Logic
Wesley C. Salmon
1963
Chapter One: The scope of logic synopsis
Logic is made of inferences which are turned into arguments only to be checked for their logical correctness. This seems to be circular of logic doesn't it? In fact, however, it is actually just a process of how we mostly operate on some fairly normal frequency. We, as thinking & speaking beings, make a statement (whether it is audible or in our heads is of no consequence). We then choose or choose not to support that statement with evidence. If we do support it with evidence, then we have created an argument. But before we create an argument we must have an inference. An inference is an idea, opinion, or belief that is supported by evidence. When an inference is penned or spoken (to an audience or to himself) then it is an argument. Because of this fact the conclusion of an argument is a statement because it is voiced/penned. The conclusion of an inference is an idea, opinion or belief. To come to a conclusion there must first be premises. Premises are statements or ideas that are linked together to form a conclusion. Once a conclusion has been reached then it can be subjected to logical analysis. Logical analysis solely concerned with the linkage of the premises, not the validity or truthfulness of the premises. That is important because the validity is a concern of another matter. So it is understood, the term 'argument' in dealing with logic is not necessarily a disagreement, but a term meaning a statement supported by evidence.
IN addition to arguments and inferences, logic deals with justification. Justification is linked closely with Discovery. Discovery asks the question, 'how did it come to be thought of?' Answers to or circumstances pertaining to it deal with discovery. Justification asks, 'what reasons do we have for accepting it as truth?' Answers to and circumstances pertaining to this question fall under the scope of justification. The justification of a statement consists of an argument and its conclusion; whereas the discovery of a statement is a psychological process of thought, thought development and acceptance. It is imperative that these two concepts are not blurred or interchanged. Acceptability of a statement has nothing to do with a statement's origin, but questions of justification deal with acceptability. It is because of this, logic deals with justification and not discovery. A genetic fallacy occurs when statements are wrongly treated in the context of discovery when they should be treated under the context of justification. An example of this rejecting a hypothesis because of who came up with it, not on the merits of the hypothesis.
Justification is done by two processes. First, there is determining the truthfulness of the premises. Second, there is determining the logical correctness of the argument. Showing that the argument is not justifiable on either account of failure does not necessarily prove that the conclusion is false. There are however negative justification that prove an argument false.
Logic provides the tools for making sound evaluation of arguments and inferences. It also provides the ability to transform inferences into arguments and then gives a way of looking at them critically. However, accepting false inferences cannot be made into logical arguments. Logic can however provide a set of rules for which logical thinking can be done. It cannot provide a description of actual thought processes, that is the domain of psychology.
Deductive and inductive arguments are defined by certain fundamental characteristics. Here are two primary characteristics. In a deductive argument if all premises are true then the conclusion must necessarily be true. In inductive reasoning if all the premises are true than the conclusion is probably true, but not necessarily so. The second characteristic of deductive reasoning is that all of the information or factual content of the conclusion is at least implicitly contained in the premises. In inductive arguments thought he conclusion can contain information not present, even implicitly in the premises. Because of the characteristics of the deductive argument its conclusion is either wholly correct or wholly incorrect based on the factualness of the premises. Inductive arguments offer partial conclusiveness because the premises offer variability. In inductive arguments the premises act as statements to bolster the conclusion, while in deductive arguments the premises are used to make the conclusion a fact. It is because of this reason why deductive arguments are used for mathematics. But, because inductive arguments are not limited in their conclusion of only being able to arrive from the facts of the premises that these types are used for scientific generalization and its supporting evidence. These generalizations cannot be found by deductive arguments because the conclusion would come from outside the premises, rendering the argument illogical.
No comments:
Post a Comment