Argument?
Argument is a collection of statements.
And when presenting an argument, the premises are offered to support or justify the
conclusion.
The relation between a Statement is a proposition is the same as the relation between a
noun and a object.

Example
I gave a chocolate to Ahmad.
This is a statement, “I” is the noun Chocolate is the object.
Similarly
I like Ahmad because he is a kind soul.
The complete sentence is a statement.
Proposition is the “kind soul”.
Form vs Content
We should be interested in statements not in propositions as lawyers. The content not the
form, although form is also important.
Because
Although propositions are always lurking behind the scene, (what is unsaid), logic is
concerned with the statements.
It is very difficult to point towards a proposition because it does not need to be said, it is
understood (body language, tone, the person carrying the news) whereas the statement
can be examined and dissected.
Logic classifies arguments according to their form as opposed to their content.
All dogs are ducks (premise)
All ducks are reptiles (premise)
Therefor all ducks are reptiles (deduction and logic)
Difference between logic and form
Literature
The key difference between form and content is that the content is what a text says while
the form is the way of arrangement of the content. ... In literature, the form refers to the
style and structure of a literary work whereas the content refers to the plot, characters,
setting, and themes.
Law
Content is what a text says.
Form is the way in which what it says is arranged.
Everything from a chapter to a paragraph to a punctuation mark is a way of arranging
the content of a text, and thus a formal quality.
Form and substance difference explained
There are two possible ways to understand form and substance in legal reasoning. The
first refers to the distinction between concepts and their applications, whereas the second
concentrates on the difference between authoritative and non-authoritative reasons. These
approaches refer to the formalistic and positivistic conceptions of the law.
They are both helpful means of analysis in legal interpretation. Interpretation is divided
into formal and substantive justification.
Authoritative reasons and formal reasoning constitute the necessary point of departure.
(point of law, statues, judgments)
Substantive reasons are also necessary in order to justify choices included in
interpretation.
When examining an argument one should ask 2 questions?
Are all premises true?
Does the conclusion follow from the premises?
So, we can understand this much
An argument is factually correct if and only if all of its premises are true!!
An argument is valid only if conclusion follows/flows from the premises.
An argument is sound if only if it is both factually correct and valid.
So,
An argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. While
all premises are true
To say an argument is valid is to say that if all premises are true then the conclusion
would necessarily be true.

G.W.F. Hegel

G.W.F. Hegel was born in Stuttgart in 1770, the son of an official in the government of
the Duke of Württemberg. He was educated at the Royal Highschool in Stuttgart from
1777-88 and steeped in both the classics and the literature of the European
Enlightenment. In October, 1788 Hegel began studies at a theological seminary in
Tübingen, the Tüberger Stift, where he became friends with the poet Hölderlin and
philosopher Friedrich Schelling, both of whom would later become famous. In 1790
Hegel received an M.A. degree, one year after the fall of the Bastille in France, an event
welcomed by these young idealistic students. Shortly after graduation, Hegel took a post
as tutor to a wealthy Swiss family in Berne from 1793-96. In 1797, with the help of his
friend Hölderlin, Hegel moved to Frankfurt to take on another tutorship. During this time
he wrote unpublished essays on religion which display a certain radical tendency of
thought in his critique of orthodox religion.
The most systematic of the post-Kantian idealists, Hegel attempted, throughout his
published writings as well as in his lectures, to elaborate a comprehensive and systematic
philosophy from a purportedly logical starting point.
He is perhaps most well-known for his teleological account of history, an account that
was later taken over by Marx and “inverted” into a materialist theory of an historical
development culminating in communism.
While idealist philosophies in Germany post-dated Hegel (Beiser 2014), the movement
commonly known as German idealism effectively ended with Hegel’s death.
Certainly since the revolutions in logical thought from the turn of the twentieth century,
the logical side of Hegel’s thought has been largely forgotten, although his political and
social philosophy and theological views have continued to find interest and support.
Since the 1970s, however, a degree of more general philosophical interest in Hegel’s
systematic thought and its logical basis has been revived.
Key learnings
1. Important parts of ourself can be found in history
When we look at history we find it to be primitive and archaic and to feel proud of
how much we have come forward to get us to the modern age.
Book of phenomony of spirit published in 1807 hegel argues that every era has its
own wisdom and cannot be discounted because of the modernism.
It must be looked at as a particular form of wisdom. This also means that we must go
back in time to save some of their wisdom.
We can learn from ancient Greece what society and community should look like
something which is lost
Middle ages can teach us the role of honor eventhough it was bad for women and
children.
Progress is never linear not in a straight line there is wisdom at every age.
To be a historian is to rescue ideas that are lost and are most needed for the blind
spots of today.
2. Learn from the ideas you dislike.
Hegel was great believer from learning from points of view other than your own it
was an attempt to make sure analyze view that are difficult and alien from us.
What sense or sliver of reason might eb contained in otherwise foreign phenomena
Nationalism what can we learn from this idea, it is the need of people to feel proud of
where they come from. Anchor their identy beyond their ego and achievements.
3. Progress is messy
 World makes progress only from going from 1 extreme to the another.
Overcompensate for the wrongs of the past.
Globalization vs nationalism
It take 3 steps to have a balance on any issue can be found.
We must synthize all previous ideas to make a new idea. (listen to all sides)
Method of Dialectic
4. Art has a purpose
Church used art to further the mission of the church.
Art for art sake. Mona lisa
Literature art and design support powerful ideas that are important in our lives.
Art is the sensuous presentation of ideas.
Ideas can be abstract art makes them real. The purpose of art is not comeup with new
ideas but more importantly it is make good important ideas stick more imaginatively
in our mind.
5. We need new institutions
Positive view of institutions as the promulgates new ideas.
For ideas need to be active and effective in the world they must not be correct.
To make major truths powerful in society, ideas need institutions
Employees budgets buildings legal advisors. Time and power are needed make ideas
work in a society.
We must form new institutions, consumer education, relationships, depression and
anxiety mood management.
Logic
The way think the way we are is shaped by our history. This holds for science
literature and logic.
We can only think in time we live in, so ideas of today will not hold for all eternity.
As history progresses any thought will be replaced by something new
There are no eternal truths.
The best we can do it to try to think through the thoughts of today and yesterday the
best we can.
Philosophy is its own time captured in thought.
If you want to understand yourself, we must study history but history can only be
understood if there is some pattern in history. If things don’t happen at random what can
we learn.
Hagel believes there is a pattern
A law of historical development. Hagel wants to describe and clarify history.
 Augustus Comte
As a philosophical ideology and movement positivism first assumed its distinctive features
in the work of the French philosopher Auguste Comte, who named the systematized
science of sociology. It then developed through several stages known by various names,
such as Empiriocriticism, Logical Positivism and Logical Empiricism and finally in the
mid-20th century flowed into the movement known as Analytic and Linguistic philosophy.
In its basic ideological posture, positivism is worldly, secular, anti-theological and anti
meta-physical.

Comte’s positivism was posited on the assentation of a so-called law of three stages of
intellectual development. There is a parallel, as Comte saw it, between the evolution of
thought patterns in the entire history of man; on the one hand and in the history of an
individual’s development from infancy to adulthood on the other.

In the first or so called theological stage, natural phenomena are explained as the result of
supernatural or divine powers. It does not matter whether the religion is polytheistic or
monotheistic; in either case miraculous powers or wills are believed to produce the
observed events. This stage was criticized by Comte as anthropomorphic, i.e. as resting on
all too human analogies.

The Second stage called metaphysical, is in some cases merely a depersonalized theology.
The observable processes of nature are assumed to arise from impersonal powers. The sort
of fruitfulness that it lacks can be achieved only in the third stage, the scientific or positive
stage. Hence the title of Comte’s magnum opus; the Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte
1853 because it claims to be concerned only with positive facts.

The task of the sciences and of knowledge in general, is to study the facts and regularities
as laws, explanations of phenomena can consist in no more than the subsuming of special
cases under general laws. Mankind reached full maturity of thought only after abandoning
the pseudo-explanations of the theological and metaphysical stages and substituting an
unrestricted adherence to scientific method.

In his three stages Comte combined what he considered to be an account of the historical
order of development with a logical analysis of the leveled structure of the sciences. By
arranging the six basic and pure sciences one upon the other in a pyramid, Comte prepared
the way for Logical positivism to ‘reduce’ each level to the one below.

He placed at the fundamental level the science that does not presuppose any other sciences-
Mathematics—and then ordered the levels above it in such a way that each science depends
upon and makes use of, the sciences below it on the scale ; thus Arithmetic, geometry and
mechanics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology and sociology. Each higher level
science, in turn adds to the knowledge content of the science or sciences on the levels
below, thus enriching this content by successive specialization.
Positivism is a term which designates a philosophical tendency oriented around natural
science and striving for a united view of the world of phenomena both physical and human,
through the applications of the methods and the extension of the results whereby the natural
sciences have attained their unrivaled position in the modern world. From the point of view
of methodology the term ‘positive’ is conceived in polemical opposition to the
metaphysical abstractions of traditional philosophy.

Philosophy of science is positivism; Positivism is more a philosophy, method rather than a

theory. It is that philosophy which preaches that the interpretation of the world is based on
human experience. It insists on the application of scientific method of natural sciences to
the study of social world.

It deals with the application of scientific method by natural scientists and by the
sociologists in understanding human-behaviour. The idea of positivism can be traced back
to Bacon, Berkeley, Locke and Hume. Before Comte, Saint Simon also advocated
positivism. He proposed scientific reorganization of society and promotion of science,
since he believed that progress depended on it. The idea of positivism was present in an
embryonic form in the mind of Saint Simon and Comte expanded this idea.

Positivism brought a revolution or renaissance in the field of social science. It combined a

belief in progress and a passion for serving humanity. It is based on the belief that a
scientific analysis of history would show the way to cure for the ills of society.

Comte used positivism as a weapon against the negative philosophy prevalent before the
French Revolution. That negative philosophy was more concerned with emotional than
practical questions. Comte regarded such speculations as negative, since it was neither
constructive nor practical. As an alternative, Comte invented ‘positivism’ which remains
concerned with the questions about how things are in reality.
Comte’s positivism is described in several ways. One salient point is that it is scientific.
Science should not be confused with empiricisms or mere collection of facts. Comte
believed that the whole universe is governed by natural laws and these laws could be
learned through the method of science.
Positive knowledge is based on experience and considers only real phenomena. Comte did
not deny the existence of unknown, but positivism was no way concerned with the
supernatural. Chambliss has presented the essence of Comtean positivism in this following
words, “positivism is not fatalistic, or optimistic or materialistic. It is concerned with the
real, rather than fanciful, useful rather than all knowledge.”

Apart from the above, there are also some other characteristics:
1. All Scientific knowledge must be based on direct experience of a reality or direct
observation is the surest way to acquire scientific knowledge.

2. The direct experience of a reality could be understood by La certitute, i.e. the unity of
scientific method. This implies that the different branches of study are distinguished by
their object of study not by their method.

3. The concept of unity of scientific method requires La precise, i.e. a common scientific
goal of formulating testable theories. It also implies that there are no value judgements in
scientific enquiry.

4. The positivist view science as containing the principle of La utilize i.e. all scientific
knowledge must serve some useful purpose. It should be used as a tool for social
engineering.

5. Positive knowledge is La relative, which means that scientific knowledge is unfinished

because there is no absolute knowledge in science. Lastly, science gives prediction and
from prediction comes action.

Normative Aspect of Positivism:

Up to the positive method Comte was highly praised as the founder of science. Auguste
Comte was a philosopher among the sociologists and a sociologist among the philosophers;
says Raymond Aron. He had a scientific bent of mind. But unfortunately Comte’s
reformative zeal overpowered his scientism. He had to reform the French Society. He
thought that with the help of science, reformation can be brought to the society.
He wanted to write religion and science. He turned towards religion because he was a
philosopher and a social reformist. In the normative aspect, we may include, the concept
of positive religion, positive society. Scientific religion was between science and religion.
He founded a new religion called the “religion of humanity”. This religion of humanity is
the scientific interpretation of religion.

Religion of Humanity:
In theological stage, super natural forces were the object of worship and God was
everything. But in scientific religion, God is replaced by humanity. Humanity will be
worshipped. Humanity consists of all those who are dead and who are living and who
would be born in future.

Comte put emphasis on those who are dead and those who had sacrificed their life for the
welfare of mankind. He told to “love mankind.” In religion of humanity selfishness is sin;
sacrifice is a way of salvation. He puts emphasis on altruism. You must live for others and
not for yourself. Comte got the idea of religion of humanity from Feuerbach.

Comte believed that society which was built in scientific principles needed very badly a
religion called religion of humanity. The egoistic tendencies of mankind as evinced in
previous history would be replaced by altruism and by the command “Live for others”.
Men would be imbued with love for their fellowmen.

Comte at this stage made “Love and affection” the central points of human life, Comte not
only considered himself a social scientist, but a prophet and founder of new religion that
promised salvation for all ailments of mankind. He made a purely social religion. Mankind
was an end in itself.

Comte was not a strict religionist as such, but he considered the atheist “the most irrational
of all theologians”. Huxley called Comte’s religion “Catholicism minus Christianity”.
Some others criticized it as highly “egoistic religion”. A few others considered it as Utopian
in Comte disregarded violent procedure and gave emphasis to persuasion and compassion.
Universal brotherhood is the end of positive politics. According to Comte, politicians are
important for the society. But the sociologists should be allowed to form the government.

Criticisms:
(i) Though, Comte claimed to be the father of positivism or scientific approach; he himself
was not committed to it.

(ii) Prof Timasheff opines, Comte’s sociological theories represent a premature jump from
the level of observation and inferences to the level of theory.

(iii) According to John Stuart Mill, Comte’s religion does not stand the test of rationalism
because that can never be put into practice.

(iv) Comte’s religion was born out of his “moral intoxication”.

(v) According to Rollin Chambliss, Comte wanted to build a science of social phenomena.
But instead of doing that he struggled to provide his projects of social reorganisation. He
built a Utopia instead of science.
 Carl Hempel

Carl Hempel, a German-born philosopher who immigrated to the United States, was one
of the prominent philosophers of science in the twentieth century. His paradox of the
ravens—as an illustration of the paradoxes of confirmation—has been a constant challenge
for theories of confirmation. Together with Paul Oppenheim, he proposed a quantitative
account of degrees of confirmation of hypotheses by evidence. His deductive-nomological
model of scientific explanation put explanations on the same logical footing as predictions;
they are both deductive arguments. The difference is a matter of pragmatics, namely that
in an explanation the argument’s conclusion is intended to be assumed true whereas in a
prediction the intention is make a convincing case for the conclusion. Hempel also
proposed a quantitative measure of the power of a theory to systematize its data.Later in
his life, Hempel abandoned the project of an inductive logic. He also emphasized the
problems with logical positivism (logical empiricism), especially those concerning the
verifiability criterion. Hempel eventually turned away from the logical positivists’ analysis
of science to a more empirical analysis in terms of the sociology of science.

Hempel studied mathematics, physics, and philosophy in Gottingen, Heidelberg, Vienna,

and Berlin. In Vienna, he attended some of the meetings of the Vienna Circle. With the
help of Rudolf Carnap , he managed to leave Europe before the Second World War, and
he came to Chicago on a research grant secured by Carnap. He later taught at the City
University of New York, Yale University and Princeton University.

What is positivism?
Positivism is any system that confines itself to the data of experience and excludes a priori
or metaphysical speculations. More narrowly, the term designates the thought of the French
philosopher Auguste Comte.
The basic affirmations of positivism are (1) that all knowledge regarding matters of fact is
based on the “positive” data of experience and (2) that beyond the realm of fact is that of
pure logic and pure mathematics. Those two disciplines were already recognized by the
18th-century Scottish empiricist and skeptic David Hume as concerned merely with the
“relations of ideas,” and, in a later phase of positivism, they were classified as purely formal
sciences. On the negative and critical side, the positivists became noted for their
repudiation of metaphysics—i.e., of speculation regarding the nature of reality that
radically goes beyond any possible evidence that could either support or refute such
“transcendent” knowledge claims.
That imperative was reflected also in the contributions by positivists to ethics and moral
philosophy, which were generally utilitarian to the extent that something like “the greatest
happiness for the greatest number of people” was their ethical maxim. It is notable, in this
connection, that Comte was the founder of a short-lived religion, in which the object of
worship was not the deity of the monotheistic faiths but humanity.
Empiricism
Empiricism is the theory that the origin of all knowledge is sense experience. It emphasizes
the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of
ideas, and argues that the only knowledge humans can have is a posteriori (i.e. based on
experience). Most empiricists also discount the notion of innate ideas or innatism (the idea
that the mind is born with ideas or knowledge and is not a "blank slate" at birth).
In order to build a more complex body of knowledge from these direct observations,
induction or inductive reasoning (making generalizations based on individual instances)
must be used. This kind of knowledge is therefore also known as indirect empirical
knowledge.
Empiricism is contrasted with Rationalism, the theory that the mind may apprehend some
truths directly, without requiring the medium of the senses.
The term "empiricism" has a dual etymology, stemming both from the Greek word for
"experience" and from the more specific classical Greek and Roman usage of "empiric",
referring to a physician whose skill derives from practical experience as opposed to
instruction in theory (this was its first usage).
The term "empirical" (rather than "empiricism") also refers to the method of observation
and experiment used in the natural and social sciences. It is a fundamental requirement of
the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations
of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition or revelation.
Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature.

Scientific Explanation

Until later in his life, Hempel was best known for producing in 1948, with Oppenheim,
what is known as the Deductive-Nomological (or Covering-Law) Model of science.
According to this view, a scientific explanation of a fact is a deduction of a statement
(called the explanandum) of the fact we wish to explain; the premises of the deduction
(the explanans) are scientific laws (whence the term "nomological") plus initial conditions.
The explanans must be true for the explanation to be acceptable.

This view—a typical and central view of logical positivism, or logical empiricism as
Hempel preferred to call it—reduces a scientific explanation to a logical relationship
between statements, and made scientific explanation and prediction equivalent. The
explanandum is a logical consequence of the explanans plus the initial conditions. The view
requires the existence of scientific laws; facts are explained when they are subsumed under
laws. This led to questions about the nature and status of scientific laws.

Hempel and Oppenheim held that a fundamental theory is a true statement with quantifiers
("all," "some," "none") and without individual constants ("John," "that bird that has the cut
on its beak"). A derived theory is a generalized statement that is a consequence of a
fundamental theory. Hempel, and the logical positivists as a group, held the view that a
scientific theory deals with general properties, and these properties are expressed by
universal statements (e.g., the example that was often used was "All ravens are black").
Statements referring to specific space-time regions or individual entities were not allowed.
The example often given was Newton's laws: They were supposed to be true for all bodies
in any space at any time.

There are, however, scientific laws that are true under limited conditions and that refer to
specific entities, such as the Sun or one of its planets. To deal with this, Hempel and
Oppenheim distinguished between a fundamental theory, which is universal and has no
temporal or other restrictions, and a derived theory that can make reference to individual
things with their individual characteristics.

The Hempel-Oppenheim model required that scientific theories be true and not just tools
for making predictions. This means that their theory assumed or entailed scientific realism.

The Raven Paradox

Hempel, and the logical positivists in general, thought that scientific generalizations were
universal statements (general hypotheses) that were confirmed through observation. A
typical example of such a statement would be the hypothesis (1) "All ravens are black."
But that statement is logically equivalent to and thus can be reformulated as (2) "All non-
black things are non-ravens." But statement or hypothesis 2 can be confirmed by observing
anything that is not black and not a raven, e.g., white shoes or red cardinals or green leaves.
So in order to confirm the hypothesis that all ravens are black, will it do to find as many
examples of green leaves as possible? Hardly!

But confirmation theory seems to founder on this paradox—a problem that is also known
as the Paradoxes of Confirmation. Hempel tried to get around this problem by proposing
a quantitative method for determining the degree of confirmation of any hypothesis by
particular statements of evidence.

The Inductive Model

In Aspects of Scientific Explanation (1965), Hempel dealt for the first time with laws
or theoretical principles of statistical-probabilistic form, or statistical laws. He was
careful to distinguish between law like sentences of strictly universal form and those of
statistical form. Some have confused these because those statements that assert some
universal claim, such as Newton's law of gravitation or the claim that pure silver melts at
961.78 °C, rest on a finite and incomplete body of evidence; therefore, the claim goes,
those universal lawlike statements should also be regarded as probabilistic. But, Hempel
noted, this confuses the claim made by a given statement with the evidence for that claim.
He wrote, "the distinction between lawlike statements of strictly universal form and those
of probabilistic form pertains, not to the evidential support of the statements in question,
but to the claims made by them: roughly speaking, the former attribute (truly or falsely) a
certain characteristic to all members of a certain class; the latter to a specified proportion
of its members."

Section A (Mids waly MCQs)

QUESTION 1

Deductive logic guarantees the conclusion to be true

Select one:

True

False

The correct answer is ‘True’.

QUESTION 2

What is a Premise?

a. A previous statement or proposition

b. A boundry

c. A Structure

The correct answer is: A previous statement or proposition

QUESTION 3

Aguste Comte claimed to be the father of positivism but:

a. failed the positivism movement

b. did not adhere to the scientific approach

c. He himself was not committed to his teachings

The correct answer is: He himself was not committed to his teachings

QUESTION 4

Is the following argument best classified as deductive or inductive?

All reptiles ever examined are cold-blooded. Dinosaurs resemble reptiles in many ways.
So dinosaurs were cold-blooded.

a. Deductive

b. Inductive

The correct answer is: Inductive

QUESTION 5

Logical positivism, is characterized by the view that scientific knowledge is the only kind
of:

a. Objectionable Knowledge

b. Factual Knowledge

c. Metaphysical knowledge

The correct answer is: Factual Knowledge

QUESTION 6

One of the major criticism of Aguste Comte’s religion of Humanity is that it was born out
of moral intoxication

Select one:

True

False

The correct answer is ‘True’.

QUESTION 7

Is the following argument best classified as deductive or inductive?

All reptiles ever examined are cold-blooded. Dinosaurs resemble reptiles in many ways.
So dinosaurs were cold-blooded.

a. Inductive

b. Deductive

The correct answer is: Inductive

QUESTION 8

Aguste Comte aimed to socially engineer the society through the religion of Humanity.

Select one:

True

False

The correct answer is ‘True’.

QUESTION 9

Comte was not a strict religionist as such, but he considered the atheist as the most irrational
of all theologians

Select one:

True

False

The correct answer is ‘True’.

QUESTION 10

A.J. Ayer states in his in his book, Languages, Truth and Logic that any statement of
knowledge is meaningful only when it is logically and empirically verified:

Select one:

True

False

The correct answer is ‘True’.

QUESTION 11

Syllogism is a kind of logical argument that applies to Inductive Logic ?

Select one:

True

False

The correct answer is ‘False’.

QUESTION 12

Aguste Comte aimed to socially engineer the society through the religion of Humanity:

Select one:

True

False

The correct answer is ‘False’.

QUESTION 13

Is the following argument best classified as deductive or inductive?

No whale lives in fresh water, and the lake is fresh water, so there are no whales living
there.

a. Deductive

b. Inductive

The correct answer is: Deductive

QUESTION 14

All bears are mammals, all mammals have kidneys; therefore all bears have kidneys.

a. Deductive

b. Inductive

The correct answer is: Deductive

QUESTION 15

Empirical sciences are based on?

a. Verifiable by observation

b. Logical science

c. Verifiable understanding

The correct answer is: Verifiable by observation

QUESTION 16

This is an example of deductive reasoning:

A child examines ten tulips, all of which are red, and concludes that all tulips must be red.

Select one:

True

False

The correct answer is ‘False’.

QUESTION 17

Is the following argument best classified as deductive or inductive?

Some cookies are burnt. Some burnt things are good to eat. So some cookies are good to
eat.

a. Deductive

b. Inductive

The correct answer is: Inductive

QUESTION 18

According to Aguste Comte Philosophy of science is positivism; Positivism is more a

philosophy, method rather than a theory

Select one:

True

False

The correct answer is ‘True’.

QUESTION 19

The religion of humanity made by Comte taught people to:

a. Spreading joy and affection

b. Living for others

c. Living for the pursuit of knowledge

The correct answer is: Living for others

QUESTION 20

Inductive Logic guarantees the conclusion to be true:

Select one:

True

False

The correct answer is ‘False’.

QUESTION 21

Is the following argument best classified as deductive or inductive?

Based on a survey of 2200 randomly selected likely voters, 56.2% indicate that they will
vote for the incumbent in the upcoming election. Therefore, approximately 56% of the
votes in the upcoming election will be for the incumbent.

a. Inductive

b. Deductive

The correct answer is: Inductive

QUESTION 22

Is the following argument best classified as deductive or inductive?

All dogs bark. Fido is a dog. So Fido barks.

a. Deductive

b. Inductive

The correct answer is: Deductive

QUESTION 23

Induction is making inference from particular cases to the general public.

Select one:
True

False

The correct answer is ‘True’.

QUESTION 24

Is this statement Inductive or Deductive:

Every time I find bunnies on my front lawn, it is night time. Thus, bunnies only come on
my lawn at night:

Deductive

Inductive

The correct answer is: Inductive

QUESTION 25

This is an example of inductive reasoning:

Since it snowed every New Year’s Day for the past four years it will snow on New Year’s
Day this year.

Select one:

True

False

The correct answer is: ‘True’.

Section A ( Quiz#1)

QUESTION 1

Who said Every madness has it’s logic?

a. Karl Marx

b. William Shakespeare

c. Emily Dickinson
The correct answer is:

William Shakespeare

QUESTION 2

Correct

Mark 1 out of 1

Flag question

Question text
Inductive Logic guarantees the conclusion to be true

Select one:

True

False

Feedback
The correct answer is 'False'.

QUESTION 3

Correct

Mark 1 out of 1

Flag question

Question text
Logic is defined as:

a.

science of understanding
b.

science of reasoning
c.

Science of questioning
Feedback
The correct answer is:

science of reasoning

QUESTION 4

Correct

Mark 1 out of 1

Flag question

Question text
Deductive logic guarantees the conclusion to be true

Select one:

True

False

Feedback
The correct answer is 'True'.

QUESTION 5

Correct

Mark 1 out of 1

Flag question

Question text
Deductive reasoning is a type of logical thinking that starts with a general idea

a.

To come to just conclusion

b.

To come to logical conclusion

c.

To reach a specific conclusion

Feedback
The correct answer is:

To reach a specific conclusion

QUESTION 6

Correct

Mark 1 out of 1

Flag question

Question text
Empirical sciences are based on?

a.

verifiable understanding
b.

verifiable by observation
c.

logical science

Feedback
The correct answer is:

verifiable by observation

QUESTION 7

Correct

Mark 1 out of 1

Flag question

Question text
what is a Premise?

a.

A boundry
b.

A Structure
c.

A previous statement or proposition

Feedback
The correct answer is:

A previous statement or proposition

QUESTION 8

Correct

Mark 1 out of 1

Flag question

Question text
Syllogism is a kind of logical argument that applies to Inductive Logic ?

Select one:

True

False

Feedback
The correct answer is 'False'.

QUESTION 9

Correct

Mark 1 out of 1

Flag question

Question text
Induction is making inference from particular cases to the general public.
Select one:

True

False

Feedback
The correct answer is 'True'.

QUESTION 10

What is]a major premise ?

a. a rule of general applicability

b. a logical rule

c. a statement of fact

Section A (Quiz#2)

QUESTION 1

Correct

Mark 1 out of 1

Flag question

Question text
When was Carl Hempel born?

a.

1905
b.

1906
c.

1805
Feedback
The correct answer is:

1905

QUESTION 2

Correct

Mark 1 out of 1

Flag question

Question text
Aristotle is generally given credit to enunciate the view that scientific
knowledge is distinguished by the fact that it aspires to explain the causes of

a.

what is
b.

how is
c.

where is

Feedback
The correct answer is:

what is

QUESTION 3

Correct

Mark 1 out of 1

Flag question

Question text
what is a explanandum?

a.

surrounding facts of the phenomena

b.

the phenomena
the phenomena
the phenomena

the phenomena
the phenomena

c.

explanation of the phenomena

Feedbacb
The correct answer is:

explanation of the phenomena

QUESTION 4

Correct

Mark 1 out of 1

Flag question

Question text
According to Carl Hempel how many types of positivism are there?

a.

2
b.

1
c.

Feedback
The correct answer is:

2
QUESTION 5

Incorrect

Mark 0 out of 1

Flag question

Question text
what is explanans?

a.

reasoning of the phenomena

b.

the phenomena
c.

surrounding facts of a phenomena

Feedback
The correct answer is:

the phenomena

QUESTION 6

Correct

Mark 1 out of 1

Flag question

Question text
Carl Hempel was the principle proponent of ?

a.

logical positivism
b.

raven paradox
c.

covering law theory

Feedback
The correct answer is:

covering law theory

QUESTION 7

Correct

Mark 1 out of 1

Flag question

Question text
who was carl hempels partner in his philosophical pursuits ?

a.

G F Hegel
b.

Rudolf Carnap
c.

Paul Oppenheim

Feedback
The correct answer is:

Paul Oppenheim

QUESTION 8

Correct

Mark 1 out of 1

Flag question

Question text
The Deductive-Nomological (ON) model of explanation may be characterized
as having how many central feature ?

a.

2
b.

1
c.

Feedback
The correct answer is:

QUESTION 9

Incorrect

Mark 0 out of 1

Flag question

Question text
According to Hempel the logical conditions on explanation must include
The explanans must contain laws

Select one:

True

False

Feedback
The correct answer is 'False'.

QUESTION 10

The deductive Nomological model is a formal view of scientifically answering questions asking:

a. how
b. why
c. when

Feedback

The correct answer is: How

 Section B (Mids)

QUESTION 1

What is a major premise ?

a. a rule of general applicability

b. a statement of fact
c. a logical rule

The correct answer is: a rule of general applicability

QUESTION 2

What year was Aguste Comte Born ?

a. 1798

b. 1790

d. 1789

The correct answer is: 1798

QUESTION 3

Who said _Every madness has it’s logic_?

a. Emily Dickinson

b. William Shakespeare

e. Karl Marx

The correct answer is: William Shakespeare

QUESTION 4

Empirical sciences are based on?

a. verifiable understanding

b. logical science

f. verifiable by observation

The correct answer is: verifiable by observation

QUESTION 5

Inductive argument is made out to be a string argument but it is capable of being false.

Select one:

True
False

The correct answer is ‘True’.

QUESTION 6

If syllogism is used and all the premises are true the conclusion must be true:

Select one:

True

False

The correct answer is ‘True’.

QUESTION 7

Logic is defined as a science of:

a. reasoning

b. understanding

g. intuition

The correct answer is: Reasoning

QUESTION 8

Value based statements are:

a. unverifiable in nature

b. Objectionable in nature

c. emotive in nature

The correct answer is: emotive in nature

QUESTION 9

Deductive reasoning is a type of logical thinking that starts with a general idea:

a. to reach a specific conclusion

b. to reach a definitive truth

b. to reach a logical understanding

The correct answer is: To reach a specific conclusion

QUESTION 10

Aguste Comte claimed to be the father of positivism but:

a. He himself was not committed to his teachings

b. failed the positivism movement

c.did not adhere to the scientific approach

The correct answer is: He himself was not committed to his teachings

QUESTION 11

According to Aguste Comte the aim of education is

a. gathering factual data

b. Development of conceptual clarity

c. enlightenment

The correct answer is: Development of conceptual clarity

QUESTION 12

Logical positivism, is characterized by the view that scientific knowledge is the only kind of:

a. Factual Knowledge

b. Metaphysical knowledge

d. Objectionable Knowledge

The correct answer is: Factual Knowledge

QUESTION 13

Is the following argument best classified as _deductive_ or _inductive_?Based on a survey of

2200 randomly selected likely voters, 56.2% indicate that they will vote for the incumbent in the
upcoming election. Therefore, approximately 56% of the votes in the upcoming election will be
for the incumbent.

a. Deductive

b. Inductive

The correct answer is: Inductive

QUESTION 14

This is NOT a characteristic of Positivism:

a. Science is the only valid knowledge

b. Philosophy does not possess a method different from science

e. Fact is the object of education

The correct answer is: Fact is the object of education

QUESTION 15

Logic is defined as:

a. science of understanding

b. science of reasoning

f. Science of questioning

The correct answer is: science of reasoning

QUESTION 16

Is the following argument best classified as _deductive_ or _inductive_?All reptiles ever

examined are cold-blooded. Dinosaurs resemble reptiles in many ways. So dinosaurs were
cold-blooded.

a. Inductive

b. Deductive

The correct answer is: Inductive

QUESTION 17

Is the following argument best classified as _deductive_ or _inductive_?Some cookies are burnt.
Some burnt things are good to eat. So some cookies are good to eat.

a. Deductive

b. Inductive

The correct answer is: Inductive

QUESTION 18

WHAT IS A PREMISE?

a. A Structure

b. A previous statement or proposition

C. boundry

The correct answer is: A previous statement or proposition

QUESTION 19

Why is it important to clarify an issue before using deductive logic :

a. to understand the depth/gravity of the issue

b. to understand what is at stake

c. implement a hypothesis

The correct answer is: To understand what is at stake

QUESTION 20

Who said When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but
with creatures bristling with prejudice and motivated by pride and vanity:

a. Dale Carnegie

b. Emily Dickinson

C. William Shakespeare

The correct answer is: Dale Carnegie

QUESTION 21

Premise is a:

a. a previous statement

b. a structure

The correct answer is: A previous statement

QUESTION 22

Is this statement Inductive or Deductive Every time I find bunnies on my front lawn, it is night
time. Thus, bunnies only come on my lawn at night.

a. Deductive

b. Inductive

The correct answer is: Inductive

QUESTION 23

Is this Statement Inductive or Deductive Studying for quizzes causes people to get better
grades; thus if I study for tomorrow’s quiz, I will get a better grade:

a. Deductive

b. Inductive

The correct answer is: Deductive

QUESTION 24

Major premise is simply contrast is a set of specific facts:

Select one:

True

False

The correct answer is ‘False’.

QUESTION 25
Syllogism is a kind of logical argument that applies:

a. Inductive logic

b. Deductive logic

The correct answer is: Deductive logic

Section B (Quiz#2)

QUESTION 1

When was Carl Hempel born?

a. 1905

b. 1805

d. 1806

The correct answer is: 1905

QUESTION 2

What is a explanandum?

a. facts of the phenomena

b. the phenomena

e. explanation of the phenomena

The correct answer is: explanation of the phenomena

QUESTION 3

Aristotle is generally given credit to enunciate the view that scientific knowledge is distinguished
by the fact that it aspires to explain the causes of:

a. what is

b. how is

f. where is

The correct answer is: What is

QUESTION 4

According to Carl Hempel how many types of positivism are there?

a. 2
b. 1

g. 3

The correct answer is: 2

QUESTION 5

What is explanans?

a. the phenomena

b. reasoning of the phenomena

h. surrounding facts of a phenomena

The correct answer is: The phenomena

QUESTION 6

Carl Hempel was the principle proponent of ?

a. covering law theory

b. raven paradox

i. logical positivism

The correct answer is: Covering law theory

QUESTION 7

Who was carl hempels partner in his philosophical pursuits ?

a. G F Hegel

b. Paul Oppenheim

j. Rudolf Carnap

The correct answer is: Paul Oppenheim

QUESTION 8

The Deductive-Nomological (ON) model of explanation may be characterized as having how

many central feature ?

a. 2

b. 1

k. 3

The correct answer is: 3

QUESTION 9
According to Hempel the logical conditions on explanation must include:

The explanting must contain laws:

Select one:

True

False

The correct answer is ‘False’.

QUESTION 10

The deductive Nomological model is a formal view of scientifically answering questions asking:

a. when
b. why
c. how

The correct answer is: Why