WHAT IS LOGIC?

Logic may be defined as the science of reasoning. However, this is not to suggest that
logic is an empirical (i.e., experimental, or observational) science like physics, biology,
or psychology. Rather, logic is a non-empirical science like mathematics. Also, in saying
that logic is the science of reasoning, we do not mean that it is concerned with the
actual mental (or physical) process employed by a thinking entity when it is reasoning.
The investigation of the actual reasoning process falls more appropriately within the
province of psychology, neurophysiology, or cybernetic cs.
Even if these empirical disciplines were considerably more advanced than they
presently are, the most they could disclose is the exact process that goes on in a
being's head when he or she (or it) is reasoning. They could not, however, tell us
whether the being is reasoning correctly or incorrectly. Distinguishing correct reasoning
from incorrect reasoning is the task of logic.

There’s an ancient view, still widely held, that what makes human beings special—what
distinguishes us from the “beasts of the field”—is that we are rational. What does
rationality consist in? That’s a vexed question, but one possible response goes roughly
like this: we manifest our rationality by engaging in activities that involve reasoning—
making claims and backing them up with reasons, acting in accord with reasons and
beliefs, drawing inferences from available evidence, and so on.

This reasoning activity can be done well, and it can be done badly; it can be done
correctly or incorrectly. Logic is the discipline that aims to distinguish good reasoning
from bad.`

Good reasoning is not necessarily effective reasoning. In fact, as we shall see in a

subsequent chapter on logical fallacies, bad reasoning is pervasive and often extremely
effective—in the sense that people are often persuaded by it. In logic, the standard of
goodness is not effectiveness in the sense of persuasiveness, but
rather correctness according to logical rules.

Good reasoning is not necessarily effective reasoning. bad reasoning is pervasive and
often extremely effective—in the sense that people are often persuaded by it. In logic,
the standard of goodness is not effectiveness in the sense of persuasiveness, but
rather correctness according to logical rules.

For example, consider Hitler. He persuaded an entire nation to go along with a variety of
proposals that were not only false but downright evil. You won’t be surprised to hear
that if you examine it critically, his reasoning does not pass logical muster. Hitler’s
arguments were effective, but not logically correct. Moreover, his persuasive techniques
go beyond reasoning in the sense of backing up claims with reasons. Hitler relied on
threats, emotional manipulation, unsupported assertions, etc. There are many rhetorical
tricks one can use to persuade.
In logic, we study the rules and techniques that allow us to distinguish good, correct
reasoning from bad, incorrect reasoning.

Since there are a variety of different types of reasoning and methods with which to
evaluate each of these types, plus various diverging views on what constitutes correct
reasoning, there are many approaches to the logical enterprise. We talk of logic, but
also of logics. A logic is just a set of rules and techniques for distinguishing good
reasoning from bad. A logic must formulate precise standards for evaluating reasoning
and develop methods for applying those standards to instances.

BASIC NOTIONS

Reasoning involves claims or statements—making them and backing them up with

reasons, drawing out their consequences. Propositions are the things we claim, state,
assert.

Propositions are the kinds of things that can be true or false. They are expressed
by declarative sentences. We use such sentences to make all sorts of assertions, from
routine matters of fact (“the Earth revolves around the Sun”), to grand metaphysical
theses (“reality is an unchanging, featureless, unified Absolute”), to claims about
morality (“it is wrong to eat meat”).

It is important to distinguish sentences in the declarative mood, which express

propositions, from sentences in other moods, which do not. Interrogative sentences, for
example, ask questions (“Is it raining?”), and imperative sentences issue commands
(“Don’t drink kerosene.”). It makes no sense to ask whether these kinds of sentences
express truths or falsehoods, so they do not express propositions.

It is important to distinguish sentences in the declarative mood, which express

propositions, from sentences in other moods, which do not. Interrogative sentences, for
example, ask questions (“Is it raining?”), and imperative sentences issue commands
(“Don’t drink kerosene.”). It makes no sense to ask whether these kinds of sentences
express truths or falsehoods, so they do not express propositions.

We also distinguish propositions from the sentences that express them, because a
single proposition can be expressed by different sentences. “It’s raining” and “es regnet”
both express the proposition that it’s raining; one sentence does it in English, the other
in German. Also, “John loves Mary” and “Mary is loved by John” both express the same
proposition.
INFERENCES AND ARGUMENTS
Reasoning is a special mental activity called inferring, what can also be called making
(or performing) inferences.

The following is a useful and simple definition of the word ‘infer’. To infer is to draw
conclusions from premises. In place of word ‘premises’, you can also put: ‘data’,
‘information’, ‘facts’.

Examples of Inferences:

(1) You see smoke and infer that there is a fire.

(2) You count 19 persons in a group that originally had 20, and you infer that someone
is missing.

Note carefully the difference between ‘infer’ and ‘imply’, which are sometimes confused.
We infer the fire on the basis of the smoke, but we do not imply the fire. On the other
hand, the smoke implies the fire, but it does not infer the fire. The word ‘infer’ is not
equivalent to the word ‘imply’, nor is it equivalent to ‘insinuate’.

The reasoning process may be thought of as beginning with input (premises, data, etc.)
and producing output (conclusions).

Inferences are made on the basis of various sorts of things – data, facts, information,
states of affairs. In order to simplify the investigation of reasoning, logic treats all of
these things in terms of a single sort of thing – statements. Logic correspondingly treats
inferences in terms of collections of statements, which are called arguments. The word
‘argument’ has a number of meanings in ordinary English. The definition of ‘argument’
that is relevant to logic is given as follows.

it is raining

I am hungry

2+2 = 4

God exists

On the other hand the following are examples of sentences that are not statements.

are you hungry?

shut the door, please

Observe that whereas a statement is capable of being true or false, a question, or a

command, or an exclamation is not capable of being true or false. Note that in saying
that a statement is capable of being true or false, we are not saying that we know for
sure which of the two (true, false) it is. Thus, for a sentence to be a statement, it is not
necessary that humankind knows for sure whether it is true, or whether it is false. An
example is the statement ‘God exists’.

Now let us get back to inferences and arguments. Earlier, we discussed two examples
of inferences. Let us see how these can be represented as arguments. In the case of
the smoke-fire inference, the corresponding argument is given as follows.

(a1)

there is smoke (premise)

therefore, there is fire (conclusion)

Here the argument consists of two statements, ‘there is smoke’ and ‘there is fire’. The
term ‘therefore’ is not strictly speaking part of the argument; it rather serves to designate
the conclusion (‘there is fire’), setting it off from the premise (‘there is smoke’). In this
argument, there is just one premise.
In the case of the missing-person inference, the corresponding argument is given as
follows.
(a2) there were 20 persons originally (premise)
there are 19 persons currently (premise)
therefore, someone is missing (conclusion)
Here the argument consists of three statements – ‘there were 20 persons originally’,
‘there are 19 persons currently’, and ‘someone is missing’. Once again, ‘therefore’ sets
off the conclusion from the premises. In principle, any collection of statements can be
treated as an argument simply by designating which statement in particular is the
conclusion. However, not every collection of statements is intended to be an argument.
We accordingly need criteria by which to distinguish arguments from other collections of
statements.
Inductive vs. deductive reasoning
Both inductive and deductive reasoning bring valuable benefits to the workplace. Here
are how the definitions differ from each other:
Inductive reasoning: Inductive thinking uses experience and proven observations to
guess the outcome. The goal is to predict a likely outcome.
Deductive reasoning: Deductive reasoning uses theories and beliefs to rationalize and
prove a specific conclusion. The goal is to prove a fact.
Here are some examples of each to help further clarify the difference:
Inductive example: I get tired if I don't drink coffee. Coffee is addictive. I'm addicted to
coffee.
Deductive example: Human beings need to breathe to live. You're a human. You need
to breathe to live.

Validity and Soundness

A deductive argument proves its conclusion ONLY if it is both valid and sound.
Validity: An argument is valid when, IF all of it’s premises were true, then the conclusion
would also HAVE to be true.
In other words, a “valid” argument is one where the conclusion necessarily follows from
the premises. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true.
Here’s an example of a valid argument:
1. All philosophy courses are courses that are super exciting.
2. All logic courses are philosophy courses.
3. Therefore, all logic courses are courses that are super exciting.
Note #1: IF (1) and (2) WERE true, then (3) would also HAVE to be true.
Note #2: Validity says nothing about whether or not any of the premises ARE true. It
only says that IF they are true, then the conclusion must follow. So, validity is more
about the FORM of an argument, rather than the TRUTH of an argument.
So, an argument is valid if it has the proper form. An argument can have the right form,
but be totally false, however.
For example:
1. Daffy Duck is a duck.
2. All ducks are mammals.
3. Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.
The argument just given is valid. But, premise 2 as well as the conclusion are both
false. Notice however that, IF the premises WERE true, then the conclusion would also
have to be true. This is all that is required for validity. A valid argument need not have
true premises or a true conclusion.
On the other hand, a sound argument DOES need to have true premises and a true
conclusion:
Soundness: An argument is sound if it meets these two criteria:
(1) It is valid.
(2) Its premises are true.
In other words, a sound argument has the right form AND it is true.
Looking back to our argument about Daffy Duck, we can see that it is valid, but not
sound. It is not sound because it does not have all true premises. Namely, “All ducks
are mammals” is not true.
So, the argument about Daffy Duck is valid, but NOT sound. Here’s an example of an
argument that is valid AND sound:
1. All rabbits are mammals.
2. Bugs Bunny is a rabbit.
3. Therefore, Bugs Bunny is a mammal.
In this argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true (so it is
valid). AND, as it turns out, the premises ARE true (all rabbits ARE in fact mammals,
and Bugs Bunny IS in fact a rabbit)—so the conclusion must also be true (so the
argument is sound)