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 (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


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 postAvicennian 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 alMaqdisi) 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


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 alkadhb).

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


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.


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.

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


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.


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful