Topic Three

Logic or Principles of correct reasoning

3.0 Introduction

Having defined philosophy and seen its value as a discipline of study, we

would now like to turn your attention to a discussion on how philosophy
deals with some of the issues that affect individuals and society. In this
topic we focus the discussion on how philosophy deals with the principles
that can guide us to reason correctly and therefore, come up with good
and sound arguments. Welcome to the topic on Logic.

Learning Outcomes

At the end of this topic, you should be able to:-

1). Define Logic and discuss its subject matter;

2). Define a fallacy and show how they are committed;
3). Discuss the different fallacies and show how they are
committed;
4). Define critical thinking and discuss its obstacles and;
5). Explain the different usages of language.

3.1 Definition of Logic

Logic can be said to be reasoning conducted or assessed according to

strict principles of validity. It is a particular way of thinking, especially one
that is reasonable and based on good judgment. For example, a person
might want to argue that ‘there is no logic in the decision to reduce
members of staff when the orders are the highest they have been for
years or say something like ‘the internal logic of her argument is
undeniable’. Logic can also be defined as:-
  a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding
something
 a particular way of thinking about something
 the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking
and reasoning

As a discipline of study, logic is the study of the methods and principles

that are used to distinguish good (correct) from bad (incorrect) reasoning.
It reflects upon the nature of thinking itself. It attempts to answer
questions like what is correct reasoning? What distinguishes a bad
argument from a good one? Are there any methods used to detect fallacies
in reasoning? If so, what are they?

It should be noted that logic differs with psychology in that it does not deal
with all types of thinking such as learning, remembering, day-dreaming,
supposing, but only with that type of thinking called “reasoning”.

You should remember that a logician is not concerned with why people think
in a certain way but with the formulation of rules that will enable us to test
whether any particular piece of reasoning is consistent and coherent, that
is, whether it is logical.

A major characteristic of reasoning is that we must produce reasons as

evidence for the conclusion we wish to establish. What then are the benefits
of studying logic? I would now like to turn your attention to a brief coverage
on the value of logic.
3.1.1 Benefits of Studying Logic

The study of logic is beneficial in that it will give you the learner:-

a) the ability to express ideas clearly and concisely;

b) an increased capacity to formulate arguments rigorously and to analyze
them critically;
 c) the ability to recognize fallacies and avoid them and;
d) the greatest benefit is the recognition that reason can be applied in
every aspect of human affairs, for instance, democratic institutions
require that citizens, discuss problems freely with one another and
decide issues on the basis of deliberation and the weighing of evidence.
(Copi. I. et al, 1990).

From the foregoing, you can see that through the study of logic, one can
acquire not only the practice in reasoning but also respect for reason.
Having defined logic and outlined its value, I would now like to turn your
attention to the next topic which is on the uses of language. Since we think
and reason in language, it is imperative that we understand the different
ways in which we use language. Welcome!

3.2 Uses of Language

Reasoning goes on through language. It is therefore, important that you

understand the functions that language plays in your everyday discourse.
These functions include the following:-

i. Informative Function

Informative function refers to communicating of information. Such

communication is done by either affirming or negating premises. It
includes things like misinformation, incorrect as well as correct arguments,
and false as well as true information. Informative discourse is used to
describe the world and to reason about it. Science provides us with the
clearest example of informative discourse.

ii. Expressive Function

Language serves the expressive function whenever it is used to arouse

feelings or emotions. It should be noted that there are two ways in which
language can be used informatively
 a) Language that simply expresses the speaker’s feelings without
affecting anyone else’s feelings. For example, a man who curses
to himself or a poet who writes poems and keeps them to himself.

b) Language that evokes/solicits certain feelings from other people,

for example, a politician who uses language to arouse enthusiasm
in his audience.

Expressive discourse is thus used either to express the speaker’s feelings

or to evoke certain feelings on the part of the listener. Poetry is perhaps
the best example of this function.

Example: ‘Oh my love’s like a red, red rose,

That’s newly sprung in June,
Oh my love’s like the melody,
That’s sweetly played in tune.’

iii. Directive Function

This function is characterized by language used for causing or preventing

overt action. It is language that is intended to get results. It includes
commands, requests, orders and even questions. For instance, close the
door; stop making noise, pay attention, and so on.

iv. Performative function

The last function of language is the performative function. In the

performative kind of language, the actions are actually the words spoken.
This means that there is no difference between the words spoken and the
actions taken. Let us use an example to illustrate this point.

In a wedding ceremony for example, the following conversation takes

place:-

Pastor: ’Do you Peter take Mary to be your lawfully wedded wife, to love,
to cherish and to hold?’

Peter: ‘I do’ – these words spoken are equivalent to the action of Peter
taking Mary to be his wife.
Other examples of the performative use of language include things like:-
 I congratulate you.
I sincerely apologize.
I suggest to you.
I put it to you, etc.

You should however, note that these functions of language are not
exclusive. This means that in any use of language, more than one function
may be used at the same time. For example, a poem is primarily expressive
but that does not mean that it cannot give us information.

Summary

In this topic, we have looked at the basic functions that language serves.
This is important because we communicate and reason through language.
It is therefore, useful to understand the functions of language so that you
can know what it is you are trying to put across so as to make your
arguments solid.

3.3 Arguments and Fallacies

In the previous topics we have discussed logic and the uses of language
and we have noted that if there is an error in our reasoning or a problem
with our language, then our arguments will not be sound and we might end
up committing a fallacy. In this next topic therefore, I will take you through
the meaning of an argument, a fallacy, how we can commit fallacies and
how we can avoid them. What then is an argument?

3.3.1 Definition of Argument

An argument is a group of propositions of which one, (the conclusion) is
claimed to be true on the basis of other propositions (the premises) that
are asserted as or are said to provide grounds or reasons for accepting
the conclusion (Copi, I., 1990). In logic and philosophy therefore, an
argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone
of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion.
Argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

3.3.1.1 Types of Arguments

Arguments are classified into two:-
a). Deductive arguments
b). Inductive arguments

Deductive Argument
A deductive argument is an argument where the conclusion follows
validly from the premises. In other words, this is an argument where the
truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. This means
that a deductive argument is one in which it is impossible for the
premises to be true but the conclusion false. Thus, the conclusion follows
necessarily from the premises and inferences. In this way, it is supposed
to be a definitive proof of the truth of the claim (conclusion).

Like I have pointed out above, you can see that if the premises are true,
then simply it is not possible for the conclusion to be false. You should
note that, if you have a deductive argument and you accept the truth of
the premises, then you must also accept the truth of the conclusion; if
you reject it, then you are rejecting logic itself.
Example:

All humans are mortal. (Premises)

Socrates is a mortal.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (Conclusion)

What is an Inductive Argument?

An inductive argument is one in which the premises are supposed to

support the conclusion in such a way that if the premises are true, it is
improbable that the conclusion would be false. Thus, the conclusion
follows probably from the premises and inferences. Here is an example:

Socrates was Greek (Premise)

 Most Greeks eat fish (Premise)

Probably Socrates ate fish (Conclusion)

In this example, even if both premises are true, it is still possible for the
conclusion to be false because for example, Socrates may have been
allergic to fish or did not like fish. Words which tend to mark an argument
as inductive and hence make the conclusion probable rather than
necessary include probably, likely, possibly and reasonably.

Deductive Arguments vs. Inductive Arguments

From the foregoing discussion, it may seem that inductive arguments are
weaker than deductive arguments because there must always remain the
possibility of their arriving at false conclusions, but that is not entirely
true. With deductive arguments, our conclusions are already contained,
even if implicitly, in our premises. This means that we do not arrive at
new information. Thus, the sure truth-preserving nature of deductive
arguments comes at a cost.

Inductive arguments, on the other hand, do provide us with new ideas

and thus may expand our knowledge about the world in a way that is
impossible for deductive arguments to achieve.

In conclusion, while deductive arguments may be used most often with

mathematics, most other fields of research make extensive use of
inductive arguments.

For further reading go these links: Define Inductive

Inductive Definition

You should note that an argument, whatever the subject matter is generally
constructed to prove that its conclusion is true. An argument whose
conclusion does not follow from the premises is one whose conclusion might
be false even if all its premises are true.

In cases like these, the reasoning is bad and the argument is said to be
fallacious, that is, you have committed a fallacy.

3.3.2 Definition of Fallacy

A fallacy is an error in reasoning or an incorrect argument. As noted above,
when we give arguments whose conclusions do not follow from the
premises, there is something wrong with our reasoning and therefore, we
have committed a fallacy.

Although fallacies are incorrect arguments, they are also psychologically

persuasive. At first instance, a fallacy may seem to be correct but when
you examine it closely, you discover that it is not. It is therefore, profitable
to study and understand these mistaken arguments because the traps they
set can best be avoided when they are well understood, that is, to be
forewarned is to be forearmed.

3.3.2.1 Classification of Fallacies

Fallacies are divided into two categories namely:-

a) Formal fallacies
b) Informal fallacies
I would now like to welcome you to an analysis of the two categories of
fallacies. We are going to discuss what they are, how they are committed,
sample some of the fallacies and explain how we can avoid committing
them. Welcome!
3.3.2.2 Formal Fallacies

Formal fallacies are also referred to as first class (1st Class) fallacies
or fallacies of relevance. In philosophy, a formal fallacy is a pattern of
reasoning which is rendered invalid due to a flaw in its logical structure.
An argument that is formally fallacious is always considered to be
wrong.

These are therefore, fallacies that have to do with the logical aspects of
the arguments. They occur when we make conclusions that do not follow
the formal structures and rules of logical validity, that is, we arrive at
conclusions that do not follow from the premises.
 When an argument relies upon premises that are not relevant to its
conclusion and that therefore, cannot possibly establish its truth, the fallacy
committed is one of relevance (Copi, I. 1990). This means that, fallacies of
relevance have premises which are logically irrelevant to their conclusion.
They are therefore, unable to establish the truth of their conclusion.
Formal fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

It should be noted that in formal fallacies, the premises are often

psychologically relevant to the conclusion and that explains their seeming
correctness and persuasiveness. There are many different fallacies of
relevance but we are only going to sample a few so that you can have a
general idea of what some of the more commonly committed fallacies are.

Traditionally, many fallacies have been given Latin names but we will give
an English translation for ease of understanding. Let us now turn our
attention to some of these fallacies of relevance.

i. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Argument from Ignorance)

When you argue that a proposition is true simply because it has not been
proved to be false or it is false simply because it has not been proved to be
true, you are committing the fallacy of ad ignorantiam. For instance, many
of us are opposed to great change on the grounds that it has not yet been
proved workable or safe. However, such proof is often impossible to
provide in advance. For example, when the technology for cutting and
recombining DNA (genetic engineering) was first started, most of its critics
were opposed to it on grounds of their ignorance of its long term
consequences, as shown in this letter to Science;

Example 1

 If Dr. Frankenstein must go on producing his

biological monsters … how can we be sure what
would happen once the little beasts escape from
the laboratory?
 Example 2
 God does not exist because no one has ever seen
him.

Example 3
 There is no life after death because no one has
ever died and come back to tell us.

Note that there is one special context in which the appeal to ignorance is
common and appropriate, namely, in a criminal court of law where an
accused person is ‘innocent until proved guilty’.

ii. Argumentum ad Veracundiam (The Appeal to Inappropriate

Authority)

There are times when we use the judgement of an acknowledged expert

who has studied a certain matter thoroughly in order to make up our minds
on a difficult or complicated question. This is alright. The fallacy arises
when we use the judgement of an expert who is not an authority in the
matter at hand.

Example 1

 Milo is the best drink because David Rudisha

says so.

Example 2
 Coartem is the best treatment for malaria
because Raila Odinga says so.

iii. The Fallacy of Complex Question

This is one of the most commonly committed fallacies. It occurs when you
ask a question in such a way that presupposes that a definite answer has
already been given to a prior question which was not even asked! It is
called a complex question because it contains more than one question.
 Example 1:

You should note that complex questions are unfair questions because
whichever way you answer them they will tend to fix you. Take the
example above. If you answer no, it means that you have been beating
your wife but you have now stopped. If you answer yes, it means that
you are still beating your wife.

These kinds of questions are also commonly used in law courts by

advocates and whenever they use them, they insist on a ‘yes’ or ‘no’
answer.

Example 2:

Advocate: ‘Did your sales increase as a result of

your misleading advertisements?’

Trader: ‘No, certainly not!

Advocate: ‘Aha! So you admit that you used false

advertisements. Do you know that
your unethical behaviour could lead
you to jail?’

Example 3
 [Reporter's question] Mr. President: Are you going
to continue your policy of wasting taxpayer's money
on missile defense?
This question unfairly presumes the controversial claim
that the policy really is a waste of money.

iv. Argument ad Hominen

The phrase “ad Hominen” when translated into English means, “against the
man”. This is a fallacy where the criticism is not directed at the conclusion
one wishes to deny, but at the person who has put the argument forward
(Ad Hominen, Abusive) or the circumstances of the person (Ad
Hominen, Circumstantial). This means that you attack the person or the
circumstances and not the argument.

a) Ad Hominen, Abusive
As noted above, this is a fallacy that we commit when we attack the person
and not the argument that we wish to discredit.
Example1

Example 2
 The Argument ad Hominen, Circumstantial

This fallacy is committed when we make an irrelevant connection between

the beliefs held, and the circumstances of those holding it. These
circumstances could be employment, gender, nationality, religion, race or
any other such circumstances.

Examples:-

 All Women Representatives in Kenya must

support Rachel Shebesh’s bill because she is
also a Womens’ Representative

 I cannot vote for Martha Karua as President

because she is a woman.

All these examples are fallacious because there is an irrelevant connection

being made between the person, belief held, and the circumstances of the
person holding it. Arguments should be supported on the basis of the
evidence produced rather than on the circumstances of those who propose
them.

v. Fallacy of Non Causa Pro Causa ( False Cause)

This fallacy is committed when we treat as a cause of a thing, that which is

not really the cause.
Example 1

 Whenever my boss wears a black suit, he is usually in a

bad mood.
Example 2

Example 3
vi. Fallacy of Converse Accident

The fallacy of converse accident is committed when we stop considering

the things that happen unexpectedly as accidents or when we observe that
a small number or a special unit of the members of some group has some
characteristic and we conclude that the whole group has the characteristic.
This fallacy arises therefore, when we move too hastily from a particular to
general. This is why; it is also referred to as the fallacy of hasty
generalization.

Examples

 Kamau is a Kikuyu,
Kamau is a thief,
Therefore, all Kikuyu’s are thieves.

 Wafula is a Luhya
Wafula is a cook and a watchman
Therefore, Luhya’s are cooks and watchmen

 I have heard that turtles live longer than tarantulas, but

the one turtle I bought lived only two days. I bought it at
Dowden's Pet Store. So, I think that turtles bought from pet
stores do not live longer than tarantulas

v. Ad Miseri Cordiam Fallacy (Appeal to Pity)

This fallacy is committed when we appeal to pity for the sake of getting a
conclusion accepted. This is a common fallacy especially in courts of law.

Example 1

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I know you will

find it in your hearts to withdraw the case against
this young man. A man who has known only
poverty and misfortunes in his life but despite this,
he has tried his best but like all of us, he has erred.

Example 2

A student is found cheating in the examinations.

During the disciplinary hearing, he says; ‘Please,
you cannot expel me. I am the first born in my
family. My parents are old and I am their only
hope. If you expel me, it will kill my poor mother
who already has a weak heart as a result of a stroke
she suffered three months ago’.
 Example 3

vi. The Ad Populum Fallacy (Appeal to Emotion)

This fallacy is committed when one directs an emotional appeal to the

people (populace) to win their acceptance to a conclusion, which is not
supported by good evidence. This fallacy seeks to win support for a
conclusion by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the multitude. This
strategy is used a lot by propagandists, politicians, advertisers, and so on.
It is also known as the bandwagon argument.

You should note that if you suggest that someone's claim is correct simply
because it is what almost everyone is coming to believe, you are using
the bandwagon fallacy. It is like saying, ‘Get up here with us on the
wagon where the band is playing, and go where we go, and do not think
too much about the reasons’.
Example 1

Example 2
 The speeches of Adolph Hitler which brought his German
listeners to a state of patriotic frenzy are a classic example.
It should be noted that love for one’s country is honorable but
not when it is used to manipulate one’s audience as in the case
of Hitler’s speeches which led to the killing of about six million
Jews.

 Other examples can be seen in advertisements where every

device that can appeal to sight, sound and smell is brought to
bear so as to gain acceptance for the products. For example,
whisky is associated with luxury and achievement, beer with
high adventure, breakfast cereal with trim youthfulness,
athletic prowess and vibrant good health, cooking oil with a
happy family etc.
vii. Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)

This fallacy is committed when we argue in a circle or we use the same

requirement to prove the proof. That is, we assume as a premise for our
argument, the very conclusion we intend to draw. It involves circular
reasoning, circular argument or begging the question. In general, the
fallacy of assumes as a premise a statement which has the same meaning
as the conclusion.

Example 1

To allow every man unbounded freedom of speech

must always be on the whole, advantageous to the
state; for it is highly conducive to the interests of
the community that each individual should enjoy a
liberty, perfectly unlimited of expressing his
sentiment.

Note that, in the Petitio Principii Fallacy, the premise is not irrelevant to
the conclusion but it is logically irrelevant to the purpose of proving the
conclusion. The conclusion asserts only what was asserted in the premises.

Example 2

‘I am here because I am here’.

 Example 3

Summary
In this topic, we have defined logic and discussed its value in the life of an
individual. We have also defined a fallacy, looked at the classification of
fallacies and sampled some of the fallacies of relevance. As noted earlier,
there are many more different fallacies of relevance but what I have done
in this topic is to give you an overview of these fallacies so that you can
have a general idea of what they entail. For more information on the
other fallacies of relevance you can go to the links provided below.
www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
Petitio Principii - Philosophy Home Page
philosophy.lander.edu/logic/circular.html

Self-Assessment
1). Define Logic
2). Explain the value of studying logic
3). Define an argument and discuss the different types arguments
4). Define a fallacy and explain the different classifications of fallacies.
5). By the use of relevant examples, discuss five fallacies of relevance.
6). Explain the difference between the Ad populum fallacy and the ad
misericordiam fallacy.
7). Explain how you can avoid fallacies.
8). By the use of examples, discuss the different uses of language

Activity
Reflect on the fallacies we have studied and consider whether you have
fallen into any of their pitfalls. Explain how you committed them.