An Introduction to Logic

Chapter N0 1

An Introduction

Muhammad Saqib Shinwari

Philosophy (Gold Medalist)
0333-9375527
[email protected]
 Chapter # 01
Introduction

1) LOGIC:
Literally the word “Logic” is derived from the Greek word “Logos”, which
means “Thought”. But whenever we expressed our thoughts, we always expressed them in word,
so the meaning of the term “logos” is “thought and words”.

Logic is the branch of Philosophy, in which we study the methods and principles of
language. Specifically in language we study about reasoning and differentiate between
reasoning.

Logic also defined as “the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct
from incorrect reasoning”.

Definition:
“Karamat Hussain defined logic as the science of the law of valid thought”. Let us
explain the meaning of the words, “science”, “laws”, “valid”, and “thought” which we have
used in our definition.

1.1) Science:
Science is the systematic, accurate and complete knowledge of some subject matter. It
provides us methodological and exact results. Therefore, Logic is also a science because it also
provides us a methodological, exact and exhaustive account of the laws of thought. Therefore,
we called logic as a science, but here we divided science into two broader senses;

 One is Natural (Positive) science, which deals with the things as they are like Botany,
Chemistry, Astronomy etc., and
 The other branch is Normative Science, which deals with the things, as they should be.

Logic is a normative science that is why it only concern with the things as they should be
and has nothing to do with the things as they are. Logic sets up the norms and the standard
according to which our thought should be; it does not tell us how we actually think but how we
should think.

1.2) Law:
 Every science deals with its own facts, and these facts deals for the sake of the laws,
which govern these facts. In other words, a science is interested in general laws, which it
deduces from its facts.

In the same manner, the science of logic is not so much concerned with the pieces of valid
thought but with the general laws of valid thought.

There are three kinds of laws; namely

1.2.1) Political law:

Law which are commands issued or imposed by some superior authority is called
political law. We can study these laws as they are. These laws can be changed as well as can be
violated.

For example, traffic rules/ traffic signal rules, etc.

1.2.2) Natural Law:

Law, which is imposed by nature, is called Natural law. It stated, what is. They can
neither be changed nor violated.

For example, Law of gravity, etc.

1.2.3) Normative Law:

Law imposed an individual upon themselves is called Normative law. Normative law is a
law, which state that what ought to be. They cannot be changed but can be violated.

The laws of logic are normative or regular laws. No body compels us think validly, nor
did we punish if we think invalidly. We can violate the laws of valid thinking but cannot change
them.

1.3) Valid:
Valid means true. Any thought which is self-contradictory could not be valid, for
example, we could not think of a circular Triangle, or a square circle, or red blue color etc.
because these concepts contradicts each other. Not all the concepts, which are self-negation,
could be valid and we called these concepts as invalid. So validity means free from self-
contradiction.

There are two kinds of validity; one is formal validity and the other is material validity.
In formal validity, we only observe whether our thought agrees with itself or not. It mean that
we want to find out either the argument is free from self-contradiction or not. In formal valid
argument, the statements should be self-consistent. While in the other sense, which is material
validity, we want to find whether our thought agree with the actual reality or not. In this form of
validity, we check our statements with the facts or reality.
 1.3.1) Law of valid thought:
According to the great classical period Philosopher “Aristotle”,
there are three traditional laws of validity: Identity, Non-Contradiction, and excluded middle.
The following will state the three traditional "laws of valid thought".

1.3.1. A) the law of Identity:

This law stated, “Whatever is is.”

This mean that “a is a”, for example “Red is Red” etc.

Regarding this law, Aristotle wrote: First then this at least is obviously true, that the
word "be" or "not be" has a definite meaning, so that not everything will be "so and not so".

1.3.1. B) The law of Non-Contradiction:

This law stated, “Nothing can both be and no be at the same time”.
In other words, "two or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same
sense at the same time": In the words of Aristotle that "one cannot say of something that it is and
that it is not in the same respect and at the same time".
1.3.1. C) The law of Excluded Middle:
This law stated that “Everything must be either be or not be”.
In accordance with the law of excluded middle or excluded third, for every proposition,
either its positive or negative form is true.
Regarding the law of excluded middle, Aristotle wrote; there cannot be an intermediate
between contradictories, but of one subject, we must either affirm or deny any one predicate.
1.4) Thought:
There are two subjects, which are concerned with the thought. One is Psychology and the
other is Logic. Psychology deals with process of thought while Logic deals with product of
thought. In addition, the products of thoughts are concept, judgment and reasoning.
i) Concept:
A concept means a simplest and general idea. For example, we say “man”
so we do not refer to any particular man, but man in general. Such a general
idea of man is called concept of “man”. Thus, man, book, chair, horse etc. are
the concept as far as they refer to every object denoted by them in general. When
we expressed a concept in language, it is called a “name” or a “word”.
ii) Judgment:
A judgment is a combination of two concepts. When we compare two
concepts then we will called it a judgment. These concepts must be either in
 agreement or in disagreement. For example Man is mortal, circles are not
square, tables are brown etc. are judgments. In example “man is mortal”, there
are two concepts “man” and “mortal” and there is a relation of agreement
between them. When we expressed judgment in language, it is called
“statement” or “proposition”. A statement or proposition is a special kind of
sentence in which we affirm or deny something.
iii) Reasoning:
A reason is the combination of two or more than two judgments, which are
making inference. There are two kinds of combinations one is mediate inference
and another is immediate inference.
A reasoning in which we pass directly or immediately from one
proposition to another proposition are called immediate inference,

For example:

All Punjabis are Pakistani

Therefore, no Punjabis are a non-Pakistani.

However, when in our reasoning we get an inference by putting together

two propositions or more than two propositions, we have mediate inference; the
following is an example of mediate inference.

Men are mortal

Ali is a man

Therefore, Ali is a man.

Is Logic a science or an art?

We should not suppose that science and art are absolutely different from each other.
Every art give us some rules or principals, and when those principles are put into practice the
same art become science. An art has only theoretical knowledge, while science has theoretical
as well as practical aspect: theory and practice go hand in hand.

Science and arts are always depending upon each other. A science which cannot be put
into the practice would be useless. Art is the root of a science and science is the fruit of an art.
Art without science is rootless and science without art is fruitless.

Similarly, the science of logic is the basis of the art of correct thinking. So long as we
study the principals of correct thinking, we have the science of logic; and when we put those
principals into practice and find error in our own as well as others’ arguments, the art of logic
becomes science of thinking.

Logic is a science because it is systematic and complete study of certain subject matter.
But it is also an art. Now, Science teaches us to know and art is the way to know. In other words,
science consists in doing something while an art consist in doing learning. Art is theoretical in
nature while science is practical in nature. Another distinction between them is that an art is
learning by study while science is learnt by practice.

Thus, logic is both science and art. As an art it formulates the principle of correct
thinking which are required by every science because every science wants to reason correctly.
As a science, it teaches us how to apply the principle of correct thinking, so as to avoid errors
and to think correctly which is the most important of all the sciences of in the world.

Proposition
Propositions are the building blocks of our reasoning. A proposition asserts that
something is the case or it asserts that something is not. We may affirm a proposition, or
deny it—but every proposition either asserts what really is the case, or it asserts
something that is not. Therefore every proposition is either true or false.

Propositions are kind of sentence, in which we affirm or deny anything. It is also

called statement. When we combine two or more than two concepts, it is also called
Proposition or statement. For example

Proposition 1) All man are mortal

Proposition 2) Chair is brown

Composition of a Statement
A proposition consists of two terms of which one is the subject, and the other is predicate.
When we compare two terms so as to see whether they agree or disagree, we are said to judge.
The act of comparing two terms is called judgment, which when we express in language is called
a proposition.

Thus, a proposition is a judgment about two terms, that is, an assertion or statement of
relation of agreement or disagreement between two terms. In other words, a proposition is an
affirmation or denial of a certain relation between two terms. When we say “man is mortal”,
“chalk is white”, “triangles are not squares”. We have propositions, because they assert
something, that is, affirm or deny something about man, chalk, and triangle. Unless, therefore,
we say something affirmative or negative about a term we have made no statement or assertion,
and consequentially we have no logical proposition.

Logical proposition says something about else, it consists of three parts, of which two are
terms and a third is a sign of the relation between two terms. The term about which something is
said is called subject; while that which is said about is called predicate; and the sign expressing
the relation between them is called copula.

Another words, the subject of the propositions is the term about which something is
affirm or deny; the predicate is the term which is affirmed or denied about the subject; and the
coupla is the sign of affirmation or deny. For example, in the proposition “man is mortal”, in
this proposition “man” is the subject, “mortal” is the predicate and the “is” copula or the sign
of affirmation.

Kinds of proposition by composition: simple and compound propositions

A simple proposition expressed a single judgment or statement. As for example, “all man
are mortal”, “no triangle are circle”, etc. on the other hand a compound proposition, also
known as an exponible proposition combine more than one proposition in a single statement; it
is made up of two or more than two simple propositions, for example, “john and James are
present”, “neither john nor James is present”, etc. each of these propositions is really equality
to two propositions namely, john is not present and James is not present.

Argument
When we express reasoning in language, it is called an argument. In an argument, we
combine two or more than two propositions or statements. In an argument, these
propositions must have inferences, either immediate or mediate.

Inference is a process that may tie together a cluster of proposition. When we make an
inference between propositions of an argument, some statements provide support to some
other proposition.

In an argument, when we combine propositions, then these propositions are either called
premises or conclusion. In reasoning, we pass from one or more proposition to another
proposition means that some proposition gives support to another proposition. Those
propositions, which provide or give support to other propositions re called premises. While
those propositions, which are supported by other propositions in an argument is called
conclusion.

For Example
 All students are Intelligent.

Ali is a student.

Therefore, Ali is intelligent.

In this example, statement/proposition 1 and 2 give/provide support to the

statement/proposition 3. So proposition 1 and 2 are called Premises, while proposition 3 is
conclusion

Premises Indicators

Words that introduce or appear in an argument premise include:

Since (non- temporal meaning), as indicated by, because, for in that, as (non-comparison
meaning) etc.

Conclusion Indicators

Words that introduce or appear in an argument conclusion include:

Therefore, Wherefore, Accordingly, we may conclude, entails that, Hence, Thus,

consequently etc.

For Example

Let us see a very simple example of an argument:

Stan was driving his truck over the speed limit. He

had no excuse for driving over the speed limit.
Furthermore, he was intoxicated. Therefore, Stan
was breaking the law. We can easily isolate the
conclusion: Stan was breaking the law.

Notice that we do not include the word ‘therefore’

when we state the conclusion. The word
‘therefore’ is not part of the statement that forms
the conclusion.

All other statements are premises. We have:

Stan was driving his truck over the speed limit.

 Stan had no excuse for driving over the speed
limit.

Stan was intoxicated.

The word ‘therefore’ is what we call a conclusion

indicator. It is very common to use a conclusion
indicator to stress the part of an argument that is
being argued for. Arguments can also
have premise indicators. Conclusion and premise
indicators are words that are used to make clear
which statements are premises and which
statements are conclusions in arguments.

Argument refers strictly to any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow from
the other, which are regarded as support for the truth of that one. With proposition as building
blocks, we construct argument. In any argument, we affirm one proposition based on other
propositions. In doing this, an inference is drawn.

Arrangement of Argument
In an argument, there are two kinds of proposition one is premises and another is
conclusion. The arrangement is dependent upon positions of these premises and conclusion.

First, form Arrangement:

In this form of arrangement, we provide premises first and in last, we give conclusion.

In sciences, mathematics we adopted this form of argument.

Second form Arrangement:

In this form of arrangement, first we gave conclusion and after that for the support of
that conclusion one provide premises.

Mostly in literature, we follow this kind of argument.

Third, form Arrangement:

In this form of arrangement, we used dialectic method. In dialectic method, two arguer
give arguments about some sort of problem. This is a debated form of an argument.

In a dialogue, we used this form of arguments.

Types of Arguments
Every argument makes the claims that its premises provide grounds for the truth of its
conclusion. However, a conclusion may be supported by its premises in two different ways.
Therefore, there are two types of arguments; one is induction and the other is deduction.
Every argument is either deductive or inductive. There is no third option.

Deduction/Deductive Argument
Deductive arguments are those arguments, in which the premise gives/provide complete
grounds for their conclusion.

For example

A=B

B=C

Therefore A = C

All men are mortal

Ali is a man.

Therefore, Ali is mortal

(b) When a deductive argument is correct mean when the propositions of an argument
make inference, then logician called it a valid argument.

In addition, when the propositions of an argument do not make any inference, then we
called it invalid argument.

(c) Once an argument become valid, then nothing in the world makes it more or less
valid.

By giving further explanation, do not have any effect of the valid argument.

(d) According to the traditional and classical logician, all the deductive arguments
always move from general to particular.
 However, according to the modern logic, not all the deductive arguments move from
general to particular. Mostly deductive arguments move from general to particular but not
all.

Induction/Inductive Argument
(a) Induction/ inductive argument are a kind of an argument, in which the premises
gives/provides some/probable grounds for their conclusion.

For Example

A = B (A is not equal to B)

B = C (B is not equal to C)

Therefore, either A = c or A = C. (therefore, either A could

be equal to c, or could not equal to C)

For general example

If a Mr. A has all the money of state bank of

Pakistan, then he will be rich.

Mr. A has not all the money of state bank of

Pakistan.

From these two propositions, we could not

conclude that either Mr. A is rich or poor. He
could be rich or poor. But the premises did not
give complete support to their conclusion

(b) Induction/ inductive arguments are in the form of probability. In addition, this
probability may be less or more.

(c) The probability of an inductive argument/ induction become more or less by giving
more proposition/information about the facts.
 For example

If we give more information about Mr. A that he

has factories, or he is an industrialist, then the
probability that Mr. A is a rich man become more
and more.

(d) According to the traditional and classical logician, all the inductive arguments
always move from particular/specific to general.

But according to the modern logic, not all the inductive arguments moves from
particular/specific to general. Mostly inductive arguments move from specific to general but
not all.

Validity and truth

Validity
The term validity refers to the general validity, which included both validity and
invalidity. Validity is an attribute of an argument.

The validity of deductive arguments refers to the relation between its set of propositions that
serves as the premises and conclusion. If the conclusion follows with logical necessity from
its premises, we called that argument a valid argument.

Validity can never apply to any single proposition. It always apply to the group of
proposition, because validity needed relation between propositions.

Truth
Here the term truth refers to the general truth, which includes both truth and falsity.
Truth and falsity are the attribute of a statement/proposition. Truth and falsity on the other
hand, are the attribute of individual proposition/statement.

A single statement/proposition in an argument serve as a premise or conclusion may be true

or false.

Truth and Validity

An argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises. In logic, truth is a
property of statements, i.e. premises and conclusions, whereas validity is a property of the
argument itself. If you talk of 'valid premises' or 'true arguments', then you are not using
logical jargon correctly.
 For example

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The first two statements, or claims, are called the premises, while claim below is called
the conclusion. Now if someone wants to check the validity of an argument, he/she will
notice either the inference is made or not, if yes, then the argument is valid, and if not then
the argument is invalid. While on the other hand if anyone wants to check the truthiness, then
he/she will see the fact of every individual statement/proposition.

There are many possible combinations of true and false premises and conclusions, in
both valid and invalid arguments. Here follow seven illustrative arguments, each prefaced by
the statement of the combination (of truth and validity) that it represents. With these
illustrations (whose content is deliberately trivial) before us, we will be in a position to
formulate some important principles concerning the relations between truth and validity.
Some valid arguments contain only true propositions—true premises and a true conclusion:

All mammals have lungs.

All whales are mammals.

Therefore, all whales have lungs.

Some valid arguments contain only false propositions—false premises and a false conclusion:

All four-legged creatures have wings.

All spiders have exactly four legs.

Therefore, all spiders have wings.

This argument is valid because, if its premises were true, its conclusion would have to be
true also—even though we know that in fact both the premises and the conclusion of this
argument are false.

Some invalid arguments contain only true propositions—all their premises are true, and
their conclusions are true as well:
 If I owned all the gold in Fort Knox, then I would
be wealthy.

I do not own all the gold in Fort Knox.

Therefore, I am not wealthy.

The true conclusion of this argument does not follow from its true premises. This will be
seen more clearly, when the immediately following illustration is considered.

Some invalid arguments contain only true premises and have a false conclusion.
This is illustrated by an argument exactly like the previous one (III) in form, changed only
enough to make the conclusion false.

If Bill Gates owned all the gold in Fort Knox, then

Bill Gates would be wealthy.

Bill Gates does not own all the gold in Fort Knox.

Therefore, Bill Gates is not wealthy.

The premises of this argument are true, but its conclusion is false.
Such an argument cannot be valid because it is impossible for the premises of a valid
argument to be true and its conclusion to be false.

Some valid arguments have false premises and a true conclusion:

All fishes are mammals.

All whales are fishes.

Therefore, all whales are mammals.

The conclusion of this argument is true, as we know; moreover, it may be validly inferred
from these two premises, both of which are wildly false.

Some invalid arguments also have false premises and a true conclusion:

All mammals have wings.

 All whales have wings.

Therefore, all whales are mammals.

From Examples V and VI taken together, it is clear that we cannot tell from the fact that
an argument has false premises and a true conclusion whether it is valid or invalid.

Some invalid arguments, of course, contain all false propositions—false

premises and a false conclusion:

All mammals have wings.

All whales have wings.

Therefore, all mammals are whales.

These seven examples make it clear that there are valid arguments with false conclusions
(Example II), as well as invalid arguments with true conclusions (Examples III and VI).
Hence, it is clear that the truth or falsity of an argument’s conclusion does not by itself
determine the validity or invalidity of that argument. Moreover, the fact that an argument is
valid does not guarantee the truth of its conclusion (Example II).