1

Lecture - 12
Logical Reasoning: Syllogism Logic, Truth and Validity
Research Methodology
Prof. Soumitro Banerjee
Suppose the structure is OAO. We have not done much of O (some-not) structure. That is why
let me do that. And here we consider the middle term as a cat, the subject as, say, mammal and the
predicate as, say, tail. So, the major term, in that case, would be ‘some cats have no tail’. Then ‘all
mammals are cats’. Some mammals have no tail, this is ok. But you notice that ‘all mammals are cats’
is definitely a wrong statement. But I do not care, because this is what is given. Whatever is given, on
that basis you have to construct what is the logically plausible conclusion. So, this possibility exists:
‘some mammals have no tail’. I will not continue with this because in books you will find various other
possibilities, but you would notice that this is something that you can easily work out, by drawing the
Venn diagrams. So, here we are considering the possibilities and these are the possibilities. If these
major premise and minor premise are given, then these are the possible conclusions.(Refer Slide Time:
02:57) Consider, for example, the structure EIO with the middle term being metal, the subject being
element and the predicate being insulator. So, this statement would be, E starting, it is a ‘no’ statement,
so ‘no metal is an insulator’. Then the minor premise would have the subject with an I (I means some)
therefore, ‘some elements are metals’. The conclusion will have O, i.e., some-not: ‘some elements are
not insulators’. You would notice that the starting one is ‘no’, second one is ‘some’ and therefore, the
result is in the form of ‘some-not’. So, this is also a possible valid logical structure. That way, you can
continue to check which ones are actually valid logical structures and one has to acquaint to oneself
with this kind of logical structures, so that, if faced with the situation, you are able to derive logically
valid conclusions. But we have to understand that something being logically valid and something being
true: two entirely different things. Something that is logically valid need not be true and something that
is true need not be logically valid. Let me illustrate that, because this is something that often student do
not understand and make mistakes.(Refer Slide Time: 05:37) So, we are talking about truth and validity.
Now, these are two entirely different things and this is very important in science, because often a
scientist comes across a situation that, the premises that are assumed cannot be directly tested. But using
those premises one can go on logically deriving things and arrive at a conclusion. So, you are applying
deductive logic starting from those premises and arrive at conclusion which can be tested. Now, suppose
I test that and we come to the conclusion that, test tells that, this derived result is invalid, wrong, false.
Can we say then that the starting point, the premises, are also wrong, false? Yes, we can. So, the point
is that if you start from false premises you will arrive at false conclusions. But it is also possible to start
from false premises and arrive at a true conclusion. Let me give an example: All dinosaurs are mammals
(obviously, something false) All cats are dinosaurs. So, ‘all’ leading to ‘all’, so we have got ‘all’ as a
conclusion and the middle term gets cancelled and we conclude that ‘all cats are mammals’. Notice that
this is a correct conclusion arrived from two incorrect premises. So, what does it mean? It means that if
you start from completely wrong premises, still it is possible to arrive at a correct conclusion. Now, if
you test this one to be true in a scientific situation—where you are starting from some premises and you
do not know whether the premises are correct or not—you have derived something and you have tested
that, and you have found that to be true. A situation like this; does that mean that the starting premises
are true? No, and this is a very common mistake that people make in science. So, a derived result being
true, experimentally validated to be true, does not immediately mean that what it started from or the
premises are correct because the there is a logical flaw. I mean, it is possible to have arrive at a correct
conclusion, true conclusion, starting from false premises. And that is why we know now that a true
conclusion can be derived from false premises. But a false conclusion cannot be drawn from true
premises. Let me write it here. (Refer Slide Time: 10:44) Then this has very important logical
implications used in science: that the conclusion being false implies that the starting premises are false.
And the conclusion being tree, a conclusion that has been found to be true, does not imply that the
starting premises are true. A very important conclusion. A very important result coming from logic.
Actually this is where sometimes scientists professional scientists, go wrong, because if they have the
validation of a derived result they often assume that then it implies that what they started from is true
which is not correct. I have just logically showed it cannot be correct. Now, one has to be very careful
about applying logic because there are certain situations, where the statements coming out of a logical
 2

structure being actually true, often fools a scientist into believing that it is also valid. Valid means given
the premises this is what follows. (Refer Slide Time: 13:26) Let me give an example. All particles with
integer valued spin are bosons, this is a correct statement. And then electrons do not have integer value
spin. And then suppose you conclude that, therefore, electrons are not bosons. All three statements are
correct. And such situations often leads a person not trained in logic to believe that the logical structure
is also correct. But that is not quite so. To illustrate why it is not so. All particles with integer valued
spin are bosons. So, these are the particles with integer values of spin. Let me call it i. This is the blob
for bosons. This I should say small i, because capital I means something else. And then, electrons do
not have integer valued spin. So, the electrons will have no contact with i, but that means, we can either
place the e-blob here or place it there. Both are valid positions of the blob e and therefore, this statement
cannot be made. ‘Electrons are not bosons’--this statement cannot be made, starting from this premise.
But since this statement is factually correct, it often fools a scientist to believing that the logical structure
is also correct. It is not true. And if I now change the subject, predicate and middle term, you
immediately see the fallacy. For example, if I say ‘all insects are living organisms’, exactly the same
form. And then ‘tigers are not insects’. True. Exactly the same form. And therefore, we conclude that
‘tigers are not living organisms’. Obviously, a false statement. So, two correct statements, by false logic,
wrong logic, can lead to a correct conclusion. So, the point is that, if the premises as well as the
conclusion, apparent conclusion, is factually correct, do not be fooled into believing that the logical
structure is also correct. Logical structure is something that has to be obtained independently, and that
requires quite a bit of practice. And only when, starting from true conclusions, you go in a valid
progression, then you can reach a valid and true conclusion. But the conclusion being true does not
mean the premises are true, and if you start from a wrong premise you can arrive at valid conclusion,
correct conclusion, true conclusion. And if you start from correct premise it is possible to arrive at
wrong conclusion, if your logical derivation is not correct. So, it is important therefore, to learn how to
do correct logical derivations. Deductive logic is essentially starting from some inductive premise, you
do a logically correct valid deduction, arrived at something else, and that then has to be tested to be true
or not. So, this is how science functions and therefore, it is very important for a budding scientist to be
able to apply logic correctly.