Lecture Note on Nature and Principle of logic

Thinking is a natural attribute of man and everyone can reason to an extent concerning certain
things. Aristotle as the first scholar to develop logic as an academic discipline says “man is a
rational animal”, thus logic deals with valid human reasoning. It is concerned with argument or
discourse which can be described as a series of statement consisting two parts namely
premise(s) and conclusion. The premise(s) is also known as reason or reasons for the
conclusion, while the conclusion is the claim that is been supported by the reasons.

As a science or art logic involves critical thinking which indicates rules and principles that guide
human reasoning. Logic literally, distinguishes good or bad argument through the reasoning.
Logic etymologically originated from the Greek word logike, meaning possessed of reason,
intellectual, dialectical or argumentative. Traditionally, logic also could be traced to the word
Logos denoting an expression of reason or orderliness in words, things and principle.
Parmenides was the first ancient Greek philosopher that developed some logical ideology, and
these are the principle of identity and the principle of non-contradiction. His logical construct of
‘what is, and what is not’ gives rise to the Aristotelian conception of ‘Truth functional logic.

Logic defined

In philosophical terms, a comprehensive definition of logic, a tool for valid reasoning and
essential weapon for philosophical reflection may appear impossible. Logic enables
philosophers to make their arguments well stated, clear, well-articulated and persuasive over
riding other people premises or arguments. Aristotle traditionally, described logic as the
scientific study of basic principles of human thoughts and the laws that emphasize convincing
thought processes and argument. This connotes valid premises deduced from reasoning to
substantiate an argument.

To corroborate Aristotle definition, Kahane (1968) further refers to logic as a rational effort to
differentiate between correct (valid) from incorrect (invalid) arguments. Rationality, in this
definition, that is devoid of prejudice or bias plays a vital role in debunking good from bad
argument or discourse. Substantiated by the view of Oke (1999) logic was further defined as the
study of process, methods and guidelines applied to appraise the potency of the evidential
relation involving the premises (supporting reasons) and conclusion (Claims) of an arguments.
From the definition above logic can described as study of correct reasoning that involved a
particular way of thinking, especially reasonable ones that is based on good judgment. Some
terminologies such as reasoning and argumentation appears fundamental to the above
definitions, indicating that the study of logic is the study of correct and incorrect reasoning and
arguments and the science of reasoning.

Process of Logic
Logical processes in philosophical entails Simple apprehension, Judgment, Reasoning and
Argument.

Simple Apprehension

Simple apprehension the process by which the mind initially conceives or forms a concept or
idea about something or issue without affirming or it. For instance, if I say “throw the ball” This
is a simple apprehension because I have not said anything about the ball. I have neither
affirmed nor denied anything about the ball. Some philosophers and logicians have denied the
possibility of a simple apprehension.

Judgment

After the initially conception or formation of concept or idea by the mind about something or
issue. Judgment indicated the act by which the mind affirms or denies something or issue. Using
the above example, “throw the black ball For instance, if I say “look, that ship is big” then I have
made a judgment by affirming the “colour” of the ball and the bigness of the ship

Reasoning and Argument

As the third and last stage of any logical process reasoning and argument involves the process
by which the mind passes several judgments to a further judgment distinct from the preceding
ones but implicitly contained in them. Such “throw the black, big weak leather ball”, reasoning
and argument has further judge the ball, by examining the size (big) and leather quality (weak).
Fundamentally, apart from simple apprehension and judgment, logic
is strictly concerned with reasoning and argument.

Types of logic

Logic in the modern sense is wider because it deals with the basic operations of truth values
this include deductive, inductive sentential or propositional, syllogistic, modal, epistemic
deontic and predicate.

Deductive logic

Deductive logic is the process of moving from the general to the specific, when the
conclusion follows from its premises with absolute necessity or certainty.
Here premises or assertion provide a conclusive evidence for the conclusion. It is an inferential
reasoning that follows necessarily from given premises. An inference is deductively valid if and
only if the premise(s) follows from the conclusion or if there is no reason for us to accept the
premises as true and reject the conclusion. In order words, the conclusion is derived from the
premises or that the premise provides adequate support for the conclusion to hold.

Inductive Logic

Inductive logic occurs when premises do not lead to conclusion with certainty. Inductive logic is
based on probability. As the opposite of deductive logic, Inductive Logic process is such that the
conclusion in any discussion or premise is not supported in absolute term by the series of
observations made. Inductive logic is neither valid nor invalid; it is probable but not certain. It
is a logical process where a reliable generalization from observations is derived. Inductive
logical evaluation requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations. To
provide such definition it may take the form of mathematical models of probability.

Syllogistic Logic.

This is the traditional logic developed by Aristotle it centres on syllogistic arguments. Here
major premise is stated first followed by minor premise then conclusion, the two premises
(major and minor) are usually stated then finally followed with a conclusion.

Prepositional Logic.

Here logical relationship between two sentence issue and phenomenon is tested considering its
truth-value and validity. This form of logic is concerned with testing the truth-value validity of
propositions through logical rules and principles. For instance wife and husband, atom and
compound or phrase and sentence.
.

Modal Logic

Modal logic focuses on necessity, possibility and impossibility about a phenomenon or

sentence. This is done by semantics modified by special verbs or modal particles. For
example, “We go to the games” and perhaps “We may go to the games” or We will go the
games”. More abstractly, we might say the modality affects the circumstances in which we take
an assertion to be satisfied.

Epistemic Logic

This is the logic of knowledge and belief. It focuses on propositional knowledge and provides
insight into the properties of individual knower which has provided a means to model
complicated scenarios involving groups of knower and has improved our understanding of the
dynamics of inquiry. You need to know that this form of logic has many applications in
computer science and economics.
Deontic Logic
This type of logic directly involves topics of considerable practical significance such as morality,
law, social and business organizations (their norms, as well as their normative constitution), and
security system. It deals with obligation and permission.

Relevance of Logic

Logic as an indispensable sphere and process of life will enhance better decision in the life of
teacher and learners, because it is fundamentally based on evidence rather than personal
assumption or preferences. Essentially logic among others will also be relevant in following
ways:

I. Logic will assists the students to improve their own power of cogent reasoning
II. Logic is used to express ideas clearly and to analyze arguments for correct
reasoning.
III. To assist students to be better, effective and efficient in life professions and career that
will aid realization of potentials
IV. Having a sound sense of logic gives students an edge over there counter-part and to be
courageous and confident
V. Students are equipped through the knowledge of logic to be better at persuasion and
argumentation.
VI. Logic is needed by students to solve life problems without becoming angry, upset or
stressed, which can help to boost happiness, health and life expectancy.
VII.

Lecture Note on Deductive and inductive reasoning method

Reasoning as human intellectual property consists of drawing a conclusion from previously
established premises. Reasoning help us learn about the world solve issues and create a
paradigm for man to live comfortably. For instance, Imagine found yourself, wandering around
and you came across a tree with rich black fruit, you pick a piece of fruit; you ate it. Twenty
minutes later you a terrible stomach upset. You made a mental note that this tree's fruit is
poisonous. A month later, you come across a tree of the same species. This time, you know to
avoid the fruit. "It's poisonous," you explain to the rest of your group. This illustrates
deductive and inductive reasoning drawing conclusions from the evidence around us,

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning begins with a premise that is proven through observations.

Deductive reasoning as a basic form of valid reasoning which starts witha g e n e r a l s t a t e m e
nt or hypothesis and examines the possibilities to reach a specific logic
conclusion. Thus, it starts from the process of reasoning that starts from general
statements to reach a logical conclusion. It involves thinking from general to specific. This
method is sometimes also called the top-down approach. Syllogisms are a good example to
explain deductive reasoning. These use conditional statements to form a conclusion by joining
the hypothesis of one statement with the other. Another example is Hypothetical chains this
involves putting together a cause-effect or prediction statements about a specific event, to
draw a conclusion.

Characteristics of Deductive Reasoning

• It generates necessary conclusions. If the premises of the arguments are true, the conclusion
drawn should be true.

• It puts together a general statement about a group and a statement establishing a

member of that group, and draws a conclusion about that member.

• It puts together a general prediction and a statement about a given situation, and draws a
conclusion.

There are two patterns of deductive argument:

1. Syllogisms: This involves putting together a general statement about a group and a
statement
establishing something as a member of that group, and draws a conclusion about that
member.
 This consists of a generalization about the group traits and characteristics about that
group from which conclusion is drawn he conclusion must be true if the premises are
true
Here are some examples.
• All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

2. Hypothetical chains: This involves putting together a cause-effect statement

(predictions arrived at through generation of ideas) and a statement about a specific
event, to draw a conclusion about that event.
a. the premises consist of a statement about a cause-effect relationship, another kind of
generalization that you would get through induction,

and a statement describing a specific situation;

b. the conclusion is usually a statement about that specific situation;

c. the conclusion must be true if the premises are true.

Here are some examples: If the window is open, the room will be cold. The room is warm.
Therefore, the window is not open.

Generally here are common examples of deductive reasoning are:

Major premise: All mammals have backbones. Minor premise: Humans are mammals.
Conclusion: Humans have backbones.

Major premise: All birds lay eggs. Minor premise: Pigeons are birds.
Conclusion: Pigeons lay eggs.

Major premise: All plants perform photosynthesis. Minor premise: A Mango is a plant.
Conclusion: A cactus performs photosynthesis.

Major premise: All grey hair men are grandfathers, Minor premise: Jide has grey hair.
Minor premise: Therefore, Jide is a grandfather.

Shadow is a dog, All dogs are mammals, therefore, Shadow is a mammal.

All dogs can bark, Skiddo is a dog, therefore, Skiddo can bark ".

For deductive reasoning to be sound, the hypothesis or guess statement must be correct. It is
assumed that the statements, "All dogs can bark " and "a Skiddo is a dog" are true, then Skiddo
can bark. Therefore, the conclusion is logical and true. In deductive reasoning, if something is
true of a class of things in general, it is also true for all members of that class.

Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning extracts a likely (but not certain) premise from specific and limited
observations from which conclusions are drawn.
Inductive reasoning as the process of reasoning in which it is believed that the pre
mises of an argument support the truth of conclusion, but they do not
ensure its truth. Therefore, inductive reasoning refers to
as a way of examining phenomena by using broad generalizations from specific
observations. Inductive reasoning is used to form hypotheses and theories.

Characteristic of Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning is characterized by the following:

• It is usually based on observation. The premises of inductive arguments are usually bits of
evidence that we've gathered by observation, direct or indirect.
• Its conclusions are tentative generalizations about groups or relationships, or
predictions. Eating one bad fruit yields the conclusion that what is true for one fruit must be
true for the whole group of fruit. If one little green apple gives you stomachaches, you will
conclude that little green apples always give stomachaches. Often, these conclusions seem to
be proven facts. But because we're drawing conclusions based on what we do observe, we
don't necessarily know that we're getting the whole picture. You will see a good example of
this below (the turkey before Thanksgiving!) So inductive conclusions, however solid they
seem, do not necessarily follow the premises. Other conclusions are always possible (maybe
not reasonable, but possible).

For instance, let's say that you have a bag of coins; you pull three coins from the bag, and each
coin is a penny. Using inductive logic, you might then propose that all of the coins in the bag are
pennies."Even though all of the initial observations that each coin taken from the bag was a
penny are correct, inductive reasoning does not guarantee that the conclusion will be true.

For example, imagine there is a bag of pebbles. You put your hand inside it and take out a
pebble. This pebble turns out to be blue in color. You pull out a pebble again, and it’s also a
blue pebble. The next pebble you take out is also blue. Then, you come to the conclusion that
all pebbles in this bag are blue in color.

Here are some examples of inductive reasoning:

Data: I see fireflies in my backyard every summer. Hypothesis: This summer, I will
probably see fireflies in my backyard.
Data: I tend to catch colds when people around me are sick. Hypothesis: Colds are
infectious.
 Data: Every dog I meet is friendly. Hypothesis: Most dogs are usually friendly.

If every dog you meet is friendly, it is reasonable to form the hypothesis that most dogs
are usually friendly. This is an example of inductive reasoning.

Assignments

 All noble gases are stable. Helium is a noble gas, so helium is stable.

 Mango are trees, and all trees perform photosynthesis. Therefore, Mango perform
photosynthesis.

 Red meat has iron in it, and beef is red meat. Therefore, beef has iron in it.

 Acute angles are less than 90 degrees. This angle is 40 degrees, so it must be an acute
angle.

 All cats have a keen sense of smell. Fluffy is a cat, so Fluffy has a keen sense of smell.

 All birds have feathers. All robins are birds. Therefore, robins have feathers.

 It's dangerous to drive on icy streets. The streets are icy now, so it would be dangerous
to drive on the streets.

 All horses have manes. The Arabian is a horse; therefore, Arabians have manes.

 Elephants have cells in their bodies, and all cells have DNA. Therefore, elephants have
DNA.

The main difference between deductive and inductive reasoning is that deductive reasoning
involves moving from general observations to specific conclusions, while inductive reasoning
involves moving from specific observations to general explanations. Deductive reasoning is the
process of reasoning that starts from general statements to reach a logical conclusion while
inductive reasoning is the process of reasoning that moves from specific observations to
broader generalizations.

Difference between Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

Differences between deductive and inductive on a broader conceptual spectrum are classified
into the followings:
General and Specific
Deductive reasoning involves moving from general to specific while inductive reasoning
involves moving from specific to general.

Approach
While deductive reasoning involves a top-down approach, inductive reasoning involves a
bottom-up approach.

Validity
In deductive reasoning, the conclusion has to be true if the premises are true, but in inductive
reasoning, the truth of premises does not necessarily guarantee the truth of conclusions.

Usage
We typically use inductive reasoning in our daily lives since its fast and easy to use, but
deductive reasoning is comparatively more difficult as we need facts that are definitely true.

Conclusion
In brief, deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are two opposite processes of reasoning.
The main difference between deductive and inductive reasoning is that deductive reasoning
involves moving from general observations to specific conclusions while inductive reasoning
involves moving from specific observations to general explanations. Therefore, deductive
reasoning involves a top-down approach, while inductive reasoning involves a bottom-up
approach.

 Nature and method of discord and Techniques of evaluating argument ( validity and soundness)