Philosophy 103: Introduction to

Logic The Nature of Logic

I. Logic is the study of the methods and principles used in distinguishing correct from incorrect reasoning.

B. Logic differs from psychology in being a normative or a prescriptive discipline rather than
a descriptive discipline.

1. I.e., it prescribes how one ought to reason; it's not concerned with how one actually does reason.

2. Logic is concerned with laying down the rules for correct reasoning.

3. Consequently, logic seeks to distinguish good arguments from poor ones.

1. Consider this syllogism:

2. Consider this informal argument:

II. In this subject, basically, we will use just two kinds of logic: deductive and inductive.

A. Deductive Logic: concerned with determining when an argument is valid (i.e., deals with
conclusive inferences).

1. A deductive argument is one which claims that its conclusion follows with necessity.

2. If that claim is not met, then the argument is said to be invalid.

3. Moves from generalities to specific conclusions. Perhaps the biggest stipulation is that
the statements upon which the conclusion is drawn need to be true. If they're accurate, then
the conclusion stands to be sound and accurate.
Ex: All dolphins are mammals
All mammals have kidneys
Therefore, all dolphins have kidneys.

B. Inductive Logic is concerned with the correctness of inferences for which the evidence is not
conclusive (i.e., probable inferences).

1. Is the opposite of deductive logic. Inductive logic makes broad generalizations from
specific observations. Basically, there is data, then conclusions are drawn from the data.

Example: "Harold is a
grandfather. Harold is bald.
Therefore, all grandfathers are bald."

2. Hence, an inductive argument is one whose conclusion is claimed to follow with probability.

Page 1 of 14
 Philosophy 103: Introduction to
Logic The Structure of Arguments

A. Every argument in logic has a structure, and every argument can be described in terms of this structure.

1. Argument: any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow logically from the others.

a. In logic, the normal sense of "argument," such as my neighbor yelling to me about my trashcans is not
termed "an argument" in logic.

b. By "argument," we mean a demonstration or a proof of some statement, not emotional language. E.g.,
"That bird is a crow; therefore, it's black."

2. The central parts of an argument include ...

a. Premise: a proposition which gives reasons, grounds, or evidence for accepting some other proposition,
called the conclusion.

b. Conclusion: a proposition, which is purported to be established on the basis of other propositions.

B. Consider the following example of an argument paraphrased from an argument given by Fritz Perls in In and Out
of the Garbage Pail.

If we set our ideals too High, then we will Not meet those ideals.
If we do Not meet those ideals, then we are Less than we could
be. If we are Less than we could be, then we Feel inferior.
If we set ideals too High, then we Feel inferior.

1. By convention, the reasons or premises are set above a line that separates the premises from the conclusion. The
line is sometimes thought of as symbolizing the word "therefore" in ordinary language.

2. As you read the passage and come to understand it, you are undergoing a psychological process called "making
the inference."

a. An inference is the reasoning process by which a logical relation is understood.

b. The logical relation is considered valid (good) or not valid (not good) even if we do not understand the
inference right away. In other words, it is convenient to consider the logical relation as not being dependent
for its validity on the psychological process of an inference.

3. So, this logical relation between the premises and conclusion of Perl's argument holds regardless of whether we
pay attention or not.

a. In Perls' argument in the text above, we can symbolize the argument by using the bold letters in the text, as
follows:

H⊃N
N⊃L
L⊃I
 H⊃I

b. This kind of logical relation is called an entailment.

An entailment is a logical relation between or among propositions such that the truth of one proposition is
determined by the truth of another proposition or other propositions, and this determination is a function
solely of the meaning and syntax of the propositions concerned.

c. Another way to remember the difference between an inference and an entailment is to note that
people infer something, and propositions entail something.

Note: The argument structure is the sum and substance of logic.

III. What is a proposition or statement?

A. Proposition or Statement: a verbal expression that can be regarded as true or false (but not both). Hence,
a proposition or a statement is a sentence with a truth-value. Note that a sentence is considered to be a
statement even if the truth-value of the statement is not known so long as it is known that the sentence has a
truth value.

E.g. “Tomorrow it will rain”

- is a proposition or statement even though its truth value is not known today.
B. Hence logic is just concerned with those statements that have truth-values. (There is very much of life that is
irrelevant to logic.)

Consider the confusion that would result if we considered the following sentences as
statements:
1. "Good morning." (What's so good about it?)

2. "You are looking good today." (Well, I just saw my doctor and ...)

3. "What is so rare as a day in June? Then, if ever, come perfect days..." (Well, I don't know about that.)

4. To a waiter: "I'd like a cup of coffee." (Yeah, but I think bigger, I'd like a BMW.)

Thus, phatic communication, greetings, commands, requests, and poetry, among other uses of language, are
not mean to be taken as statements.

Note: Every statement comes with an implicit time, place, and reference.

C. Summary of the distinction between a sentence and a statement assumes that adequate synonymy of
expression and translation between languages is possible.

1. One statement can be expressed by two different sentences. E.g., the sentence …

"The cup is half-empty."

expresses the same statement as …

“The cup is half-full.”

even though the two sentences differ in emotive significance.
 Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic:
How to Diagram Arguments

I. Arguments in logic are composed of premises being offered as reasons in support of a conclusion.

A. The use of the term "argument" in logic is in accordance with this precising definition;
the term is not being used to refer to a dispute or a quarrel.

II. There are three main ways of judging the presence of an argument:

A. The author or writer explicitly states the reasons, evidence, justification, rationale, or proof of a
statement.

Argument Example:

(1) I conclude the dinosaurs probably had to cope with cancer. These are my reasons: (2) a
beautiful bone found in Colorado filled with agate has a hole in its center, (3) the outer
layer was eroded all the way through, and (4) this appearance closely matches metastatic
bone tumors in humans.

Usually, however, the emphasized phrases, “I conclude” and “These are my reason” are
omitted in the text for stylistic reasons &mdash leaving the structure of the argument to be
inferred from the meanings of the statements used.

B. The author uses argument indicators signifying the presence of an argument.

Argument Example:

(1) Since the solution turned red when the indicator was added, (2) I conclude it is
acidic, inasmuch as acidic substances react with this indicator to form a red color.

In this argument, “since” is being used as a premise indicator and “I conclude” is used as a
conclusion indicator.

III. In order to analyze simple and complex arguments, we will find it useful to construct a diagram of
the structure of the argument that details the relations among the various premises and
conclusions.

A. The conclusion of one argument can become a premise for another argument. Thus, a
statement can be the conclusion of one argument and a premise of another argument just as
a daughter in one family can become a mother in another family.

B. The number of arguments in a passage is conventionally established by the number

of conclusions in that passage.

C. In analyzing the structure of an argument, whether simple or complex, the all-important

first step is to find the conclusion. Here are some specific suggestions as to how to find the
conclusion.
1. The conclusion might be evident from the content and context of the paragraph structure.
The sequence of sentences is often an indication of the conclusion. Arrangement of
sentences from most general to specific is a common form of paragraph or passage; the
arrangement of sentences from specific to general is a bit less common. Considering
both cases, the conclusion is often the first and sometimes the last sentence in a passage.

Example argument:

(1) John didn't get much sleep last night. (2) He has dark circles under his eyes. (3)
He looks tired.

The conclusion is the first sentence in the passage. Statements

(2) and (3) are observational evidence for statement (1) which
is being inferred from those observations.

2. Nevertheless, the conclusion can occur anywhere in the

paragraph, especially if the passage has not been revised
for
clarity. Usually, if a conclusion is not the first or last sentence of an argumentative
paragraph, a conclusion indicator is present, or the last sentence is presented as an after-
thought with a premise indicator. Frequently used argument indicators are listed below.

Example Argument:

(1) Studies from rats indicate that neuropeptide Y in the brain causes carbohydrate
craving, and (2) galanin causes fat craving. (3) Hence, I conclude that food cravings
are tied to brain chemicals (4) because neuropeptide Y and galanin
are brain chemicals.

3. The structure of the argument be inferred by attending to

the following kinds of premise and conclusion indicators.

a. Premise indicators are terms which often indicate the

presence of reasons. Frequently used premise indicators include the following
terms:

for, since, as, because, for the reason, follows from, after all, in light of the fact,
for the reason [*often mistaken for conclusion indicator]]

Example Argument:

(1) The graphical method for solving a system of equations is an approximation,

(2) since reading the point of intersection depends on the accuracy with which
the lines are drawn and on the ability to interpret the coordinates of the point.
 The term “since” indicates that the second clause of this
passage is a premise, the first clause is left as the
conclusion. In practice, the second clause can be broken
down into two separate premises so that the argument can
be set up as follows:

(2a) Reading the point of intersection of a graph depends on the accuracy with
which the lines are drawn.

(2b) Reading the point of intersection also depends upon the ability to interpret the
coordinate of the point.

(1)Thus, the graphical method for solving a system of equations is an

approximation.

Another Argument with premise indicator:

(1) Questionable research practices are far more common than previously believed,
(2) after all, the Acadia Institute found that 44 percent of students and 50 percent of
faculty from universities were aware of cases of plagiarism, falsifying data, or racial
discrimination.

b. Conclusion indicators are words which often indicate the statement which
logically follows from the reasons given. Common conclusion indicators include
the following:

Thus, therefore, consequently, hence, so, it follows that, proves that, indicates that,
accordingly

Examples of their use in arguments:

(1) No one has directly observed a chemical bond, (2) so scientists who try to
envision such bonds must rely on experimental clues and their own
imaginations.

c. Equal Status Indicators: Conjunctives (including some conjunctive adverbs)

often indicate equal status of premise or conclusion in connecting clauses or
sentences. Noticing these conjuncts is especially helpful in argument analysis:

If one of the clauses has already been identified as a premise or a conclusion then its
coordinating clause is of the same type of statement.

Indicators of clauses of equal status include:

 And, but, yet, however, moreover, in addition, nevertheless, not only & (;), but also
(and also the semicolon “;”)

Example of the Equal Status Indicator “and”:

(1) Some students absent today are unprepared for this

test, since (2) the law of averages dictates that only
10% of students are absent due to illness, and (3) more
than 10% are absent.

(1) Lenses function by refracting light at their surfaces. (2)

Consequently, not only does their action depends on the shape of the lens
surfaces but also (3) it depends on the indices of refraction of the lens material and
the surrounding medium.

IV. When analyzing complex arguments, it can be helpful to reconstruct the argument by identifying
the conclusion first, and then by working backwards, locate the premises.

A. Consider the following argument:

(1) If students were environmentally aware, they would object to the endangering of any
species of animal. (2) The well-known Greenwood white squirrel has become endangered (3)
as it has disappeared from the Lander Campus (4) because the building of the library
destroyed its native habitat. (5) No Lander students objected. (6) Thus, Lander students are not
environmentally aware.

Note that the following indicators are given in this passage:

As, because, thus

The argument is complex.

1. The premise indicators suggest that (2) is a subconclusion of (3)

since the indicator “as” connects them, and (3), in turn, is a
subconclusion of (4) since the indicator “because” connects
those two statements.

2. Statement (6) is the final conclusion since it has the conclusion

indicator “thus” and the import of the paragraph indicates that this statement is the main
point of the argument.

3. Intuitively, the structure of the first statement (1) together with statement (5) is a
common argument form:
 If students were environmentally Aware, they would Object to the endangering of any
species of animal.

No student Objected (to the endangering of the Greenwood white squirrel).

which can be abbreviated as follows:

If A then O
Not O

and the negation of clause O is logically equivalent to conclusion (6).

(Later in the course we will see that this argument structure is

termed modus tollens):

If A then O
Not O
Not A

(Note that A is the same statement as (6).)

4. Hence the whole argument can now be pieced together as

the following complex argument:
Philosophy 103: Introduction to
Logic Explanations and
Nonarguments

II. Recognizing Arguments: Given these characterizations, then, how do we sort out arguments from the rest of
the kinds of linguistic behavior?
In effect, what we are doing is separating the territory of logic from the rest of the world.
In order to know to what we can apply our powerful methods of analysis, we need to learn how to separate
argumentative discourse from non-argumentative discourse.
A. Typical argumentative "look-a-likes" fall into four main categories.
1. Fiction, poetry, emotional discourse: the purpose is not factual truth.
2. Commands: they are not statements because they have no truth value. (However, they can be subjected to
a "logic of commands" as noted later.)
3. Conditional statements (by themselves) are not arguments.: "If ... then ..." statements, sometimes called
"hypotheticals," although many logicians distinguish different various forms of conditionals.
4. Explanations: their purpose is not to prove, but to explain. In general explanations are not arguments.
(Some good explanations have a deductive character, as discussed below.)

B. Fiction, poetry, emotional discourse are to be distinguished as well..

1. Even though good fiction has a good internal logic, there is usually no proof involved.
a. The truth in a story is like the "ah-ha" experience of an explanation.
b. Our learning is indirect--i.e., we perceive or understand the truth.
c. The investigation of the status of fictional statements is an area in present inquiry.
d. The work of fiction, as a whole, can be thought of as a very large conditional statement:
If {we assume characters, plot, etc.) then {such and such statements logically follow}.

2. Poetry's purpose is not to prove or demonstrate, but to appeal to our emotions or insight.
a. Often these insights are alogical--hyperbole, contrast, contradiction, analogy, etc., give us insight.
b. E.g., consider Stephen Vincent Benét's "The Ballad of William Sycamore":
"So I saddled a red unbroken colt
And I rode him into the day
there,
And he threw me down like a
thunderbolt And rolled on me as I lay
there.
The hunter's whistle hummed in my
ear As the city men tried to move me,
But I died in my boots like a pioneer
With the whole wide sky above me."
 To raise the question of how a dead man can write a poem is to miss the point.
3. Emotional Discourse: in common parlance, these "heated arguments" are alogical--the standards of logic
are not meant to apply.
a. E.g., "one man was shot, one man was injured after a heated argument in a bar."
b. From a logical point of view, the heated exchange of views is often settled by the doctrine that "might
makes right."

c. Commands, especially those put as imperative statements are not arguments.

1. Again, we could evaluate a series of commands for logical consistency (as when we are told to do different
things by the same authority), but commands, strictly speaking, are neither true nor false, so they are not
normally part of arguments.
d. Conditionals look very much like arguments and intuitively "feel" very much like arguments, but their
antecedents are not asserted to be true. They are no more than complex statements. (Often, we will analyze
an argument with conditional statements--e.g., as in the statement, "If the premises are true, then the
conclusions will follow.")
1. The parts of a conditional:

If {antecedent} then {consequent}

2. If I say, "If someone fails this class, then I will eat the textbook," I haven't proved anything.
3. A conditional can be thought of as conditionally being an argument if the antecedent is true, but this is not
at all what is being asserted. However, in an argument the premises are asserted as true.
4. Since conditionals are statements, then, of course, they can be part of arguments:
Consider, the hypothetical syllogism
If I drop this book, then it will fall to the floor.
If it falls to the floor, then it is heavier than air.
Therefore, if I drop this book, then it is heavier than air.
Or an argument form called modus ponens
If you study hard, then you make an A in logic.
You study hard.
Therefore, you make an A.
D. How to distinguish arguments from explanations.
1. In general, these questions point to the difference between arguments and explanations. (Nevertheless,
arguments and explanations do, on occasion, overlap.)
 Argument
(1) expresses an inference
(2) offers evidence, grounds or
reasons
(3) goes from well known
statements to statements less
well known
(4) draws a logical
connection between
statements
(5) has the purpose to establish
the truth of a statement
Very often, the Deductive Nomological Method of Explanation is given as a method of ordering science
into a deductive system.
Explanans
Logical Deduction
Explanandum
Explanation
does not usually express an inference
offers an account why
gives less well known statements why
a better known statement is true
describes a causal connection
has the purpose to give an account of
something
L1, L2, ... , Lk General Laws
C1, C2, ... , Ck Statements of Antecedent Conditions
Description of the empirical phenomenon to be explained.

The answer to why rainbows form on gasoline-station driveways is expressed in terms of layers of different
density fluids with different optical properties. The index of refraction, reflection, wavelengths of light, and the
electromagnetic spectrum are all mentioned. Hence, the statements in an explanation "move" from well known
to less well known statements.

Deductive and Inductive Arguments

Abstract: A deductive argument's premises are claimed to provide conclusive evidence for the truth of its
conclusion. An inductive argument's premises are claimed to provide probable evidence for the truth of its
conclusion. Deductive and inductive arguments are characterized and distinguished with examples and
exercises.

A. It is sometimes argued that in deduction, the particular is inferred from the general, as in …

All organisms have chromosomes.

[This fruit fly is an organism.]
∴ This fruit fly has chromosomes.

(The brackets in the above argument indicate an implicit premise.)

B. And it is sometimes said that in induction the general is inferred from the particular, as in …

A red-eyed fruit fly has large chromosomes.

A white-eyed fruit fly has large
chromosomes. A Hawaiian fruit fly has large
chromosomes.
∴ All fruit flies have large chromosomes.

This form of induction is termed “enumerative” or “incomplete” induction.

C. But these definitions are misleading for several reasons. Let us briefly note some of them.

1. In some kinds of deduction, the general is inferred from the particular (e.g., ):

Only Plato and Aristotle were great Greek philosophers.

Plato and Aristotle lived in Athens.
∴ All the great Greek philosophers lived in Athens.

This form of induction is explained below as “perfect induction” or “induction by complete

enumeration”

a. In induction by complete enumeration, all the members of a class are listed with
some characteristic and then a summary statement is made about the whole class:

Each senator was present at today's session.

All senators were present at today's session.

b. This example is a deductive argument and so this might be a bit confusing at first.
To state the point in general terms, deduction by complete enumeration is a form of
deductive argument:

Entities E1, E2, and E3 all have property p.

Entities E1, E2, and E3 are the only members of class M.
All members of class M have property p.

Induction by complete enumeration is only possible when knowledge about every

individual of what is talked about is known. The conclusion is simply a summary of that
information.

2. In some kinds of induction, the particular is inferred from the general (with another
particular premise).

All the great Greek philosophers wrote treatises on science.

All philosophers named Aristotle wrote treatises on
science. Therefore Aristotle was a great Greek philosopher.
 This argument is only probable even though all of the statements in it happen to be true. E.g.,
If the substitution of “Isaac Newton” were made for “Aristotle” in the above argument, the
argument's conclusion would be false.

The argument is actually inductive even though it moves from general premises to a specific
conclusion. Any specific statement can be written as a general statement or vice versa.

Note: In all cases, valid deductive arguments are about certain or necessary inference;
whereas, correct inductive arguments are about probable or likely inferences.

II. How to Distinguish Inductive Arguments from Deductive Arguments:

A. Distinguishing induction from deduction: Unlike deductive arguments in which nothing can be
added to make the inference more certain, premises can be added to inductive arguments to
make them more probable.

1. Bryan Skyrms provides this

example: George is a man.

George is 100 years old.
George has arthritis.
∴ George cannot run a 4 minute mile.[4]

We can always add the premise that George has a broken leg, a heart condition, and so forth
to make it more probable.

2. However, if George is a paraplegic, then the argument becomes deductive because

the conclusion follows with certainty by the meanings of the words.
Truth, Validity, and Soundness

Abstract: The foundation-concepts of deductive logic are explained--truth, validity, and soundness.

I. Truth, Validity, and Soundness: probably the three most important concepts of the course.

A. First, let us briefly characterize these concepts.

1. truth: a property of statements, i.e., that they are the case.

2. validity: a property of arguments, i.e., that they have a good structure.

For example, consider the structure of this argument:

All B-s are Cs.

All As are Bs.
Therefore, All As are Cs.

(The premises and conclusion are so related that it is absolutely impossible for the premises to be true
unless the conclusion is true also.)

Note that an argument can be valid even though its premises are false. Also note that an argument is
not mistaken just on account of its conclusion being false or ridiculous.

3. soundness: a property of both arguments and the statements in them, i.e., the argument is valid and
all the statement are true.

Sound Argument: (1) valid, (2) true premises (obviously the conclusion is true as well by the
definition of validity).