Introduction to Logic

Why are you late?

A king moves one square in any direction. Because I’m not early.
But, Solomon is a king.
Therefore, Solomon moves one square in any direction.

Driver: Sir, do we turn left?

God sees through everything. Passenger: Right.
God sees through bathroom walls.
God sees through bathrobes.

Recycle clothes and waste paper

The following statement is false.

Mr. Marcos is a billionaire.
The preceding statement is true.
Mr. Marcos is a Filipino.
Therefore, All Filipinos are billionaires.

Lost: the dog of a lady with a long tail

We have to be generous to others. Therefore, during

examinations we have to share pur answers with our
seatmate to show that we are generous.
 Logic is ...
• the study of the methods and principles used
to distinguish correct from incorrect
reasoning.

• the science and art of valid inferential

reasoning
 Logic is..
• only concerned with the “correctness” or the
“validity” of reasoning (and not about truth)

• solely interested in the logical necessity

(consequential relation) existing between the
premises and the conclusion
 Logic...
• Reasoning is valid if and when the conclusion is
necessarily inferred from the premises.

(If X, then Y) and (If W, then Z)

X or W
Therefore, Y or Z

*logic is interested in the form of reasoning, its validity or

correctness, irrespective of whether or not the premises
of this reasoning agree with the facts.
 Validity
• True Premises, True Conclusion • Valid: Squares are three sided polygons
• • Triangles are squares
• Valid: Lawyers are professionals. • Triangles are three-sided polygons
• Justices are lawyers. •  
• Justices are professionals. • Invalid: Doctors are birds.
•   • Surgeons are birds.
• Invalid: Lawyers are professionals. • Surgeons are doctors.
• Justices are professionals. •  
• Justices are lawyers. • False Premises, False Conclusion
•   •  
• True Premises, False Conclusions • Valid: Triangles are squares.
•   • Circles are triangles.
• Invalid: Squares are polygons • Circles are squares.
• Triangles are polygons •  
• Triangles are squares • Invalid: Triangles are squares.
• Circles are squares.
• Circles are triangles.
•  
• False Premises, True conclusion
•  
 Definition of Logic
• Etymological -> logike (gk.) – treatise on
matters pertaining to thought (by Zeno of
Elea)

• Real -> the science and art of valid inferential

reasoning
 Definition of Logic
• Logic is a science -> in as much as it follows
certain scientific laws, patterns and principles
in arriving at valid reasoning

• Logic is an art -> in as much as the mastery of

its technique enables the mind to reason out
in an easy, orderly and safe manner
 Object of study
• Formal object-> inferential functions of
concepts and propositions or logical relations
of propositions (rules of eduction and
syllogism, truth tables and validity)

• Material object -> concepts and conceptual

structures (terms, propositions, syllogisms,
informal fallacies, symbols)
 Formal and Material Logic
• Formal Logic – discusses the conceptual patterns
or structures needed for inference (main
concern is validity and correctness of reasoning)

• Material Logic – discusses the kind of matter,

that is the nature of terms and premises that are
used in the different kinds of demonstration
given in the latter part of logic (its concern
involves truth, correspondence to facts)
 Importance of Studying Logic
• It helps one to reason out validly
• It makes us more critical and analytical
• It helps us think systematically
• It helps us detect fallacies and errors in reasoning
• It helps us to distinguish valid from invalid
reasoning
• It enables us to persuade people
• It develops in us self-confidence
 Divisions of Logic and Acts of the Intellect

Acts of the Intellect Mental Product External Sign Logical Issue

Simple Idea (s) Term (s) Predicability

Apprehension

Judgment Enunciation Proposition Predication

Reasoning Argumentation Syllogism Inference

 Three Acts of the Intellect
• 1. Simple Apprehension – the first act of the
intellect wherein the mind mentally grasps a
thing without affirming or denying anything
about it.

• Product: idea
• External Sign: term
• Example: book, everybody, conventional
 Three Acts of the Intellect
• 2. Judgment – the second act of the intellect
wherein we join two understood terms obtained
in simple apprehension by affirmation or
decompose the two terms by negation.

• Product: Enunciation
• External Sign: Panda is a meat eater.
Some musicians are also painters.
 Three Acts of the Intellect
• 3. Reasoning – is the third act of the intellect
wherein we draw a conclusion from a given set of
validly joined premises.

• Product: Argumentation
• External Sign: Syllogism
• Example: A square is a four sided polygon. But a
circle is not a four sided polygon.
Therefore, a circle is not a square.
 Development of Logic
• A. Pre-Aristotelian Logic in Greek
-used logic to argue against each other and
defend their ideas

• ELEATICS – Zeno of Elea

• SOPHISTS- Gorgias, Thrasymachus
• MEGARICS - Euclides
 Development of Logic
• B. Aristotelian Logic
- Aristotle formalized a systematic study of logic (Oganon)

• Aristotle combined
*Socrates’ idea of universal definition,
*Zeno’s reductio ad absurdum,
*Parmenides’ and Plato’s claims about propositional structure
and negation
*the argumentative techniques found in legal reasoning and
geometrical proofs
 Development of Logic
• C. Post-Aristotelian Logic in Greece
-continuation and further development of
Aristotle’s Organon and the search for a
criterion of truth (beginnings of Epistemology)

• Theophrastus – hypothetical syllogism

• Eudemus, - responsible for incorporating logic
into philosophy
 Development of Logic
• D. The Greek and Latin Commentators
-the handing down of knowledge from the Greek to the
Romans

Alexander of Aprhodisias and St. John of Damascus on the

problem of universals
Galen – 4th syllogistic figure and the fallacies of Diction
Andronicus of Rhodes – compiled and organized Aristotle’s
works
Cicero – wrote the 1st logical treatise in Latin
 Development of Logic
• E. The Scholastics and the Crusaders
-improvement of Aristotelian logic and the
incorporation of logic into the sciences
Marciannus Capella – De Nuptiis Mercurii et
Philologiae
Boethius – translated Aristotle’s works into Latin
Peter Abelard – composed an independent
treatise on logic
 Development of Logic
• F. Modern Logic
-aims at escaping the ambiguity of language
-development of the inductive method way
of reasoning and symbolic logic

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz – envisioned the

development of a universal language to be
specified with mathematical precision
 Development of Logic
• 3 Overlapping Traditions in the Development of Logic
1. Algebraic School – focus on the relationship between
correct reasoning and operations like addition ad
multiplication
2. Logicist School – aimed to codify The underlying logic
of all rational, scientific discourse into a single system
3. Mathematical School – axiomatization of particular
branches of mathematics like geometry, arithmetic,
analysis and set theory.
 An Invitation to Logic
• Protagoras was a Sophist who lived in Greece during the 5th century B.C. He taught many subjects but specialized in
the art of pleading before juries. Eulathus wanted to become a lawyer but not being able to pay the required
tuition, he made an arrangement according to which Protagoras would teach him but not receive payment until
Eulathus won his first case. When Eulathus finished his course of study, he delayed going into practice. Tired of
waiting for the money due him, Protagoras brought suit against his former pupil for the fee that was owed.
Unmindful of the adage that the lawyer who tries his own case has a fool for client, Eulathus decided to plead his
own case in court, when trial began, Protagoras presented his side of the case in a crashing dilemma:

• If Eulathus loses this case, then he must pay me (by the judgment of the court).
• If he wins this case, then he must pay me (by the terms of the contract).
• But, he must either win or lose this case;
• Therefore, Eulathus must pay me

• Eulathus rebutted the dilemma showing that he had learned to argue effectively under the tutelage of Protagoras:

• If I win this case, I shall not pay Protagoras (by the judgment of the court)
• If I lose this case, I shall not pay Protagoras (by the terms of the contract)
• But , I must either win or lose;
• Therefore, I do not have to pay Protagoras.

Were you the judge how would you handle the case?