Introduction

What Is Logic?

I n t r o d u c t i o n . The best w a y to answer t h e question

? W h a t i s logic?? is w i t h a d e f i n i t i o n . B u t t h a t is e a s i e r s a i d t h a n done.
T h r o u g h o u t h i s t o r y , m a n y people h a v e t h o u g h t a n d w r i t t e n a b o u t
t h e s u b j e c t o f l o g i c a n d m a n y people h a v e o f f e r e d d e f i n i t i o n s . S o m e
o f t h e m a r e u s e f u l a n d some a r e not.
Josiah Royce, a n A m e r i c a n philosopher, defined logic as ?the
science of order,? b u t t h i s definition is so general t h a t i t r e a l l y could
include t h i n g s outside o f logic, and so i t r e a l l y doesn?t t e l l us much.
O t h e r d e f i n i t i o n s are a l i t t l e too simple. T h e w r i t e r O l i v e r
W e n d e l l H o l m e s said, ? L o g i c is logic. That?s a l l I say.? T h a t o b v i o u s l y
won't help us.
T h e w r i t e r s o f a b o o k on f a l l a c i e s (we?ll e x p l a i n w h a t t h o s e a r e
l a t e r ) d e f i n e d l o g i c as ? t h e defense a g a i n s t t r i c k e r y . ? That?s one t h i n g
l o g i c is, b u t c e r t a i n l y n o t a l l .
M u c h b e t t e r is t h e d e f i n i t i o n g i v e n b y R a y m o n d M c C a l l : ? L o g i c
Losic is the
i n general i s t h e science o f r i g h t t h i n k i n g . ? Jacques M a r i t a i n , a v e r y
f a m o u s p h i l o s o p h e r , h a d a s i m i l a r d e f i n i t i o n . ?Logic,? h e said, ?is t h e science of right
a r t w h i c h e n a b l e s u s t o p r o c e e d w i t h order, ease, a n d c o r r e c t n e s s thinking.
i n t h e a c t o f r e a s o n itself.?
I r v i n g Copi, who w r o t e a book on logic still used i n m a n y colleges,
gets even a l i t t l e more specific. ?The distinction between correct and
incorrect reasoning is the c e n t r a l problem w i t h w h i c h logic deals.?
As you proceed i n t h i s book, you w i l l see t h a t t h i s is so.

T h e H i s t o r y o f Logic. The eighteenth-century G e r m a n

philosopher I m m a n u e l K a n t called A r i s t o t l e , the ancient Greek
philosopher, the ?father of logic.? I f we are t h i n k i n g only o f t r a d i t i o n a l ,
 Introduction

or f o r m a l , logic (which is the only k i n d o f logic we study i n thig h , ok)

t h i s is true. I n fact, formal logic has changed h a r d l y at allSince the
t i m e of Aristotle, who lived f r o m 384-322 B.C.
Shortly after the time of Aristotle, another Greek Philosopher
laid the groundwork for modern symbolic l o g i c ? h i s name Was
Arristotie is Chrysippus (279-206 B.C.). During the Middle Ages, the kind of l o p
considered the developed by Chrysippus did not receive much attention. But in the
father of logic. 17th and early 18th centuries, philosophers began to take another
look at t h e logical system of Chrysippus. One of t h e f i r s t and Most
famous of these is Gottfried W i l h e l m L e i b n i z (1781-1848). Since then,
m a n y advances have been made i n symbolic logic.
I n addition, another form of logical t h o u g h t , called i n d u c t i o n ,
has becomea p a r t of the subject t h a t we k n o w as logic. John S t u a r t
M i l l (1806-1873), who lived i n the 1 9 t h c e n t u r y , pioneered the
theories about induction t h a t we study today.
A t t h e e n d o f t h e 1 9 t h c e n t u r y a n d i n t o o u r o w n , o t h e r logical
m e t h o d s h a v e been developed, m a n y o f w h i c h h a v e as m u c h , i f not
m o r e , t o do w i t h m a t h e m a t i c s t h a n w i t h p h i l o s o p h y . G o t t l o b Frege
( 1 8 4 8 - 1 9 2 5 ) , A l f r e d N o r t h W h i t e h e a d (1861-1947), a n d B e r t r a n d
R u s s e l l (1872-1970) a r e n a m e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e m o r e m o d e r n
k i n d s o f m a t h e m a t i c a l logic.
F o r o u r p u r p o s e s , w e w i l l s t i c k t o t h e f o r m a l l o g i c o fA r i s t o t l e ,
w h i c h is j u s t as u s e f u l t o d a y as i t w a s w h e n i t w a s s e t f o r t h over
2 , 3 0 0 y e a r s ago.

T h e Two M a i n B r a n c h e s o f Logic. There are two

T h e t w o main m a i n b r a n c h e s o f l o g i c . O n e is c a l l e d f o r m a l , o r ? m i n o r , ? logic,
branches o f logic t h e o t h e r m a t e r i a l , o r ?major,? logic. T h e t w o b r a n c h e s a r e q u i t e
a r e f o r m a l logic d i s t i n c t and deal w i t h different problems.

and material Material logic is concerned with the content of argumentation. I t

logic. deals with the truth of the terms and the propositions in an argument.
rma ic-is-i sted i n the form or structure of reasoning.
t h e t r u t ho f a n a r g u m e n ti e of o n l a r n

- deriving? onet r u t h other.

The distinction between these two branches of logic was nicely
described by G. K. Chesterton:
L o g i c a n d t r u t h ... h a v e v e r y l i t t l e to do w i t h each other. L o g i c i s c o n c e r n e d merely
w i t h t h e f i d e l i t y a n d a c c u r a c y w i t h w h i c ha c e r t a i n p r o c e s s i s p e r f o r m e d , a pro-
 I n t r o d u c t i o n
a

cess w h i c h c a n b e p e r f o r m e d w i t h a n y m a t e r i a l s , w i t h a n y a s s u m p t i o n . Y o u c a n
be as l o g i c a l a b o u t g r i f f i n s a n d b a s i l i s k s as a b o u t s h e e p a n d p i g s . . . . L o g i c , t h e n ,
is not n e c e s s a r i l y a n i n s t r u m e n t for f i n d i n g o u t t r u t h ; on t h e c o n t r a r y , t r u t h is
a n e c e s s a r y i n s t r u m e n t f o r u s i n g l o g i c ? f o r u s i n g i t , t h a t is, f o r t h e d i s c o v e r y o f
f u r t h e r t r u t h . . . . B r i e f l y , you can only f i n d t r u t h w i t h logic i f you have a l r e a d y
found t r u t h w i t h o u t it.

T h i s l a s t r e m a r k o f Chesterton's is i m p o r t a n t . I t is n o t t h e purpose
of f o r m a l logic to discover t r u t h . T h a t is the business of everyday
observation and, i n c e r t a i n more formal circumstances, e m p i r i c a l
science. L o g i c serves o n l y t o lead us from one t r u t h t o another.
T h a t is why, for example, you should not call a statement of fact
l o g i c a l o r i l l o g i c a l (although t h i s is commonly done i n everyday
argument). You should instead call i t t r u e or f a l s e . Likewise, you
should not c a l l a n a r g u m e n t (which contains several statements o f
fact) t r u e or false. You should only c a l l i t v a l i d or i n v a l i d . V a l i d i t y
is t h e t e r m we use w h e n we m e a n to say t h a t an a r g u m e n t is logical.
The t e r m s o u n d n e s s , however, can be applied to a n a r g u m e n t to
say s o m e t h i n g about b o t h its t r u t h and its validity.

T r u t h , Validity, and Soundness. T r u t h means t h e

T h r e e
correspondence of a s t a t e m e n t to reality. A n a r g u m e n t is v a l i d
w h e n its conclusion follows logically f r o m its premises. The t e r m important terms
?soundness? is used to i n d i c a t e t h a t all the premises i n an a r g u m e n t in logic a r e
are t r u e a n d t h a t t h e a r g u m e n t is valid. t r u t h , validity,
a n d soundness.
A n a r g u m e n t can contain t r u e premises a n d s t i l l be invalid.
Likewise, i t can be perfectly v a l i d (or logical, i f you prefer) and
contain false premises. B u t i f an a r g u m e n t is sound, its premises
must be t r u e a n d i t m u s t be valid.
I f t h i s sounds confusing, don?t w o r r y : these concepts w i l l become
clearer as we progress t h r o u g h the m a t e r i a l i n t h i s book.

T h e C o m p o n e n t s o f an A r g u m e n t . A n a r g u m e n t
contains several components. I n order to i l l u s t r a t e w h a t these
components are and how they work i n the reasoning process, let us
begin w i t h a simple argument:

A l l men are mortal

S o c r a t e s is a m a n
T h e r e f o r e , S o c r a t e s is m o r t a l
 Introduction

The first two statements are premises and the last is the Conclusion
A l l arguments must have at least two premises and one conclusion,
O n t h e Tacs OPH T h i s argument c o n t a i n s a n u m b e r o f o y
making up three statements whichf i t together into what looks and
sounds like an argument. But there is more here than meets the eye
In formal logic, we recognize three kinds of logical processes. We
recognize that each of these originates in am e n t a l act, but that
each also manifests itself as (and is known to us i n the form of)
v e r b a l expression.

Term. The mental act involved i n t h e f i r s t o f these

T h e verbal t h r e e logical processes is called s i m p l e a p p r e h e n s i o n . W e call
expression the verbal expression of simple apprehension the t e r m . A simple
of a simple apprehension occurs when we f i r s t f o r m i n o u r m i n d a concept of
a p p r e h e n s i o n is something. When we put t h i s concept i n t o words, we have p u t this
simple apprehension i n the form of a term.
called t h e term.
A t the point of simple apprehension, we do n o t a f f i r m o r deny
a n y t h i n g about it. We just possess o r grasp it.
I f i n your mind, for example, you t h i n k o f t h i s book (the one you're
reading r i g h t now), you are performing t h i s f i r s t logical process. You
are having a simple apprehension. A n d i f you speak or w r i t e anything
about it, you w i l l have to use a term, the t e r m ?book,
I n t h e a r g u m e n t above (the one a b o u t Socrates), t h e r e a r e t h r e e
t e r m s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h r e e s i m p l e a p p r e h e n s i o n s . T h e f i r s t i s ?men?;
t h e second is ?Socrates?; a n d t h e t h i r d is ?mortal.? E a c h o n e o f these
r e p r e s e n t s i n o u r m i n d a concept t h a t w e h a v e t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o a
w o r d . T h e concept w e c a l l t h e s i m p l e a p p r e h e n s i o n a n d t h e w o r d
we call the t e r m .

Mental Act Verbal Expression

Simple Apprehension Term

P r o p o s i t i o n . T h e m e n t a l act i n v o l v e d i n t h e second
o f t h e s e t h r e e l o g i c a l processes is c a l l e d j u d g m e n t . T h e v e r b a l
e x p r e s s i o n o f a j u d g m e n t is c a l l e d a P r o p o s i t i o n . W e p e r f o r m a
j u d g m e n t a n y t i m e w e t h i n k i n o u r m i n d t h a t s o m e t h i n g is s o m e t h i n g
else ( w h i c h w e c a l l a f f i r m a t i o n ) , a n d a l s o w h e n w e t h i n k t h a t
s o m e t h i n g is n o t s o m e t h i n g else ( w h i c h w e c a l l d e n i a l ) . T o j u d g e is
4 t o a f f i r m o r deny.

&Sa :
ee o e I a
 Introductio

I f you t h i n k t h a t t h i s book is boring, t h e n you are p e r f o r m i n g a

judgment. I f you v e r b a l l y express t h i s judgment, you w i l l have to do
i t i n the f o r m o f a proposition, the proposition ?This book is boring.?
The j u d g m e n t is the m e n t a l act you have when you t h i n k t h a t t h i s
book is boring, a n d t h e proposition is t h e statement you m a k e to
express t h a t t h o u g h t .
I n t h e a r g u m e n t above, there are t h r e e propositions expressed.
The f i r s t is ?All m e n are mortal?; the second is ?Socrates is a man?;
and the t h i r d is ?Socrates is mortal.? Each one of these represents i n
our m i n d a t h o u g h t t h a t s o m e t h i n g is something else: t h a t a l l ?men?
are ?mortal?; t h a t ?Socrates? is a ?man?; and t h a t ?Socrates? is ?mortal.?
We should p o i n t o u t t h a t some people use the w o r d ?statement?
i n s t e a d o f ? p r o p o s i t i o n . T h e y m e a n the same t h i n g , b u t to be
consistent, we w i l l use t h e word ?proposition?

Mental Act Verbal Expression

Judgment Proposition

T h e verbal
Syllogism. The m e n t a l act involved i n t h e t h i r d of
these t h r e e l o g i c a l processes is called d e d u c t i v e i n f e r e n c e . We expression o f
a judgment
call t h e v e r b a l expression of deductive inference the s y l l o g i s m . A
is c a l l e d a
deductive inference occurs w h e n we m a k e t h e logical connections
i n o u r m i n d between t h e t e r m s i n the a r g u m e n t i n a w a y t h a t proposition.
shows us t h a t t h e conclusion either follows or does not follow f r o m
t h e premises. W h e n we v e r b a l l y express t h i s i n an a r g u m e n t , we
have p u t t h i s deductive inference i n the form of a syllogism.
I t is at t h i s p o i n t t h a t we are said to make progress i n knowledge.
I t is t h r o u g h t h e process of deductive inference, as expressed i n a
syllogism, t h a t we can say, as we explained above, t h a t we have gone
f r o m one t r u t h o r set o f t r u t h s to another t r u t h .
Let?s say t h e reason you t h i n k t h i s book is b o r i n g is because you
t h i n k a l l books are boring. I f t h i s were true, you would be p e r f o r m i n g
a deductive inference. You would be t h i n k i n g to yourself, a l l books
are boring, a n d t h i s is a book. Therefore, t h i s book is boring. A n d i f
you v e r b a l l y expressed t h i s deductive inference, you would do i t i n
t h e f o r m o f a syllogism. T h e j u d g m e n t expressed by ?All books are
boring? and ?This is a book? are d i f f e r e n t t h a n the j u d g m e n t ?This
book is boring.? T h r o u g h deductive inference, however, you can go
 Introduction

from these first two to the last one. I n this way, you have gone from
one set of truths to another t r u t h (if indeed they are true, which
hopefully they are not).
We would say that the argument above (the one aboutSocrates)
in its entirety, is a syllogism. I t expresses a deductive inference
that logically connects certain simple apprehensions that are parts
of three judgments. A n d this process has been expressed i n the
form of a syllogism.

Mental Act Verbal E x p r e s s i o n

Deductive Inference Syllogism

T h e verbal I f w e n o w p u t t h i s a l l t o g e t h e r , k e e p i n g o u r d i s t i n c t i o n between

expression o f m e n t a l a c t s a n d v e r b a l expressions, i t w o u l d l o o k l i k e t h i s :
a deductive
inference Mental Act Verbal Expression
is c a l l e d a Simple Apprehension Term
syllogism. Judgment Proposition
Deductive Inference Syllogism

I n o r d e r t o g i v e o u r s e l v e s a m e n t a l p i c t u r e o f t h e s e t h r e e logical
processes, l e t us t h i n k o f a m a n w a l k i n g . I n o r d e r t o g e t f r o m , say,
o n e r o o m t o a n o t h e r , he h a s t o p i c k u p h i s f o o t a n d t a k e several
s t e p s i n o r d e r t o g e t t o t h e r o o m t h a t is h i s d e s t i n a t i o n . T h e i n i t i a l
a c t ? p i c k i n g u p h i s f o o t ? i s l i k e t h e i n i t i a l logical act o f simple
a p p r e h e n s i o n . T a k i n g a f u l l s t e p is l i k e m a k i n g a j u d g m e n t . A n d
s t r i n g i n g a l l t h e s t e p s t o g e t h e r i n t o one m o v e m e n t i s l i k e d e d u c t i v e
i n f e r e n c e ? w e m o v e f r o m one p l a c e t o a n o t h e r .

S u m m a r y . We s t a r t e d o u t b y d e f i n i n g l o g i c as ?the
s c i e n c e o f r i g h t t h i n k i n g . ? W e s a i d t h e r e a r e t w o m a i n b r a n c h e s of
logic. O n e is c a l l e d f o r m a l , o r m i n o r , logic, t h e o t h e r m a t e r i a l ,
o r m a j o r , logic. M a t e r i a l l o g i c is c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e c o n t e n t of
a r g u m e n t a t i o n . F o r m a l l o g i c is i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e f o r m o r s t r u c t u r e
o f r e a s o n i n g . We d e f i n e d t r u t h a s c o r r e s p o n d e n c e w i t h r e a l i t y . We
s a i d a n a r g u m e n t is v a l i d w h e n its c o n c l u s i o n f o l l o w s l o g i c a l l y f r o m
its premises. A n d we s a i d t h a t s o u n d n e s s indicates t h a t all the
p r e m i s e s i n a n a r g u m e n t a r e t r u e a n d t h a t t h e a r g u m e n t is v a l i d .