THE ROLE OF LOGIC

Logic is the study of the principles and methods of reasoning. It explores how
we distinguish between good (or sound) reasoning and bad (or unsound)
reasoning. The study of logic is likely to improve the quality of one's
reasoning for another reason. It gives one the opportunity to practice the
analysis of arguments and the construction of arguments of one's own.
Reasoning is something we do as well as understand; it therefore is an art as
well as a science, with skills to be developed and techniques to be mastered.

There are affairs in human life that cannot be fully analyzed by the methods
of logic, and issues that cannot be resolved by arguments, even good ones.
The appeal to emotion sometimes is more persuasive than logical argument,
and in some contexts it may be more appropriate as well. But where
judgements that must be relied upon are to be made, correct reasoning will in
the long run prove to be their most solid foundation. with the methods and
techniques of logic we can distiguish efficiently between correct and incorrect
reasoning.

An instance of reasoning is called an argument or an inference. An argument

consists of a set of statements called premises together with a statement
called the conclusion, which is supposed to be supported by or derived from
the premises. A good argument provides support for its conclusion, and a
bad argument does not. Two basic types of reasoning are called deductive
and inductive.

A good deductive argument is said to be valid--that is, the conclusion

necessarily follows from the premises. A deductive argument whose
conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises is said to be
invalid. The argument "All human beings are mortal, all Greeks are human
beings, therefore all Greeks are mortal" is a valid deductive argument. But
the argument "All human beings are mortal, all Greeks are mortal,
therefore all Greeks are human beings" is invalid, even though the
conclusion is true. On that line of reasoning, one could argue that all dogs,
which are also mortal, are human beings.

Deductive reasoning is used to explore the necessary consequences of

certain assumptions. Inductive reasoning is used to establish matters of
fact and the laws of nature and does not aim at being deductively valid.
One who reasons that all squirrels like nuts, on the basis that all squirrels
so far observed like nuts, is reasoning inductively. The conclusion could be
false, even though the premise is true. Nevertheless, the premise provides
considerable support for the conclusion.

LOGIC IN ISLAMIC PHILOSOPHY:

Logic (Arabic: ‫ )منطق‬played an important role in Islamic philosophy. Islamic
law and jurisprudence placed importance on formulating standards of
argument, which gave rise to a novel approach to logic in Kalam, as seen
in the method of qiyas. This approach, however, was later displaced to
some extent by ideas from ancient Greek and Hellenistic philosophy with
the rise of the Mu'tazili school, who highly valued Aristotle's Organon. The
works of Hellenistic-influenced Islamic philosophers were crucial in the
reception of Aristotelian logic in medieval Europe, along with the

1
commentaries on the Organon by Averroes, founder of Averroism. In turn,
the Aristotelian tradition was later displaced by Avicennian logic, which in
turn was succeeded by post-Avicennian logic.

Important developments made by Islamic logicians included the

development of original systems of logic, notably Avicennian and post-
Avicennian logic, and the development of early theories on temporal logic,
modal logic, inductive logic, hypothetical syllogism, propositional calculus,
analogical reasoning, and legal logic. Other important developments in
early Islamic philosophy include the development of a strict science of
citation, the isnad or "backing", and the development of a scientific method
of open inquiry to disprove claims, the ijtihad, which could be generally
applied to many types of questions.

Logic in Islamic law and theology

Early forms of analogical reasoning, inductive reasoning and categorical
syllogism were introduced in Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), Sharia (Islamic
law) and Kalam (Islamic theology) from the 7th century with the process of
Qiyas, at least a century before Muslims had become aware of
Aristotelian logic. The Qiyas process was described by early
Islamic legal scholars such as Abū Ḥanīfa (699–765) and
Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi`i (767–820). Later during the
Islamic Golden Age, there was a logical debate among Islamic
philosophers, logicians and theologians over whether the term Qiyas refers
to analogical reasoning, inductive reasoning or disagreed with, arguing that
Qiyas does not refer to inductive reasoning, but refers to categorical
syllogism in a real sense and analogical categorical syllogism. Some
Islamic scholars argued that Qiyas refers to inductive reasoning, which Ibn
Hazm (994–1064) reasoning in a metaphorical sense. On the other hand,
al-Ghazali (1058–1111) (and in modern times, Abu Muhammad Asem al-
Maqdisi) argued that Qiyas refers to analogical reasoning in a real sense
and categorical syllogism in a metaphorical sense. Other Islamic scholars
at the time, however, argued that the term Qiyas refers to both analogical
reasoning and categorical syllogism in a real sense.

Ibn Hazm (994–1064) wrote the Scope of Logic, in which he stressed on

the importance of sense perception as a source of knowledge. He wrote
that the "first sources of all human knowledge are the soundly used senses
and the intuitions of reason, combined with a correct understanding of a
language." He also criticized some of the more traditionalist theologians
who were opposed to the use of logic and argued that the first generations
of Muslims did not rely on logic. His response was that the early Muslims
had witnessed the revelation directly, whereas the Muslims of his time
have been exposed to contrasting beliefs, hence the use of logic is
necessary in order to preserve the true teachings of Islam. Ibn Hazm's
Fisal (Detailed Critical Examination) also stressed the importance of sense
perception as he realized that human reason can be flawed, and thus
criticized some of the more rationalist theologians who placed too much
emphasis on reason. While he recognized the importance of reason, since
the Qur'an itself invites reflection, he argued that this reflection refers
mainly to sense data, since the principles of reason are themselves derived
entirely from sense experience. He concludes that reason is not a faculty
for independent research or discovery, but that that sense perception
should be used in its place, an idea which forms the basis of empiricism.

Al-Ghazali (1058–1111) had an important influence on the use of logic in

2
theology, as he was the first to apply the Avicennian system of temporal
modal logic to Islamic theology. He also established the application of three
types of logical systems in Islamic Sharia law: reasoning by analogy,
deductive logic, and inductive logic. In cases that have multiple legal
precedents, he recommended the use of inductive logic, stating that the
"larger the number of pieces of textual evidence is, the stronger our
knowledge becomes." His followers, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (1149–1209) and
Ibn Taymiyyah (1263–1328), also applied inductive logic to Islamic Sharia
law. Ibn Taymiyyah in particular argued against the certainty of syllogistic
arguments and in favour of analogy.

Ibn al-Nafis (1213–1288) wrote two major works dealing with logic in
Islamic theology. Theologus Autodidactus was a fictional story dealing with
many Islamic topics. Through its story, Ibn al-Nafis attempted to establish
that the human mind is capable of deducing the natural, philosophical and
religious truths of Islam through logical thinking. In A Short Account of the
Methodology of Hadith, he demonstrated the use of logic in the
classification of the hadiths into four categories: decidedly true
(maclūm al-sidq), probably true (yuz annu bihi'l-sidq), probably
false (yuz annu bihi'l-kadhb) and decidedly false (maclūm al-
kadhb).

LOGIC IN SCIENCE:
Logic is called the science of sciences because its help is required in every
science. The aim of every science in its own sphere is to attain valid
thought, and this aim can be achieved only by an application of the
principles of logic. Hence every science depends on logic. The validity of
the methods and conclusions of every science ultimately rests on logical
principles.

Logic is thus the most general of all sciences. Its importance among the
sciences can be seen from the fact that the very name occurs as part of
nearly all the names adopted for the sciences, e.g., Geology, Biology,
Physiology, Psychology, Theology, Minerology; (logy=logic). This shows
that logic, in a sense, enters into all sciences come under it.

The place of Logic among the sciences can be shown in the following
tabular form:

Logic
!
Mathematics
!
Physics
!
Chemistry
!
Geology
!
Biology {Botany
{Zoology
!
Psychology
!
Sociology

3
In this table, Logic is placed at the top, because its principles are
applicable to Mathematics as well as to other sciences. The other sciences
are arranged in order of generality, the one lying below. Thus, Mathematics
is more general than Physics, Physics is more general than Chemistry, so
on and so forth.

Logic and Psychology

Logic and psychology are very intimately related to each other. Psychology
is the science of mind, and as such it studies thinking. Logic, too studies
thinking, Hence both these sciences study the same thing. But they also
differ from each other. Psychology studies mind, and mind has three
aspects, namely; thinking, feeling and willing. Psychology has to study all
these aspects of mind; but Logic has nothing to do with feeling and willing.
It studies only and only thinking, and in the sphere of thinking too it
confines its study to valid thinking only. Hence the scope or province of
Psychology is wider than of Logic.

Secondly, although Psychology and Logic both study thinking, yet their
standpoints are different. Psychology is a positive science, and therefore it
studies thinking as it is. Logic, on the other hand, is normative science, and
it therefore studies thinking as it ought to be. The standpoint of Psychology
is natural, but the standpoint of Logic is normative. One tells us how we
actually think, and the other tells us how we ought to think.

Thirdly, Logic studies the results or products og thought, that is, concepts,
judgements and reasonings, and also examines their validity. Psychology,
on the other hand, studies the processes of thought and does not bother
about their validity. In other words, Logic studies thought (i.e., concepts,
judgements, and reasonings), while Psychology studies thinking (i.e.,
conceiving, judging and reasoning).

Logic and Grammar

Logic is the science of thought, and Grammar is the science of language.
Because thought and language are related to each other in so far as
thought is always expressed in language, the science of thought (Logic)
and the science of language (Grammar), must also be related to each
other. Language is the means by which we express and communicate our
thought to others; it is, so to speak, the vehicle of thought and is also a
natural aid to it. Hence Logic, in addition to being concerned with thought,
is also concerned with language. This is clear from the very meaning of the
word "logic". We have read that the word logic is derived from the Greek
word "logos" which means thought and word as the expression of thought.
Now, because Logic is concerned with word or language, it is closely
related to Grammar which is the science of language.

But logic and grammar also differ from each other. Logic is primarily or
directly concernced with thought and secondarily or indirectly concerned
with language. In other words, with Logic thought is primary and more
important, while language is secondary and less important. With Grammar,
on the other hand, language is primary and more important, while thought
is secondary and less important. So what is primary in one is secondary in
other, and vice versa.

Then there are other differnces also. Grammar is concerned with all kinds
of sentences, but Logic is concerned only with indicative sentences.

4
Grammar analyses a sentence into many parts of speech, but Logic
analyses a sentence only into three parts, namely; subject, predicate and
copula. In the proposition "man is mortal", "man" is the subject, "mortal" is
the predicate and "is" is the copula.

Lastly, Logic takes the copula always in the present tense and always in
same form of verb "to be", that is, "is", "is not", or "are", "are not".
Grammar, on the other hand, is concerned with all the tenses.

Logic and Metaphysics

Metaphysics studies ultimate reality and Logic studies the laws of correct
thought. Logic, is concerned with the form and the matter of thought. The
form of thought refers to laws of thought which must be observed in every
case if we are to reason correctly. The matter of thought refers to the
things about which we think, such as, tables, chairs, men, triangles or
circles. Now, Logic does not enquire into the real character of either the
form or the matter of thought--the laws of thought or the things thought
about. They are merely assumed and taken for granted. But Metaphysics
enquires into their real character. Thus, Logic and Metaphysics are
different from each other.

But, inspite of this difference, they are connected. Metaphysics must be

based on logical principles. Logic as the science of sciences regulates our
reasonings as much in Metaphysics as in the other sciences. Logic, too,
depends upon Metaphysics for the truth of its principles and materials i.e.,
things. The principles and materials of logic are not examined in Logic, but
are accepted as the result of metaphysical enquiry. The data of logic are
generally supplied by the other sciences, but an enquiry into the ultimate
character of these data comes within the province of Metaphysics.

Many philosophers like Hegal; however, hold that there is no difference

between Logic and Metaphysics. According to them, the laws of thought
(Logic) are the laws of ultimate reality (Metaphysics). If, as they believe,
thought and reality are identical, then Logic (which deals with thought) and
Metaphysics (which deals with reality) should also be identical. But there
are many other philosophers who do not accept this view.

THE VALUE OR USE OF LOGIC:

It is sometimes said that the study of Logic is useless because even those
who have never studied Logic can reason correctly, while those who have
studied Logic may not reason correctly at all times. But this is a silly
objection. It is just like saying that because we can live healthy without any
knowledge of the science of medicine and because those who have got a
knowledge of the science of medicine can fall ill, therefore the science of
medicine is useless. It is true that we can do without the science of
medicine so long as we are healthy; similarily, it is true that we can do
without the science of Logic so long as we reason correctly. But when we
fall ill, we have to consult a doctor who knows the science of medicine;
similarily, when we fall into error, we have to depend on Logic in order to
detect the cause of error and to find out how correct reasoning can be
attained. Of course, we can, and often do, reason correctly with the help of
our commonsense which is a kind of natural Logic in us. But
commonsense is really very uncommon: man is fallible; to ere is human.
Hence a need of the science of Logic.

So the fact that people can reason correctly without the help of Logic does

5
not belittle the importance of Logic. Before the law of gravitation was
discovered, people did not break their heads by violating it in practice, nor
did they delay their digestion till the science of Hygiene or Physiology was
discovered. But who will ever say that a knowledge of the laws of
gravitation and digestion is useless, because men have been and still are
able to live without it.

Besides, Logic is positively valuable in the following ways:

(1) It sharpens our intellect, develops our reasoning ability, strengthens our
understanding, and promotes clear thinking. It affords an excellent exercise
for our intellectual powers, and is thus a very good mental gymnastic. It
helps us form a crirical habit of mind, and thus saves us from being
decieved by another's clever arguing. It leads us to observe the laws of
correct thinking, and thus saves us from errors and confusion in our own
reasoning. But it must must not for one moment be supposed that after the
study of Logic we can never commit mistakes in our thoughts. Logic can
not make us infallible. Just as doctors can fall ill even though they have
studied the science of medicine, so also those who have studied Logic can
commit mistakes in their thoughts. And if the science of medicine is not
regarded as useless although doctors fall ill after its study, why should
Logic be regarded as useless if people commit mistakes in their thoughts
after its study?

(2) Whereas the importance of other sciences lies simply in informing our
mind, the importance of Logic lies in forming our mind. Other sciences
simply fill our mind with miscellaneous facts; in other words, they give
information but not formation; they teach us what to think, and not how to
think. The aim of Logic on the other hand, is not to inform our mind but to
form it. The purpose of true education lies not in the miscellaneous facts
that we learn, but in the mental discipline which results from them. And
Logic fulfils this purpose admirably well. The possession of a logical mind
is the noblest tresure that a man can have.

(3) The utility or value of Logic is also very great in the study of other
sciences. Every science involves valid thinking, more or less, and thus
observes the general principles of valid thinking which are given by Logic.
Hence we can call Logic "the light of all science" the science of sciences.

(4) Logic is also useful in our daily social intercourse. We often apply unawares
the principles of Logic in our everyday arguments. But if we have carefully
studied Logic and have a thorough grasp of the principles of correct thinking, we
can by an appeal to reason, convince others and persuade them to believe in the
truth of what we hold on strictly logical grounds. Thus, Logic is also a very useful
art for practical purposes.