The Analysis of Logic

THE ANALYSIS OF LOGIC

Introduction

            

After an argument over the internet, and also looking at the situation of the world, I was dumbfounded when I realized how the ability of critical thinking and critical thought has been lost. How so? Well extremism and ideological fundamentalism is quite the proof of it. And what does critical thinking means? Well, it is the application of logic. And what is logic? Well, that is what I will discuss here.

The Definition of Logic

            

So, as I always do, I would define a topic first before I explain more. So, by essence, logic is a way of creating new information out of existing information. Logic, is technically, how the entire universe works. All scientific laws, are based on the principles of logic. Some say that logic is subjective, but what they mean is probably the lines of reasoning, being different from one person to another. And that is affected by the point of view, or the perspective. There is the capitalist perspective, the socialist perspective, the theist perspective, the atheist perspective, and so on. But how it can be different will be for another section.

           

Logic, as repeated, is a way to make new information out of previous information. Of course, for the new information to be valid and true, then the previous information must also be true. We call this previous information, premises. The new information, conclusion. We use logic everyday, especially in making decisions or when we are studying at school. We may not realize it, but we do use logic on a day to day basis. Now that we have defined logic, we’ll define the structure.

The Structure of Logic

            

There are several terms that will be used here, and I’ll explain their definitions as we go. First, we know that the basic form of logic, is analyzing a group of premises to reach a conclusion. Now the collection of the premises and conclusion is called an argument. The flow of said argument is a reasoning. A line of reasoning is the logic behind any argument. But, how so? Well, it’s basically how the argument is made, is it valid or not? Is it sound or not? That is it.

            

There are 2 types of reasoning, actually 3, but the important ones are the 2 types. The most basic form of reasoning is deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning produces valid, sound, and true conclusions, that is if the premises are all true. Then how do we determine that the premise is true? Well, a premise is also a conclusion produced from analyzing other previous premises. As a result, you will have a whole network of premises and conclusions. An argument, has to be both true and valid, what does that mean?

           

 The trueness of an argument, or the trueness of a conclusion, is determined by the trueness of the premise. This trueness, as it can only true or false, is called the truth value. Sentences that declare something, or state something, has a truth value. Such as, “I have a cat” or “My mom died”, as they both can be proven true or false. I may or may not have a cat, and my mom may or may not have died. While interrogative and imperative sentences, or in daily language, questions and commands, don’t have a truth value. As they do not declare anything, interrogative sentences will bring out declarative sentences that do have a truth value. Imperative sentences have nothing to do with truth values at all.

The validity of an argument checks whether the conclusion follows the premises. It is possible to have true premises, but a false conclusion. This is a result of a flaw in reasoning, or commonly known as logical fallacies. The validity of an argument can be checked by presenting the argument in the form of a syllogism. A syllogism is an argument presented in 3 statements. The first statement is the major premise, the second a minor premise, and the third a conclusion. The major premise is a general statement such as, “Living things can breathe”. Then the minor premise is a specific statement such as, “Humans are living things”. And the conclusion, well is the conclusion. A conclusion we can make is, “Humans can breathe”.

For an argument to be valid, then it must abide by several logical laws, there are several types of syllogism. And I will explain all of it. There are 3 types of syllogisms, conditional syllogism, categorical syllogism, and disjungtive syllogism. Conditional syllogism basically states, if A is true, then B is true. A good example would be this syllogism, “If my mom was alive, I wouldn’t be depressed all the time. My mom was dead. I am depressed all the time.” Note how the major premise is in the form of “if A is ..., then B is...”. The minor premise then checks whether A is true or not. If A is true, then B is true, if not, then it is false. You then reach a conclusion, where it is in the form of “B is true/false”. The regular form is, “If A is true, B is true. A is true/false. B is true/false.” But it can also work both ways, it’s just the same.

The second type of syllogism is the categorical syllogism. It is good to understand set theory to understand this kind of syllogism. The categorical syllogism states that if A is part of C, then B is part of C. Let me illustrate this, see this syllogism, “All humans are living things. Skarlet is a human. Skarlet is a living thing.” Note how the major premise is in the form of “A is a part of C”. Then the minor premise states that B is part of A. The conclusion states the final membership status of B. I think that should be easy enough.

The third type of syllogism is the disjungtive syllogism. The disjungtive syllogism is almost like a “A or B” situation. So if A is true, then B must be false, or vise versa. Only one of them can be true, or it wouldn’t be a disjungtive syllogism at all. Say this syllogism, “She either hated me or forgave me. She didn’t hate me. She forgave me.” Essentially, the major premise will be in the form of “Either A or B”, the minor premise states which one is false or true, so it is, “A/B is true/false”. And the conclusion states the truth value of the other member, whether it is A or B.

There are also 4 types of propositions, such as the universal positive or negative, and the particular negative or positive. The universal states “All A is B” or “No A is B” whether it is positive or negative. The particular operates similarly, but it only applies to some members, and not all. So it would be in the form of,  “Some A are B” or “Some A are not B”. But this is not that important to know.

The second type of logical reasoning is the inductive reasoning. This is not as accurate as a deductive reasoning, and may produce conclusions that may be false. But it is very useful in prediction and forecasting. The conclusion will usually be a probability. Take this syllogism, “Most of the time, after a hot day, there would be a rainy day. Today it is sunny. It will probably rain tomorrow.” So essentially, inductive reasoning uses a trend in a set of data, and uses that trend to predict the next datas. It is also useful when we are unable to know every single premise, so we look at the trend, and form a prediction. That is inductive reasoning, estimating smartly.

Then there is abductive reasoning. It is mostly used in scientific research, that is when we make hypotheses. When we have information and evidence of facts that can not be explained by the existing theories, we try to make the most logical explanation, the best explanation. But the most important type of reasoning is the deductive reasoning, you can keep your eye out for inductive reasoning, but you can keep abductive reasoning away for now.

Logical Fallacies

            

A logical fallacy is a flaw in one’s line of reasoning. Such as using logical principles that doesn’t exist, or applying it wrongly, and many other forms. I’ll try to list the fallacies that is quite common.

1. Fallacies of Relevance

            

There are many types of fallacies that fall into this category, but they all have the same feature. The arguers assert the truth of an argument from factors that is irrelevant to the argument at hand. Such as claiming that since it is a tradition, it must be true. Or since the People does it, it is true. A common form of this fallacy is the Ad Hominem fallacy, that is when you attack the person making the argument and not the argument itself. Let me make an example. Say this argument, “Heavy drinking has been a culture and it has been passed down through generations for centuries. So it must be good for us!” Of course, we may believe it to be true, but then, the universe does not care at all. The scientific fact that heavy drinking will cause health issues will not change even if it is a tradition to drink heavily.

2. Other Fallacies

            

While there are many other types of fallacies, it’s actually quite easy to identify when someone begins to commit a fallacy. A common fallacy is the circular reasoning, that is for example, “The bible says God exists. The bible is inspired by God. Therefore God exists.” Notice how the first premise, is not based upon actual evidence, the conclusion is required to prove the second premise, and well, it becomes messy. Then there is the Red Herrings, a series of fallacies designed to divert the argument. Such as pointing out the argument’s hypocrisy, and so on and so forth. Or a famous one is the Straw Man, that is when we modify the argument so it still sounds similar but different enough and simpler enough so we can break it. Like if I am arguing about how religion is misused and has been corrupted, and suddenly someone says I am accusing religion to be completely horrible and must be destroyed.

           

 Then there is the hasty generalization, that is when we generalize things without any sufficient evidence. This is the core of discrimination usually. There are so much more fallacies, but it is not that necessary to remember all of it. As we can easily disprove an argument by pointing out the violations of logical laws, or the truth of the premises.

In Relation to All Studies

           

 When one says that science and God is in different domains is a false assumption. Because science came from applying logical laws on information gained through observation. While the idea of God came from applying logical laws to the question of the cause of it all. As a result, every study out there has a basic commonality, that is they are all based on logic. So if we can not scientifically proof God, then we can logically prove God, as I did.

            

And furthermore, whether we realize it or not, we also practice logic in a daily basis. People say that when we study, we don’t just know the knowledge, but we must also understand it. As we may know that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell, but if we don’t understand what it actually means, it’s meaningless. As a result, when teachers teach us about reading strategies, that is applying logic so we can understand the meaning of a certain passage. Or when we are writing, we are applying logic on how to make the writing sound good. In conclusion, we use logic everyday.

The Importance of Logic

          

Logic is essential to human survival, or most call it critical thought. We have to use logic to understand why things happen, or just to appreciate art. We need logic to decide on which candidate to use in an election, or just deciding which brand of soap is the best. But our abilities of critical thought can be eroded away, slowly by slowly if we don’t use it. This is evident if we keep playing games that doesn’t induce heavy critical thinking, or if we don’t study seriously, or something else. And when logic is not enforced, we can get very foolish. An effect of people not thinking critically is them falling into horrible ideologies, which explains the reemergence of the alt right in Europe, or the Islamist Extremist threat in Indonesia.

            

But there are also factors that can cloud our mind even if we use logic properly, that is between having an open mind or a closed mind. What is an open mind? When we are open minded, we are open to any ideas, no matter how far fetched it is, and we are also able to accept that we can be wrong and we may be wrong. While when we are closed minded, we tend to feel that what we believe is already the truth, and everything else is false, we stick to the old ways, and use some assumptions, premises that is actually unsupported, to defend ourselves. And this will cause us to use various logical fallacies and so on.

Closing

            

I really feel like that my skills are getting eroded as time flies, I don’t know why, I just feel, like I can’t do this you know. If the closings are sounding more like expressions of the heart, forgive me. Yet again, I feel like this log is so very lacking, like very lacking. It seems I have to do something else to clear my mind. Anyway, that is all I can write about for now, I am sorry if it’s not as good as it used to be. I hoped you enjoyed, though unlikely, and do give me suggestions, compliments, and critiques through the comments. Have a nice day!