LOGIC
WHAT IS LOGIC?
A. A MULTI-PERSPECTIVAL
PROFILE
1. Etymology (the historical origin or
derivation of a word): Greek: logikē or logikos = well-ordered
speech, well-functioning reason, systematic thought, intelligibility. Compare
the prominent Greek concept logos = speech, discourse, word, thought,
reason, explanatory account, ordering principle, underlying intelligibility.
2. Historical origin: The
ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BCE) is generally
acknowledged as the “father of Western logic.” Certainly, the pre-Aristotelian
Greek intellectual tradition (Presocratic philosophers, the Sophists, Socrates,
Plato, Parmenides, Pythagoras, Euclid, Archimedes, Zeno, etc.) had developed and
utilized logical techniques (and, in the case of the Sophists, fallaciously
deceptive techniques aimed at pragmatic success rather than truth). However,
Aristotle far surpassed his philosophical predecessors by establishing logic as
1) the fundamental intellectual standard and methodological framework of
scientific inquiry, and 2) an autonomous, basic branch of all philosophical
inquiry insofar as logical reasoning is a prerequisite skill for
all fields of study or research. Accordingly, he transformed the concepts and
principles of correct reasoning into a multi-dimensional system of scientific
inquiry and discovery. Aristotle interprets logic as an indispensable
(ineliminable, prerequisite) methodological foundation for every form of
scientific knowledge and a necessary instrument in any theoretical or practical
inquiry. Hence, later editors of his five logical treatises (see below) entitled
them to organon = tool, instrument, apparatus, or method.
Aristotelian logic is often referred to as traditional or
syllogistic logic (see Hurley, chaps. 4-5).
3. Scientific standard:
From an academic or educational perspective, logic is the
standards or principles of correct reasoning. Logical principles,
norms, rules, or standards function as normative criteria for evaluating claims
to knowledge and all forms of reasoning. Accordingly, as a scientific
standard, logic consists of a body of systematic principles, methodical
techniques, technical terminology, and logical theory. In this context, logic is
an academic discipline, an independent field of study, and basic branch of
Western philosophy devoted to classifying, analyzing, and evaluating arguments
(or inferences). Therefore, logic involves critical judgment* since it
distinguishes between (and thereby evaluates) correct and incorrect
reasoning. Following from this quality, logic is primarily concerned with the
form (structure or pattern) of reasoning, not with the content
(particular subject matter) of arguments. This scientific definition of logic
stresses its theoretical, methodological, formal and normative nature.
* The word “critical” derives
from two Greek roots, kriticos = discerning judgment + kriterion =
standards. Etymologically, therefore, the term implies the development of
discerning judgment based on standards.
4. Practical Art or Performance Skill:
Logic is defined from a practical perspective as the acquired
intellectual capacity to appropriately apply logical principles and methods to a
wide range of theoretical and practical problems: personal, professional,
academic, legal, social, scientific, political, interpersonal, communal, etc.
Consequently, logic defined as a practical, performative competence is exhibited
in a variety of interrelated reasoning skills (skill set):
- Evidential
reasoning: An interest in, capacity for, and
practice of reasoning on the basis of relevant and sufficient
evidence. One skilled at determining the suitable standards for
identifying what sort of evidence is relevant to a particular problem,
and how much weight and significance to place on any given piece of
evidence. One who uses logical techniques appropriately to form well-founded
judgments of all kind (theoretical, practical, affective, etc.). Professional
examples: criminal detective work, medical diagnosis, legal judgment, auto
repair troubleshooting, advertising and marketing, engineering, etc.
- Consistent
reasoning: A person with a developed sensitivity to,
and consequent criticism of, logical inconsistency, contradiction, and
incoherence. Like Socratic cross-examination (Greek: elenchus),
coherent reasoning discerns how the logical implications of a thesis or
concept may lead to a logical contradiction (which is a logical
impossibility, like “X and not-X are simultaneously true in
every respect). In Latin, this ancient form of logical refutation was termed
reductio ad absurdum, meaning, “reduction to non-sense or
absurdity.”
- Analytical
reasoning (analysis): The ability to break down
complex problems into their component parts. The capacity to precisely
distinguish closely related yet easily confused concepts or objects.
Analytical reasoning also includes general definitional skills, the
capacity to analyze X (a concept, term, word, historical event,
perplexing experience, complex problem, personality, etc.) into its diverse
yet interrelated semantic senses.
- Synthetic reasoning
(synthesis): The intellectual capacity to frame or
place (contextualize) a problem in its broadest context (whether historical,
scientific, cultural, social, etc.), perceiving its connection to other
problems (realities, events objects, etc.). The ability to problem-solve
through creative recourse to similar problems in other areas (see
analogical reasoning). The capacity to organize or integrate any
identifiable entity into a larger, comprehensive, coherent structure or
framework. In the context of dialogue or critical discussion,
synthetic reasoning is the ability to perceive emerging patterns or formations
of interrelated meanings (cf. the psychological concept of gestalt)
in the interactive process of dialogical interplay. In general, synthetic
reasoning is an acquired awareness of logical relations on a larger
scale.
- Empirical reasoning
(e.g., generalization):
The intellectual ability to conceptualize (infer, abstract, extract, draw out)
general truths (principles, laws, norms, concepts) on the evidential
basis of relevant and sufficient instances (cases, examples). This is a common
form of probabilistic reasoning called inductive generalization. In
contrast to analogical reasoning, inductive generalization not only identifies
hitherto unnoticed similarities between distinct objects or spheres, but also
generates a conceptual category or general class under which
distinct instances have been subsumed. For example, a young child, upon
experiencing only red roses in his or her environment, might draw (mistakenly)
the general conclusion that “roses are red,” meaning that all roses
share the common characteristic of redness. The child has reasoned from
many particular instances of red roses to the general concept that all
roses, as members of a class or category, exhibit an identical property
(redness) beyond mere resemblance (analogical reasoning).
- Deductive
reasoning: The ability to draw out (infer,
deduce) the logical implications or consequences inherent (contained
within) in X (concept, event, reality, definition, object, etc.).
The general logical capacity to render explicit what is implicit, to
perceive implied relations, and to draw out (infer, deduce) logical
implications or consequences.
- Analogical
reasoning: The intellectual capacity to perceive
pertinent similarities (or relevant resemblances) between different
objects (ideas, events, things, etc.) and to reason on the basis of the
perceived analogy or comparison. Such perceived similarities may provide
grounds (premises) for an argument or may initiate the gradual
construction (by a process of abstraction) of a formal concept. Analogical
reasoning is exhibited at an early developmental stage but is also
utilized at later stages.
- Explanatory
reasoning: Intellectual skill at causal
reasoning, such as diagnostic trouble-shooting (auto mechanic), criminal
detective work, medical diagnosis, psychiatric counseling, historical
interpretation, scientific hypothesizing about the cause of X,
everyday explanations of events and behavior, etc. The intellectual
ability to provide an account of why X is true, why X
exists, why X happened, or why X is happening, i.e.,
demonstrating the causal basis or raison d’être (reason for being)
of X.
- Abstract
reasoning: The very general intellectual
capacity to engage in formal (procedural, abstract, conceptual)
thinking, i.e., thinking that perceives purely formal relations apart
from the specific, particular, concrete content that exhibits
such relations. Hence, intellectual abstraction separates or extracts the
form from the content. Example: After experiencing car tires,
dinner plates, and Frisbees, a young child suddenly realizes (concludes)
that they all embody the same geometrical shape or form: circularity.
Or, another example, at a particular age we begin to think of purely
formal or mathematical relations between numbers (5 + 5 = 10) rather than
the concrete content such numbers might designate (5 fingers + 5 fingers =
10 fingers).
5. Attitude or Disposition:
One may be logical or illogical in their attitudes or affective dispositional
traits. Attitudes tend to be preconscious or unexamined, but they don’t need to
be that way. Quite often, specific types of attitudes, and their consequent
actions, impede logical reasoning: prejudice, egocentrism, ethnocentrism, blind
loyalty, provincialism, dogmatism, psychological defense mechanism,
rationalization, stereotyping, superstition, wishful thinking, etc. These
illogical attitudes impede the art of objectivity. Therefore, on an
attitudinal level, logic is reflected in the following intellectual virtues
or rational attitudes:
- Intellectual
open-mindedness: A willingness to consider all sides
of an issue and to follow the evidence wherever it leads (to its logical
conclusion). Not being dogmatic, that is, willing to fairly consider any
counterevidence and in general be open to different arguments and positions.
Note Well: Being open-minded does not require that one be
dispassionately neutral, nonpartisan (without allegiances or affiliations),
indifferent, or lacking emotional, deeply-held commitments. However, one must
be constantly self-critical lest reasoned commitments gradually degenerate
into entrenched prejudices impervious (not open to any external
influence, not penetrable) to counterevidence or counterargument.
- Intellectual
impartiality: Granting, as a matter of logical and
moral principle, competing positions or arguments a fair hearing, that
is, being fair-minded, without bias, prejudice or preferential
treatment. One should bear this logical trait in mind especially when you have
very strong feelings regarding an issue. Intellectual impartiality treats all
viewpoints alike, without reference to one's vested interests or to the vested
interests of family, friends, community or nation. Consequently, intellectual
impartiality implies an adherence to normative intellectual standards, without
any consideration of advantage to oneself or one's group.
- Intellectual
empathy: The capacity to decenter oneself, that is,
to achieve some reflective and disciplined distance from one’s own views in
order to look at an issue from another person’s perspective. Cf. the
proverbial “walk a mile in my shoes” as a concrete analogy of this mental
capacity for role reversal. Not egocentric, or by extension, not
ethnocentric. Being conscious of the logical need and benefits of
imaginatively adopting the position or perspective of others in order to
understand them more genuinely. Intellectual empathy requires a conscious
awareness of our egocentric (ethnocentric, provincial) tendency to
identify truth with our immediate, given, unexamined, and long-standing
beliefs. Intellectual empathy also consist in the logical ability to
reconstruct accurately the viewpoints and reasoning of others and to
reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than one’s own. Lastly,
intellectual empathy involves the disciplined practice of recalling
occasions in the past when we were wrong despite an intense conviction that we
were right. Concomitantly, it also involves the ability to imaginatively
project the possibility of our being similarly deceived in the present or
future. A representative selection of egocentric mechanisms include: 1)
egocentric memory
2) egocentric myopia (shortsightedness) 3) egocentric illusion (subjectivism)
4) egocentric self-righteousness 5) egocentric hypocrisy 6) egocentric
oversimplification 7) egocentric blindness 8) egocentric immediacy, and 9)
egocentric absurdity.
- Intellectual
autonomy: Involves an internal motivation to be
intellectually independent, that is, to affirm one’s beliefs based on the
rational ideal of thinking for oneself. Intellectual autonomy implies
that one’s beliefs, values, and ways of thinking (worldview) are the result of
rational self-determination. An intellectually autonomous person is not
dependent on others for the interpretive direction and continuous control of
his or her reasoning processes and consequent belief system. Intellectual
autonomy is a kind of intellectual conscience (Friedrich Nietzsche’s
expression) that carries a strong personal sense of intellectual
accountability for one’s views, i.e., a responsibility to justify one’s
beliefs, on the basis of credible evidence, to oneself and to others.
Intellectual self-discipline is a subset of intellectual autonomy and
begets a methodical mindset that develops, disciplines, and trains one’s
intellectual attitudes and practices. It is an exercise of constant
self-criticism and correction in the light of new evidence, problems, or
context. This rigorous intellectual disciplining of distorting attitudes and
affects (obstacles or impediments) is required if one is to achieve and
practice the autonomous art of rational objectivity. However,
this intellectual independence does not preclude (render impossible) a
well-founded recognition and respect for genuine intellectual
expertise. Reasonable recognition of intellectual authorities should be
precisely distinguished from an irrational attitude of uncritical dependence
(heteronomy). Contrasted with intellectual heteronomy.
- Intellectual
humility: An awareness of the limits of one's
knowledge (cf. Socratic ignorance and cross-examination) and a critical
sensitivity to situations in which one's native egocentrism may function
self-deceptively. In particular, a conscious awareness and corrective
monitoring of the particular biases, prejudices and limitations of one's
viewpoint. Moreover, an intellectually humble person only claims to know what
he or she actually does know (the opposite of intellectual arrogance, conceit
or pretentiousness). Accordingly, it implies a continuous and critical
self-examination of one’s claims to knowledge and the absence of inflated
intellectual conceit. Consistent, critical self-examination typically leads to
informed insight into the logical basis, or lack thereof, of one's beliefs.
Intellectual humility does not, however, imply a docile intellectual
submissiveness or subservience. It does imply, however, the intellectual and
emotional maturity (psychological security) to accept civil criticism without
taking it as a personal insult. Finally, intellectual humility involves the
intellectual capacity and practice of suspending judgment (Greek:
epochê; Cf. Pyrrhonian skepticism, Descartes, and Husserlian
phenomenology) on an issue whenever insufficient evidence renders rational
evaluation premature.
- Intellectual
courage: The acquired ability to adopt and promote
controversial or unusual viewpoints, even in the face of negative consequences
from one’s family, friends, community or country. Dramatic historical examples
include Socrates, Jesus, Martin Luther, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King.
Intellectual courage also includes the capacity to critically and fairly
examine viewpoints toward which we have strong negative emotions.
Consequently, we typically do not give such viewpoints a serious and fair
hearing. Intellectual courage also recognizes that ideas traditionally
considered false (or even dangerous, absurd, heretical, heterodox,
revolutionary, radical, etc.) are, as proven by history, sometimes rationally
justified (in whole or in part). Intellectual courage involves an awareness
that the personal beliefs inculcated in us through socialization or
enculturation are sometimes false or misleading. Intellectual courage does
not passively and uncritically accept the conventional beliefs of one’s
culture because, among other reasons, unorthodox ideas (e.g., Copernicus’
heliocentric model of the cosmos) traditionally considered dangerous or absurd
occasionally turn out to be true. Conversely, unconsciously assimilated
cultural orthodoxies (e.g., Aristotelian-Medieval geocentric model of the
cosmos) occasionally turn out to be false. Such circumstances call for
intellectual courage in order to be true to one’s our own thinking. Societal
sanctions or penalties for non-conformity can be severe (imprisonment,
torture, death, social segregation, unemployment, etc.).
- Intellectual
integrity: A deeply principled recognition of the
need to be authentic or genuine in one's thinking; to be consistently
impartial in the intellectual standards one applies; to hold oneself to the
same rigorous standards of thinking and evidence to which one holds others,
especially intellectual opponents; to practice and live what one professes to
be true or advocates for others; and to honestly recognize, and consequently
correct, irrational tendencies and logical inconsistencies in one's thinking
and practice. A person with intellectual integrity participates in dialogue,
critical discussions or debates in good faith, i.e., on the basis of a
common commitment to logical standards, principles and methods.
- Intellectual
confidence: A firmly founded confidence that the
unencumbered exercise of rationality is in everyone’s long-term, higher
interests; that, like Socrates, we should encourage people to think for
themselves by developing their own rational skills; that, with sufficient
encouragement and instruction, people can learn to form rational viewpoints,
draw reasonable conclusions, and think coherently. The sustaining faith that,
despite the deep-seated, native, and societal obstacles facing them, people
can become—admittedly with considerable effort—reasonable persons who
persuade each other through logical interaction. The alternative to rational
discussion and dialogue is shortsighted, self-destructive and well known:
raw power.
- Intellectual
perseverance: The exercise of critical
self-reflection; the capacity to step back, to disengage or detach
oneself, and to temporarily suspend judgment about oneself or a specific
intellectual problem for the purposes of critical self-examination; the
ability to look at one’s beliefs and practices through the eyes of others;
a form of reflective self-criticism conducive to clarifying and organizing
one’s belief system; not naïve, uncritical, or prereflective, but conscious of
the need to maintain intellectual standards and practices despite the
difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations; a firm adherence to rational
principles despite the irrational opposition of others; a recognition of the
rational need to continuously struggle with unresolved intellectual confusion
over an extended period of time in order to achieve deeper insight.
- Intellectual
curiosity: A deeply rooted, habitual interest in
truths of all kind (scientific, historical, logical, biological, etc.); in
continuously learning and expanding one’s intellectual horizons, in the belief
that the “life of the mind” illuminates and enriches every sphere of
existence; in excavating the subterranean interconnections, typically
unnoticed, between distinct types of truth (biological, historical, logical,
psychological, etc.); in exploring new domains of reality, experience or
knowledge, often adopting novel methods of research or inquiry.
6. Historical Types
- Aristotelian,
traditional, syllogistic, or classical:
especially categorical propositions, categorical syllogisms, and assessing
deductive validity.
- Informal:
examines the nature, types, and correctness of arguments in natural
language.
- Formal:
examines the nature, types, and correctness of arguments in symbolic
or formal language (cf. Hurley, chaps. 6-8). Examples:
propositional logic, predicate logic, modal logic, fuzzy logic, etc.
Sometimes called modern symbolic logic.
B. The Value of Logic
B.1 The General Value of Logic
- Tool, instrument, or
method applicable to numerous theoretical and practical contexts
- Improvement of
analytical and critical reasoning skills
- Development of
conceptual clarity and precision
- Enhancement of overall
problem-solving skills
- Cultivation of
intellectual discipline and organization
- Broadened range and
quality of several language skills (speaking, writing, etc.)
- Inculcation of attitude
and practice of rational objectivity
- Promotes and facilitates
acquisition of truth and knowledge
1. General applications: The formal,
structured study of logic should produce several intellectual benefits,
including the following:
-
Decreased
probability of being deceived, exploited, or manipulated by others
(including the mass media, advertisements, politicians, TV, newspapers,
radio talk shows, demagogues, propaganda, etc.)
-
Increased
ability to clarify and organize one’s belief system (worldview), which
typically tend to be half-formed, hazy, and incoherent.
-
Increased
skill in assessing arguments and knowledge claims, resulting in an
improved ability to critically acquire knowledge.
-
Improved
language skills, including writing, reading, speaking, and listening.
2. Academic or educational applications:
Although logical skills will improve one’s performance in any academic
course, they are especially helpful in math, computer, science, psychology,
history, English, law, and foreign language courses
3. Professional or work-related applications:
These include problem-solving abilities,
communication skills, wide-ranging reasoning and conceptual capabilities,
etc.
4. Personal applications:
Logical skills enable one to clarify and organize his or her
belief system, to critically reflect upon one’s views, to improve basic
problem-solving skills, and to avoid self-deception by one’s own faulty
reasoning.
5. Interpersonal applications:
Logical skills decrease the probability of being deceived by
the faulty reasoning of others, improves communication skills, and increases
one’s rational impartiality in interactions with others.
C. The Limits of
Logic
-
Restrictive
utility of logic as a tool or instrument only (not a panacea or cure-all)
-
Logic’s formal
or abstract nature (can’t determine one’s substantive values or make
life-decisions)
-
Logic can
become one-sided or extreme if not balanced by other essential human
dimensions (affective, aesthetic, spiritual, sensual, evaluative, ethical,
interpersonal, etc.) or if relied on too extensively, or even exclusively.
|
