WHAT IS LOGIC?

Logic
§ Refers to someone’s reasoning
“His logic seems faulty to me”
§ Systematic study of tThe standards of good reasoning
§ Seeks tThe principles tThat distinguisTh correct from incorrect reasoning
TThe standards of reasoning must follow if it is to be good reasoning no matter wThat it is about
§ Meta-logic = tThinking about tThinking/reasoning
History
o 4tTh century B.C. in AtThens, Greece
o “Logos”
o Aristotle wrote tThe 5 first known treatises of logical tTheory and taugTht tThe first logic classes
5 treatises: “Organon” (tool of tThougTht)
Founder of logic as an academic discipline
Founder of marine biology
Wrote tThe first Thistory of pThilosopThy
Criticized tThe tTheory of forms, by Plato
Proposed and argued extensively for a radically different tTheory of forms
o Subject matter was standards of any reasoning must follow if it is to be good reasoning
o Aristotle studied in Plato’s Academy
Study of reasoning occurred to Thim
o 6tTh century B.C.
o First pThilosopThers began questioning tThe customary mytThs and tThe traditional explanations
of tThe universe
o Greeks, TThales, and This associates were tThe first persons in Thistory to do tThe following:
1. Reject tThe explanations of tThe world contained in tThe traditional mytThs and tThe claims of
religious and political autThorities
2. SougTht explanations based on unaided reasoning and on observations tThat could be made
by anyone
3. Put tTheir tTheories and tThe supporting evidence for tTheir tTheories into written form and
passed tThis around for critical comments, reasoned discussion, and intellectual debate
o SougTht rational explanations of tThe world and of tThings
Accounts justified on tThe basis of evidence and reasoning alone
Common Mistakes
1. TThe study of logic involves tThe psycThology of tThe mind
§ It is tThinking not about wThy we tThink tThe way we tThink and Thow we tThink, it is
tThinking about tThinking or reasoning; tThe logos of logos
2. Logic is science, and so it is not a pThilosopThical discipline
§ Science does involve logic, since we need logic to test our tTheories and cTheck wThetTher tThey are
consistent
§ WThile a scientific tTheory describes actual empirical facts about tThe world or tThe laws of
nature in our universe, a pThilosopThical tTheory like logic concerns tThat laws of trutTh,
sometThing more general
3. Logic is no different from matThematics
§ TThe content of matThematics is restricted to abstract objects like numbers, functions, triangles,
etc
§ TThe principles and laws of logic, tThougTh tThey underpin matThematical principles, cover more
general bodies of knowledge. Logic toucThes on epistemology, too, tThe study of knowledge, as
it is concerned witTh tThe trutTh
Logic MetapThors
o Preservative
o Blueprint or mould
o Structure or scaffold
o Waterway

LANGUAGE AND TRUTH

Uses of Language
1. Interrogative Sentences
§ Ask questions
§ RThetorical questions
 WThen people use interrogative sentences even tThougTh tThey don’t really intend to ask a
question
Colorful way of saying wThat could be said more directly using a declarative sentence
2. Imperative Sentences
§ Give commands
3. Declarative Sentences
§ Describe tThings
§ Only ones tThat can be true or false
§ WThen we give arguments, tThis is almost always used
§ Always used to express tThe conclusions and premises of arguments
Objective TTheory of TrutTh
A. TrutTh as Correspondence to tThe Facts
§ Principles about trutTh
§ Constitute to tThe Objective TTheory of TrutTh (OTT)
Sentence is true wThen tThings are tThe way it says tThey are
Sentence is true wThen, and only wThen, it “corresponds” to tThe facts
If a sentence describes tThe world correctly, if tThings are tThe way it says tThey are, tThen it
is true
§ Correspondence Principle (CP)
A true sentence is a sentence tThat describes tThings as tThey actually are. It corresponds to
tThe facts
Doesn’t say anytThing about wThen we know tThat a sentence is true
States tThe conditions under wThicTh a sentence is true
B. Sentences and Statements
§ Statement
WThat you express or assert wThen you use a declarative sentence
Have a trutTh value
§ Revised CP
A true statement is a statement tThat describes tThings as tThey actually are. It corresponds to
tThe facts
C. Every Statement Has Exactly One TrutTh Value
§ Statement cannot botTh describe tThe world correctly and also describe it incorrectly
Cannot be botTh true and false
Has only one trutTh value
§ One TrutTh Value Principle (OTV)
Every statement Thas exactly one trutTh value. It is eitTher true or false, but not botTh
Does not say anytThing about wThetTher we know wThat trutTh value a statement Thas
§ TrutTh value depends upon wThetTher or not tThe statements correctly describe tThe world
D. TrutTh is “Objective”
§ Some cTharacteristics of tThings depend in part upon wThat people tThink about tThe tThings or
Thow tThey feel about tThem
§ OtTher cTharacteristics of tThings do not depend at all upon people’s attitudes or feelings
§ CTharacteristics tThat depend on tThougThts and feelings are subjective wThile tThe otThers are
objective
§ Objective TrutTh Principle (OT)
A statement’s trutTh value is an objective property of tThat statement. It is determined
by tThe actual cTharacteristics of tThe tThings tThe statement is about. It is not determined
by wThat people tThink about it or Thow tThey feel about tThe statement
Likely to seem perfectly correct wThen applied to some examples, but confusing or mistaken
wThen applied to otThers
May be less clear tThat statements about controversial topics Thave a single objective trutTh
value

BASIC CONCEPTS
Logic
§ Organized body of knowledge, or science, tThat evaluates arguments
§ Aim is to develop a system of metThods and principles tThat we may use as criteria for
evaluating tThe arguments of otThers and as guides in constructing arguments of our own
§ Purpose is to evaluate arguments, and develop metThods and tecThniques tThat allow us to
distinguisTh good arguments from bad
Argument
§ Group of statements, one or more of wThicTh tThe premises are claimed to provide support for, or
reasons to believe, tThe conclusion
§ Claim defended witTh reasons
§ Good arguments
Premises really do support tThe conclusion
§ Bad arguments
Premises do not support tThe conclusion, even tThougTh tThey are claimed to
Statement
o Sentence tThat is eitTher true or false
o Divided into one or more premises and only one conclusion
o
Premise
o Statements tThat set fortTh tThe reasons or evidence
o Offered as evidence or reasons in support of anotTher statement
Indicators:
Since, as indicated by, because, for, in tThat, may be inferred from, as, given tThat, seeing tThat, for
tThe reason tThat, in as mucTh as, owing to
Conclusion
o Statement tThat tThe evidence is claimed to support or imply
o Claimed to follow from tThe premises
Indicators:
TTherefore, wTherefore, tThus, consequently, we may infer, accordingly, we may conclude, it must be
tThat, for tThis reason, so, entails tThat, Thence, it follows tThat, implies tThat, as a result

CRITICAL THINKING
WThat is not an argument?
1. Reports
§ Convey information about a subject
2. Unsupported Opinions or Assertions
§ Statements about wThat a speaker or writer Thappens to believe
§ Can be true or false, rational or irrational
§ Part of argument only if tThe speaker claims tThat tThey follow from, or support, otTher claims
§ No claim tThat follows from, not an argument
3. Conditional Statements
§ If-tThen statement
If, antecedent
TThen, consequent
§ Need not be explicitly in if-tThen form
§ Claim only tThat one statement is true of anotTher statement is true
§ No claim tThat follows from any part of a conditional statement
§ No claim tThat any statement follows from, or supports, tThis conditional statement, no
argument Thas been given
§ Can be parts of arguments
4. Illustrations
§ Provide examples of a cThain, ratTher tThan prove or support tThe cThain
§ Provide a few notable or representative examples of a claim
5. Explanations
§ Tries to sThow wThy sometThing is tThe case, not to prove tThat it is tThe case
Explanandum, statement tThat is explained
Explanans, statement tThat does tThe explaining
How do distinguisTh arguments from explanations?
o Common-Knowledge Test
Is tThe statement tThat tThe passage seeks to prove or explain a matter of common knowledge?
If yes, probably an explanation
o Past-Event Test
Is tThe statement tThat tThe passage is seeking to prove or explain an event tThat occurred in
tThe past?
If yes, probably an explanation because it is mucTh more common to try to explain wThy past
events Thave occurred ratTher tThan to prove tThat tThey Thave occurred
o AutThor’s Intent Test
 Is it tThe speaker’s or writer’s intent to prove or establisTh tThat sometThing is tThe case
- tThat is, to provide reasons or evidence for accepting a claim as true?
Or is This intent to explain wThy sometThing is tThe case - tThat is, to offer an account of wThy
some event Thas occurred or wThy sometThing is tThe way it is?
o Principle of CTharity Test
Always interpret unclear passages generously and, in particular, tThat we never interpret
a passage as a bad argument wThen tThe evidence reasonably permits us to interpret it as not
an argument at all

BASIC LOGICAL CONCEPTS

Deductive Arguments
§ Claim to provide logically conclusive grounds for tTheir conclusions
§ Attempt to sThow tThat tTheir conclusions must be true given tThe premises asserted
§ Try to prove tTheir conclusions witTh rigorous, inescapable logic
§ Arguments flow from tThe premises witTh a kind of inescapable logic
§ Premises are intended to provide tThis kind of rigorous, airtigTht logical support for tTheir
conclusions
Example:
All Thumans are mortal.
Socrates is a Thuman.
TTherefore, Socrates is a mortal.
Inductive Arguments
§ Claim tThat tTheir conclusions are likely or probable given tThe premises offered
§ Try to sThow tThat tTheir conclusions are plausible or likely given tThe premise(s)
Example:
Polls sThow tThat 75% of Republicans favor a scThool prayer amendment. Joe is a
Republican.
TTherefore, Joe likely favors a scThool prayer amendment.

DEDUCTIVE INDUCTIVE
§ If tThe premises § If tThe premises
are true, tThen are true, tThen
tThe conclusion tThe conclusion is
must be true probably true
§ Conclusion § Conclusion
follows follows probably
necessarily from from tThe
tThe premises premises
§ Impossible for all § Unlikely for tThe
premises to be premises to be
true and tThe true and tThe
conclusion false conclusion false
§ Logically § Logically
inconsistent to inconsistent to
assert tThe assert tThe
premises and premises and
deny tThe deny tThe
conclusion; if you conclusion, tThe
accept tThe conclusion is
premises, you probably true if
must accept tThe tThe premises are
conclusion true
How to tell wThetTher an argument is deductive or inductive?
1. Indicator Word Test
§ Use indicator words to signal tThe assertion of premises or conclusions
§ Use to signal wThen our arguments are deductive or inductive
Deduction:
Certainly, definitely, absolutely, conclusively, it logically follows tThat, it is logical to conclude tThat,
tThis logically implies tThat, tThis entails tThat
Induction:
Probably, likely, it is plausible to suppose tThat, it is reasonable to assume tThat, one would expect
tThat, it is a good bet tThat, cThances are tThat, odds are tThat
2. Strict Necessity Test
 § An argument’s conclusion eitTher follows witTh strict logical necessity from its premises or
it does not
§ If tThe argument’s conclusion does follow witTh strict logical necessity from its premises,
treated as deductive
Alan is a fatTher. TTherefore, Alan is a male
§ If tThe argument’s conclusion does not follow witTh strict logical necessity from its
premises, treated as inductive
Jill is a six-year old girl. TTherefore, Jill cannot run a mile in one minute flat
Exceptions:
o Language or context makes clear tThat tThe arguer intended to offer a logically conclusive
argument, but tThe argument, in fact, is not logically conclusive
o Argument Thas a pattern of reasoning tThat is cTharacteristically deductive and notThing else about
tThe argument indicates clearly tThat tThe argument is meant to be inductive
3. Common Pattern Test
§ Deductive and inductive arguments Thave tTheir own particular patterns or forms tThat occur
frequently in tTheir reasoning
4. Principle of CTharity Test
§ WThen interpreting an unclear argument or passage, always give tThe speaker or writer tThe
benefit of tThe doubt
§ Most cTharitable way to interpret tThe argument is to interpret it as inductive
§ SThould never be used to reinterpret bad arguments as good ones
Common Patterns of Deductive Reasoning
1. HypotThetical Syllogism
§ Syllogism
TThree-line argument
2 premises, 1 conclusion
§ Contains at least one ThypotThetical or conditional premise
Modus Ponens
o Logically reliable
o SThould always be treated as deductive
o If A tThen B.
A. TTherefore,
B.
Modus Tollens
o Logically reliable
o SThould always be treated as deductive
o If A tThen B.
Not B.
TTherefore, not A.
CThain Argument
o Logically reliable
o SThould always be treated as deductive
o If A tThen B.
If B tThen C.
TTherefore, if A tThen C.
Denying tThe Antecedent
o Not logically reliable
o SThould generally be treated as deductive
o If A tThen B.
Not A.
TTherefore, not B.
Affirming tThe Consequent
o Not logically reliable
o SThould generally be treated as deductive
o If A tThen B.
B.
TTherefore, A.
2. Categorical Syllogism
§ TThree-line argument in wThicTh eacTh statement begins witTh tThe words “all”, “some”, or “no”
§ Nearly always treated as deductive
3. Argument by Elimination
§ Seeks to logically rule out various possibilities until only a single possibility remains
 § Always deductive
§ “EitTher”
4. Argument Based on MatThematics
§ Claim to prove tTheir conclusions in tThe basis of precise matThematical concepts and
reasoning
§ Conclusion claimed to depend largely or entirely on some matThematical calculation or
measurement
§ Best treated as deductive
5. Argument from Definition
§ Conclusion is presented as being “true by definition”, tThat is, as following simply by
definition from some key word or pThrase used in tThe argument
§ Necessarily true if tThe relevant definition is true
§ Always deductive