Hawassa University

College of Law and Governance

School of Governance and Development Studies
Logic and Critical Thinking (PHIL101)
Group Assignment

prepared by: Girum Fikadu

submitted to:

January 2024

Page | 1
1. Explore the fundamental epistemological debates surrounding the origin of human
knowledge. Discuss the acquisition of knowledge, differentiating it from mere
belief. Explore the means by which we can be certain of our knowledge and
identify the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge.

Epistemological Debates on the Origin of Human Knowledge

Epistemology, a branch of philosophy dedicated to exploring the nature, scope, and
limits of human knowledge, immerses itself in intricate discussions concerning the origins of
knowledge. These debates, marked by contrasting viewpoints, significantly shape our
comprehension of how knowledge is acquired and understood.
Empiricism vs. Rationalism
One prominent debate unfolds between empiricism and rationalism, two
philosophical traditions with divergent perspectives on the sources of knowledge.
Empiricists, exemplified by thinkers such as Locke and Hume, contend that knowledge is
derived primarily from sensory experiences. In contrast, rationalists like Descartes and
Leibniz assert that certain fundamental truths can be known through reason alone,
emphasizing innate ideas within the human mind.
Foundationalism vs. Coherentism
Debates regarding foundationalism and coherentism explore the structural
underpinnings of knowledge. Foundationalists assert that knowledge rests upon indubitable
beliefs or experiences, exemplified by Descartes' famous dictum, "Cogito, ergo sum" ("I
think, therefore I am"). Coherentists, in contrast, argue for a coherent system of beliefs,
downplaying the necessity of foundational elements in establishing knowledge.
Constructivism
Jean Piaget's constructivism introduces the idea that individuals actively construct
knowledge based on their experiences and interactions with the world. This perspective
emphasizes the dynamic, evolving nature of knowledge acquisition, further enriching the
tapestry of epistemological discussions.
Social Epistemology
Championed by philosophers like Alvin Goldman, social epistemology explores the
social dimensions of knowledge acquisition. It delves into how knowledge is shaped by
interactions within society, cultural influences, and institutional structures, offering a
broader perspective on the communal nature of knowing.
Evolutionary Epistemology

Page | 1
 The evolutionary epistemology approach posits that cognitive processes, including
knowledge acquisition, have evolved over time through natural selection. This perspective
considers how cognitive abilities and structures have developed to enhance survival and
reproduction, linking the origins of knowledge to the broader context of biological
evolution.
These debates, often synthesized in various combinations, collectively contribute to
our nuanced understanding of the origin and nature of human knowledge. By exploring
contrasting viewpoints and diverse philosophical traditions, epistemology provides a rich
tapestry for comprehending how we come to know and understand the world. These
debates, often synthesized, contribute to our understanding of the origin and nature of
human knowledge.

Acquisition of Knowledge vs. Mere Belief

Acquiring knowledge is more than just having beliefs. Knowledge is generally
considered to be justified true belief. In other words, for something to be considered
knowledge, you need to believe it, it has to be true, and you should have good reasons or
evidence to support that belief.
Means of Certainty in Knowledge
Achieving certainty in knowledge is a challenging topic. Some philosophers argue for
a high standard of certainty, while others acknowledge that absolute certainty might be
difficult to attain. Certainty often comes from a combination of strong evidence, logical
reasoning, and careful consideration of alternative viewpoints.
To determine what constitutes knowledge, philosophers have discussed necessary
and sufficient conditions. Necessary conditions are aspects that must be present for
knowledge to exist, while sufficient conditions are those that, if met, guarantee the
existence of knowledge. For example, having true beliefs might be necessary, but having
justified true beliefs could be seen as sufficient for knowledge.
In summary, the debates on the origin of human knowledge revolve around whether
it's innate or acquired through experience. Knowledge is more than belief; it involves
justified true belief. Achieving certainty in knowledge is complex, relying on strong evidence
and logical reasoning. Necessary and sufficient conditions help define what qualifies as
knowledge.

Page | 2
2. Enumerate and elucidate various types of arguments, providing your own
examples. Briefly compare deductive and inductive arguments, supporting your
analysis with original examples.
Within logical reasoning, two fundamental types of arguments, deductive and inductive,
stand as pillars shaping our understanding of the world. Each follows distinct patterns of
reasoning, providing unique insights into the certainty or probability of conclusions. In this
exploration, we delve into the depths of these reasoning styles, accompanied by original
examples that illustrate their nuances.

Deductive Argument

Deductive arguments operate on the premise that if the initial statements, or premises,
are true, then the conclusion must also be true. This form of reasoning is characterized by
its conclusive and absolute nature, offering a clear pathway from premises to conclusion.

 Example
Premise 1: All entities with wings can fly.
Premise 2: A sparrow has wings.
Conclusion: Therefore, the sparrow can fly.
In this deductive scenario, the premises logically necessitate the truth of the conclusion.
If the premises are true, the sparrow must indeed be capable of flight. Deductive reasoning
guarantees the validity of the conclusion given the truth of the premises.

Deductive reasoning is often associated with mathematics and formal logic, where the
structure of arguments is rigid, and the conclusions follow necessarily from the premises.
The certainty offered by deductive arguments is akin to the precision of a mathematical
proof, making it a valuable tool in contexts where absolute certainty is crucial.

Inductive Argument

Inductive arguments, in contrast, provide probable support for their conclusions. While
the truth of the premises makes the conclusion likely, it does not guarantee its absolute
truth. Inductive reasoning involves moving from specific observations to broader
generalizations.

 Example:
Premise 1: Every morning, a rooster crows before sunrise.

Page | 3
 Premise 2: Tomorrow will likely follow the same pattern.
Conclusion: Therefore, the rooster will likely crow before sunrise tomorrow.
Inductive reasoning acknowledges the high probability of the conclusion based on past
observations. However, it does not offer the same level of certainty as deductive reasoning.
While it is likely that the rooster will crow before sunrise, unforeseen factors could disrupt
this pattern.

Inductive reasoning is commonly used in scientific research and everyday situations. In

science, researchers create hypotheses by noticing patterns and collecting data. In everyday
life, people often make generalizations from specific examples. The advantage of inductive
reasoning is its flexibility. Conclusions can be changed if new evidence comes up, and the
level of certainty is based on probability.

Comparison of Deductive and Inductive Arguments

Deductive reasoning is characterized by its conclusive and absolute nature. In the

example of "All computers have screen; Toshiba is a computer; therefore, Toshiba has
screen," the certainty of the conclusion is guaranteed if the premises are true.

Inductive reasoning, on the other hand, provides probable but not guaranteed support
for the conclusion. In the example of "The sun has risen every day in recorded history;
therefore, it will likely rise tomorrow," the conclusion is likely based on past observations
but not guaranteed.

Deductive and inductive arguments represent distinct modes of reasoning, each

valuable in its own right. Deductive arguments offer airtight certainty, while inductive
arguments provide a flexible approach that accommodates probability. Understanding their
intricacies enhances our ability to navigate the complex terrain of logical reasoning,
contributing to a more nuanced comprehension of the world around us.

In logic, deductive and inductive arguments play important roles, each bringing its own
strengths. Deductive reasoning provides certainty, making it good for math and formal
logic. Inductive reasoning gives probable support, useful in science and everyday situations.
Deductive reasoning is like knowing something for sure, while inductive reasoning deals
with likely situations in our changing world. Both ways of thinking help a lot in critical
thinking. Knowing these ideas well helps us handle complex thoughts as we talk and discuss
things.

Page | 4
3. Clarify the interconnection between logic and language. Examine the standard
rules governing lexical definitions and reinforce your discussion with relevant
examples.
The relation between logic and language is a basis of human communication and
understanding. As we express our thoughts, logic provides the structure for sound
reasoning, while language serves as the canvas upon which we paint our ideas. In this
exploration, we delve into the symbiotic relationship between logic and language, focusing
on the standard rules that govern lexical definitions. Through illustrative examples, we aim
to unravel how these rules enhance clarity, conciseness, and precision in our expressions.

The fusion of logic and language forms a symbiotic relationship, each influencing and
refining the other. Language acts as the conduit through which logical ideas are
communicated, and in turn, the principles of logic guide the construction of meaningful and
coherent expressions. This harmonious interplay ensures that our communication is clear,
consistent, and conducive to effective understanding.

Standard Rules Governing Lexical Definitions

 Clarity and Unambiguity

Rule - Lexical definitions must be crystal clear, leaving no room for ambiguity.
Example: Let's consider the term "protocol." A clear definition might describe it as a
set of rules governing the exchange of information between devices in a computer network.
 Conciseness
Rule - Definitions should be concise, conveying essential information without
unnecessary elaboration.
Example: Take the term "photosynthesis." A concise definition could be the process
by which plants use sunlight, chlorophyll, carbon dioxide, and water to synthesize food.
 Exclusion of Circular Definitions
Rule - Definitions should avoid circularity, steering clear of defining a term using the
term itself.
Example: Consider the term "ecosystem." A non-circular definition might describe it
as a biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment.

Page | 5
 Exclusion of Ambiguous Terms

Rule - Lexical definitions should eliminate ambiguity, providing a clear and

unequivocal understanding.

Example: Let's tackle the term "equality." A definition could emphasize it as the state
of being equal, especially in rights, opportunities, and status, without any form of
discrimination.

 Avoidance of Figurative Language:

Rule - Definitions should abstain from figurative language to maintain precision.
Example: Take the term "persistence." A definition might describe it as the quality of
steadfastly continuing in a course of action, especially in the face of difficulties or obstacles,
without resorting to metaphors or similes.
In communication, the relation of logic and language is evident. The adherence to
standard rules governing lexical definitions refines our expressions, fostering clarity and
precision. As we navigate the complex realms of logic and language, these rules become
essential guides, enriching our ability to communicate effectively and fostering a shared
understanding of the concepts we convey. Through this exploration, we deepen our
appreciation for the harmonious interconnection between the structure of logic and the
richness of language.

Page | 6
4. Define a categorical proposition, elucidate the four standards of categorical
propositions, and analyze the attributes of such propositions concerning quality
and quantity. Explore immediate inferences through conversion, obversion, and
contraposition rules, and articulate the logical oppositions among the four
propositions within their square of relations.
Categorical propositions, the bedrock of logical discourse, provide a structured means of
expressing relationships between different classes or categories. Categorical propositions
are statements that assert or deny a relationship between two classes or categories. These
propositions form the basis of classical logic and are often expressed in the form "All S are
P" or "No S are P," where S represents the subject class and P represents the predicate
class. Categorical propositions typically involve the use of quantifiers such as "all," "some,"
or "none" to specify the extent of the relationship between the subject and predicate.

There are four standard forms of categorical propositions, each characterized by specific
components. These are:

1. Subject and Predicate: Every categorical proposition consists of a subject and a

predicate. The subject refers to the class about which the statement is made, while the
predicate represents the class to which the subject is related.
Example: - In "All dogs are mammals," "dogs" is the subject, and "mammals" is the
predicate.
2. Copula: The copula signifies the relationship between the subject and predicate. It is the
linking verb that indicates the relationship between the subject and predicate. In
affirmative propositions, the copula is typically "are" or "is," while in negative
propositions, it may be "are not" or "is not."
Example: - In "Some flowers bloom," "bloom" is the copula, indicating a positive
relationship between "flowers" and "bloom."

3. Quality: The quality of a categorical proposition refers to whether it affirms or denies

the inclusion of the subject within the predicate. Affirmative propositions state that
something is included, while negative propositions state that something is excluded.
Example: - In "No clouds are made of metal," the quality is negative, denying the
inclusion of "clouds" in "metal."

Page | 7
4. Quantity: Quantity specifies the extent of inclusion or exclusion expressed by the
proposition. Universal propositions make a statement about every member of the
subject class, while particular propositions make a statement about some members.
Example: - In "Some fruits are sweet," the quantity is particular, indicating that only
some fruits, not all, are sweet.

Attributes Concerning Quality and Quantity

Quality - Affirmative and Negative

 Affirmative: Affirms the inclusion of the subject in the predicate.

Example: -"All cars are vehicles."
 Negative: Denies the inclusion of the subject in the predicate.
Example: -"No fish are mammals."

Quantity - Universal and Particular

 Universal: Makes a statement about every member of the class.

Example: "All planets orbit stars."
 Particular: Makes a statement about some members of the class.
Example: "Some birds can sing."

Immediate Inferences

Conversion
 Rule: Interchanges subject and predicate while preserving quality.
Example: - Original - "All cats are animals"; Conversion - "All animals are cats."
Obversion

 Rule: Changes the quality of the proposition and replaces the predicate with its
complement.
Example: - Original - "Some books are not mysteries"; Obversion - "Some books are
mysteries."
Contraposition

 Rule: Interchanges subject and predicate, changes their quality, and replaces each term
with its complement.

Page | 8
 Example: Original - "No insects are mammals"; Contraposition - "No mammals are
insects."

Logical Oppositions

Contradictory Pairs

 Contradictory pairs are pairs in which the truth of one proposition necessarily implies
the falsity of the other. They are statements that cannot both be true.

Example: -"All birds can fly" and "Some birds cannot fly."

Contrary Pairs

 Contrary pairs are pairs in which both propositions cannot be true at the same time, but
they can both be false.
Example: "All trees are plants" and "No trees are plants."

Subcontrary Pairs

 Subcontrary pairs are pairs in which both propositions can be true at the same time, but
they cannot both be false.
Example: -"Some insects can fly" and "Some insects cannot fly."

Subalternation Pairs

 They are statements where the truth of the universal statement guarantees the truth of
the particular statement.

Example: -"All mammals are animals" and "Some mammals are animals."

Page | 9