Logic Primer 1: What Is Logic?

Logic studies the methods that we use to analyze information and draw valid conclusions. As Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks put it, Logic really means putting your thoughts in order.1 They offer their formal definition: Logic is the study of right reason or valid inferences and the attending fallacies, formal and informal.2 Their simplified definition: Logic is a way to think so that we can come to correct conclusions by understanding implications and the mistakes people often make in thinking.3 According to Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen in their Introduction to Logic, Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning.4 Christian philosopher Gordon Clark puts it succinctly: logic is the science of necessary inference.5 We can see from these definitions that logic consists of ordering our thoughts so that we can reason correctly. Geisler and Brooks would add: The next best thing besides godliness for a Christian is logic6 The study of logic incorporates a number of elements. At the most basic level, logic examines propositions, arguments, premises, and conclusions. The focus is the use of right thinking to come to correct conclusions. Logic incorporates the study of proper thinking as well as mistakes in thinking (fallacies). Through processes of deduction and induction, inferences are made with the aim of coming to correct conclusions. In addition, logic also deals with our use of language. The logical thinker is very concerned about precision and clarity in communication. He is concerned with the proper structure of arguments and the correct flow of thought. The student of logic seeks to be careful, methodical, and systematic. Logic is built upon four undeniable laws: 1. The law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A) 2. The law of identity (A is A) 3. The law of excluded middle (either A or non-A) 4. The law of rational inference These undeniable laws are foundational to all reason and thinking. One cannot object to the laws of logic without using them in his objection. Where did they foundational laws come from? Geisler and Brooks offer a Christian perspective: From the standpoint of reality, we understand that God is the basis of all logic. As the ultimate reality, all truth is ultimately found in him.7 In the next section, we will deal with the building blocks of logic. Terms will be defined and the basic foundation will be laid for further study.

Logic Primer 2: The Building Blocks of Logic

Now we will discuss some of the basic building blocks in the study of logic. In general, everything else is built upon these essentials. The first building block is the proposition. A proposition is something that may be asserted or denied. Propositions can be true or false; hence, they have a truth-value. In other words, a proposition is a true or false statement that says something about reality. Other statements, such as commands, questions, or exclamations are not true or false they are not propositions. An argument is any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow from the others, which are regarded as providing support or grounds for the truth of that one.1 When you have a number of propositions that lead to a conclusion, you have an argument. The conclusion of an argument is the statement that follows from the supporting propositions, which are called premises. To reiterate: an argument is composed of premises that lead to a conclusion. A conclusion without premises is not an argument; it is merely an opinion. The building blocks of arguments can often be recognized by telltale words. The words that point to the conclusion can be called conclusion-indicators: Therefore, hence, thus, so, accordingly, in consequence, consequently, as a result, it follows that, we may infer, which shows that These are all words or phrases that often point to the conclusion of an argument. The telltale words for premises can be called premise-indicators: Since, because, for, as, follows from, as shown by, as indicated by, the reason is that These are some of the words that can point to premises.2 One point should be noted when seeking to identify arguments. There is a difference between an argument and an explanation. As Copi explains: Many passages, both written and spoken, that appear to be arguments are in fact not arguments but explanations. The occurrence of certain premise- or conclusion-indicators such as because, for, and therefore cannot settle the matter, since those words may be used in both explanations and arguments. What we need to know the intention of the author of the passage.3 So the careful thinker must discern the difference between explanations and arguments by looking closely at context and intention. Arguments come in two kindsthey are either deductive or inductive. These are important terms to differentiate. When an argument is deductive, it means that the conclusion follows from the premises necessarily and conclusively. When a deductive argument is valid, it means that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. An inductive argument, on the other hand, is not a conclusive argument. When an argument is inductive, it simply means that that the conclusion may be true to a certain degree of probability. Copi clarifies: A deductive argument is one whose conclusion is claimed to follow from its premises with absolute necessity, this necessity not being a matter of degree and not depending in any way on whatever else may be the case. In sharp contrast, an inductive argument is one whose conclusion is claimed to follow from its premises only with probability, this probability being a matter of degree and dependent upon what else may be the case.4 One way to look at this is as follows: in a deductive argument, no amount of additional information can change the conclusion of the argument. In an inductive argument, the conclusion may change when new information is discovered. Deductive arguments are certain, whereas inductive arguments are probable to some degree. When an argument is structured correctly, it is called a valid argument. When an argument is not correctly structured, it is called invalid. An argument cannot be true or false, only valid or invalid. Truth or falsity

only applies to statements or propositions. The conclusion of an argument can be true or false (because the conclusion is a statement), but the argument is only either valid or invalid. Finally, when an argument is valid, and all of its premises are true, it is called a sound argument. This is the kind of argument the good thinker is looking for.

Logic Primer 3: Thinking Logically

Logical thinking is a process. As long as the rules are not broken, the thought process will bring good conclusions. Now we will look at logical syllogisms. The most basic logical structure is the syllogism. The syllogism is a deductive argument consisting of premises and a conclusion.1 It should be noted from the outset that for each of the following syllogisms presented, pages and pages could be (and have been) written with much more detail, explanation, and exceptions. What has been presented here is only a cursory glance at each one and should be treated as such. The reader is encouraged to delve into a more systematic textbook to explore fully. A categorical syllogism is composed of two unconditional statements that lead deductively to an unconditional conclusion. An example of a categorical syllogism is as follows: 1. All cats are mammals. 2. Fuzzy is a cat. 3. Therefore, Fuzzy is a mammal. The categorical syllogism has various forms and moods, which will not be detailed here, but the basic form simply entails two statements leading to a conclusion. Hypothetical syllogisms take the form of a hypothetical statement. This syllogism has the word IF at its core. The hypothetical proposition uses the word if to make a conditional statement: if one state of affairs is true, then another state of affairs will follow. The first hypothetical syllogism is the Modus Ponens, structured like this: If P, then Q. P. Therefore, Q. Modus ponens means way of affirmation in Latin because it affirms the antecedent of the first proposition. One form of the cosmological argument takes the form of modus ponens: If a contingent being exists, then a necessary being must exist as its cause. A contingent being exists. Therefore, a necessary being must exist as its cause.2 The other hypothetical syllogism is called Modus Tollens, which means the way of denial. This form of syllogism denies the consequent (the then Q part of the first statement). It is structured like this: If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, Not P. Disjunctive Syllogisms are either/or sentences. One statement is made with two alternatives, of which only one can be true.3 The disjunctive syllogism looks like this: Either P or Q. Not Q. Therefore, P. The way the disjunctive syllogism works requires for one alternate to be denied for the other one to be true. It is a fallacy to affirm one alternate to eliminate the other, because it is possible for them both to be true. Geisler and Brooks offer an excellent example of this fallacy found in Bertrand Russells book Why I am not a Christian:

Life was caused either by evolution or by design. Life was caused by evolution. Therefore, it was not caused by design (so there is no reason to posit God). Geisler and Brooks explain: This approach commits the formal fallacy of affirming one alternate. Even if the minor premise were true, the conclusion would not follow. For it is possible that both are true; that is, that evolution is designed.4 The conjunctive syllogisms take the form of bothand statements. Here is the form: Both P and Q are true. Therefore, P. Therefore, Q. The conjunctive syllogism is fairly straightforward. Both terms in the first statement are separated and can be affirmed individually. The Dilemma form of syllogism takes two hypothetical syllogisms and weds them with a disjunction. Here is what the dilemma looks like: (If P, then Q) and (If R, then S). P or R. Therefore, Q or S. The mathematician Pascal presented a dilemma with this syllogism: If God exists, I have everything to gain by believing in him. And if God does not exist, I have nothing to lose by believing in him. Either God does exist or he does not exist. Therefore, I have everything to gain or nothing to lose by believing in God.5 The final syllogism presented here is the Sorites. This comes from a Greek word meaning heap. The premises are stacked together in a heap to come to a final conclusion. An example: All A are B...............or...............If A then B All B are C...............or...............If B then C All C are D...............or...............If C then D Therefore, all A are D......or.....Therefore, if A then D. That is a basic look at basic logical syllogisms.

Logic Primer 4: A Look at Language

In the study of logic, language plays a key role. Clarity in language is essential in order to communicate accurate meaning. The goal when looking at language is to determine the intentof the communication. Determining the intent or goal of your communication and understanding the intent of the one you are communicating with is the crucial first step in gaining clarity. Language, according to Copi, can serve three functions. The first function is to communicate information. The second function is express emotions or feelings. The third function is to cause or to prevent action.1 All communication will fall into these categories. Is the speaker informing, expressing, or directing? Exactly what are you trying to communicate? Choose words and language that is as precise and accurate as possible to convey that meaning. If our aim is to communicate information, and if we wish to avoid being misunderstood, we should use language with the least possible emotive impact.2 Defining words is the next critical part of clear communication. Many times communication gets muddled because the words and meanings are simply unclear, vague, ambiguous, or otherwise confusing. In response, a number of definitions can be used to bring clarity of meaning. First, lexical definitions are used to define words that are already commonly known. This eliminates ambiguity in communication by simply citing the common definition of a word in use. Second, stipulative

definitions act to assign a particular meaning to terms newly introduced to the dialogue. Again, this sort of definition eliminates ambiguity. It simply assigns (stipulates) a definition to a new term being used. A third method of clarifying language is the precising definition, which reduces vagueness by bringing a more specific meaning to a term. This sort of definition increases accuracy and exactness. Other types of definitions can be presented, but for our purposes it will suffice to simply point out that defining terms is of utmost importance when seeking to communicate clearly and think logically. When language is clear and the terms are clearly understood, then the arguments can be evaluated. Clarifying through questions is another crucial part of good communication. In a dialogue it is common that words and phrases are used that could be taken a number of different ways. If someone says that something was interesting, the meaning here could be difficult to discern. It falls short of adding much description. Does the person mean they didnt like it? Do they mean they were captivated? This word is vague. When vague words are used, clarifying questions such as, How do you mean? What do you mean by that? and Could you explain? add more depth and detail to the communication. When someone uses words that can be taken in different ways, their words are ambiguous. If someone describes a concert as bad, do they mean cool or not good? Of course, in personal verbal communication the meaning can usually be easily discerned from the context, tone, and body language of the communicator. However, in written communication, such indicators are missing. One must depend on context alone to discern the meaning. That is why clarity is essential. Another variant of ambiguous use of words is equivocation. This happens when the communicator uses a particular word X with meaning Y, but then later uses word X with meaning Z. For instance, one could use the term evolution to mean change over time, but then later in discourse the meaning has shifted to molecules to man. When someone asks the question, do you believe in evolution? it is important to eliminate ambiguity and define the use of the word for the conversation in order to prevent equivocation and confusion. Amphibole happens when a phrase is said (or written) that is ambiguous. For instance, the sentence, I live by the river; drop in some time3 is an amphibole because of ambiguity in grammatical construction. The clear communicator avoids ambiguity. The rule of thumb as a listener is to ask clarifying questions whenever you are unsure of the meaning, if the communication is unclear, and when you need more information. If you are the communicator, seek as much clarity as possible so that your meaning is understood. Clear communication is essential to accurate understanding.

Logic Primer 5: Logical Fallacies

Today we will look at logical fallacies. A fallacy is simply an error in thinking. Certain errors are so common they have been classified and named. These are the sorts of fallacies we are dealing with here. There are two primary categories of fallacies: formal and informal. Formal fallacies have to do with the logical structure of an argument. If the logical structure is incorrect, then the argument has committed a fallacy. Informal fallacies have to do with errors of thinking that happen apart from the structure of an argument. These could include such things as appeals to emotions, personal character attacks, and ambiguous language.

When it comes to informal logic, the tendency for the beginner is to gravitate immediately to the fallacies. Immediate benefit can be gained by understanding where thinking may have gone wrong. However, the student of logic is encouraged to be careful not to label every apparent fallacy they can find. This is not only in many cases impolite, it is not very productive. Recognizing fallacies is only the first step. But bringing proper thinking and clarity to an issue can be the real challange. Every case has its own particular elements, so more information is always helpful to determine the strengths and weaknesses of arguments. Ideally, when a fallacy is recognized it can be corrected without a sort of "gotcha" attitude. The principle of charity and a gracious manner are essential in seeking common understanding, rather than simply becoming a fallacy-finder. Because the fallacies cover such a broad range, they are beyond the scope of one post. In addition, many excellent resources can be found on the web for studying the fallacies. Although many good resources are found in print, good audio resources are few. That is why we have provided here an audio podcastadaptation of Stephen's Guide to Logical Fallacies, one of the well-known fallacy sites on the web. Permission has been granted by logician Stephen Downes. The purpose of the podcast is to introduce and summarize the fallacies and provide examples and solutions to the errors.