Article 1
Logic is crucial to accurate and useful thinking, valid
communication, and avoidance of confusion. Unfortunately, if political
discourse, televangelist performances, and our ever-present hucksterism are
indicators, logic is uncommon to rare. Our day is not much different than the
communications found in history by other than philosophers, and even then, it
takes some scrutiny to be sure that even philosophers are not playing fast and
loose with their oratory and lectures. Greek philosopher Archimedes (BCE 287 –
BCE 212 BC) famously posited, “Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum strong
enough on which to place it, and I shall move the world.”
We should start with basics.
The definition of logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according
to strict principles of validity. The science that studies the formal processes
used in thinking and reasoning, and over time has resulted in a system with
codification of the principles of proof, inference, and explication. The
“system” referred to is the systematic use of symbolic and mathematical
techniques to determine the forms of valid deductive argument. Such thinking
and reasoning holds the quality of being justifiable by reason. Acceptance of
the validity of the argument suggests a proper course of action or line of
reasoning suggested or made necessary by the deductive conclusion.
Synonyms: reason, judgment, logical thought, rationality,
cognition, wisdom, sagacity, sound judgment, sense, good sense, common sense,
rationale, sanity; deduction, inference, syllogistic reasoning; coherence,
relevance; informally, it is what is meant by “horse sense.”
The problem with such informality is that it begs definition of
terms in each specific instance. One man’s reason may well be another man’s
perception of folly. Example, “the Qur’an is true because it is the direct word
of God. The Holy Book answers all questions of science, law, behavior, and
belief.” The evolutionist or other scientists beg to differ. “Most of what is
known in present day science was unknown at the time of the Prophet, and
consequently, is not in the Qur’an.”
It is necessary to understand the principle of the syllogism. By
definition: A syllogism is a three-part logical argument, based on deductive
reasoning. In logic, a syllogism (categorical argument or a standard
categorical syllogism) is a form of deductive reasoning consisting of a major
premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. The term syllogism comes from the
Greek word meaning, “to infer, to count, and/or to reckon.”
A syllogism is valid (i.e. logical) when its conclusion follows
from its premises. A syllogism is true when it makes accurate claims—that is,
when the information it contains is consistent with the facts. To be sound, a
syllogism must be both valid and true. However, a syllogism may be valid
without being true or true without being valid. Different fallacies of logic
may apply.
A few simple examples should suffice for a sound syllogism—a sound
argument:
Major premise: All mammals are warm-blooded. (a true statement).
Minor premise: All cows are mammals. (a true statement and
pertinent to the argument)
Conclusion: Therefore, all cows are warm-blooded. (because the
major and minor premises are true, it must follow that the conclusion is true,
and the entire syllogism is a sound one).
An example of a true and valid syllogism relates to Socrates.
Major premise: All men are mortals.
Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is a mortal.
The major premise of a syllogism makes a general statement that
the writer or speaker believes to be true and is backed by verifiable and
plausible evidence. The minor premise presents a specific example of the belief
that is stated in the major premise and is related and pertinent to the
statement contained in the major premise. If the reasoning is sound in those
two premises, the conclusion should follow and the syllogism contains a true
explanation of the subject, albeit within limited and clearly defined
boundaries.
It is apparent that many people do not give attention to such
strict thinking, speaking, and writing. It, therefore, is incumbent on the
listener or reader to know what is sound or not sound about the statements of
his debate opponent. It is necessary to know a complicated set of definitions
of what constitutes a fallacy of logic and why. The next article will begin the
effort to make clear the nature of fallacies.
Neurosurgeon Turned Author Writes With Gripping Realism
No comments:
Post a Comment