LOGIC, CRITICAL THINKING & REASONING

METHODS

C u l l e d w i t h a u t h o r s’ p e r m i s s i o n f o r p e d a g o g i c a l p u r p o s e s f r o m

PRESENT-DAY COMMUNICATION SKILLS IN ENGLISH

A COURSE TEXT FOR TERTIARY SCHOOLS
(Undergoing publication processes) ISBN 13: 9798335254892
By Kasimawo R Stephen, & Ogedengbe E Blessing
16.1 LOGIC AND SYLLOGISM

Logic can be explained as the science of reasoning. It is a science which

directs the operations of the mind in the attainment of truth. It is not an
empirical science like Chemistry or Biology, but rather a non-empirical
science like Mathematics. Hintikka (2024), defines it as ‘the study of
correct reasoning, especially as it involves the drawing of inferences’. For
instance, an assertion is said to be true when it corresponds to the reality of
which the assertion is made. But the verbal statement is merely the
outward expression of the thought within. It is our thoughts which are
properly said to be true or erroneous. Truth may be defined as the
conformity of the intellect with its object. Thus, if I see a white horse
and judge 'That horse is white’, my judgment is said to be true,
because my thought corresponds with the thing about which I am
judging (Barrett, 2013; Borchert, 2006; Kasimawo, 2017d).
The study of logic includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is
the science of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It studies how
conclusions follow from premises due to the structure of arguments alone,
independent of their topic and content (Benthem, 2023; Bobzien, 2020;
Borchert, 2006). Informal logic is associated with informal fallacies, critical
thinking, and argumentation theory. It examines arguments expressed
in natural language while formal logic uses formal language. When used as
a count noun, the term ‘a logic’ refers to a logical formal system that
articulates a proof system. Logic plays a central role in many fields, such
as philosophy, mathematics, computer science, and linguistics (Benthem,
2023; Bobzien, 2020; Borchert, 2006).
Furthermore, logic studies arguments, which consist of a set of premises
together with a conclusion. An example is the argument from the premises
‘it's Sunday’ and ‘if it's Sunday then I don't have to work’ to the conclusion
‘I don't have to work’ (Velleman, 2006). Premises and conclusions express
propositions or claims that can be true or false. An important feature of
propositions is their internal structure. Simple propositions also have parts,
like ‘Sunday’ or ‘work’ in the example. The truth of a proposition usually
depends on the meanings of all of its parts. However, this is not the case for
logically true propositions. They are true only because of their logical
structure independent of the specific meanings of the individual parts
(Benthem, 2023; Bobzien, 2020; Borchert, 2006).
Arguments can be either correct or incorrect. An argument is correct if its
premises support its conclusion. Deductive arguments have the strongest form of
support: if their premises are true then their conclusion must also be true. This is not
the case for ampliative arguments, which arrive at genuinely new information not
found on the premises. Many arguments in everyday discourse and the sciences
are ampliative arguments (Benthem, 2023; Bobzien, 2020; Borchert, 2006;
Velleman, 2006; Vickers, 2022).
They are divided into inductive and abductive arguments (Bobzien, 2020;
Borchert, 2006; Benthem, 2023). Inductive arguments are statistical
generalizations, like inferring that all ravens are black based on many individual
observations of black ravens (Velleman, 2006; Vickers, 2022;
Kasimawo, 2017d). Abductive arguments are inferences to the best
explanation, for example, when a doctor concludes that a patient
has a certain disease which explains the symptoms they suffer (Nunes,
2011). Arguments that fall short of the standards of correct reasoning often
embody fallacies. Systems of logic are theoretical frameworks for assessing
the correctness of arguments (Velleman, 2006; Vickers, 2022).
ACTS OF THE MIND

The act of the mind in which the mind can attain truth is the judgment ie
the act by which the mind affirms or denies something about something
else. That which is affirmed (or denied) of the other is called an attribute.
That to which the attribute is said to belong (or not to belong) is the
subject. Judgment can therefore be put as the act by which the mind
affirms or denies an attribute of a subject. A judgment however gives the
mind a complex object: for it involves these two parts which are subject
and attribute. Another act of the mind that can be taken into account is
that called simple apprehension. Simple apprehension is the act by
which the mind without judging, forms a concept of something.
Therefore, if I should conceive the notion of a triangle, without
however making any judgment about it, I should be said to have
formed a simple apprehension of a triangle (Barrett, 2013; Vickers,
2022).
Nonetheless, the words true or false cannot be applied to simple
apprehensions, just as we cannot say that the words in a dictionary are
true or false. Some philosophers indeed deny that the mind ever forms a
simple apprehension; they hold that in every case some judgment is made.
We can at least analyse judgment into simple apprehensions: for every
judgment requires two concepts, one in which the mind expresses the
subject, and the other in which it expresses the attribute. Therefore, in the
example given above, I must have a concept of the horse, and one of
whiteness, to say 'The horse is white’. These are the elements which go to
constitute the complex act of judgment (Barrett, 2013; Jacquette, 2002;
Lukasiewicz, 1957).
The third process/act of the mind is reasoning or inference. This is
defined as the act by which from two given judgments, the mind
passes to a third judgment distinct from these, but implied in them.
Thus if I say
All roses wither in the autumn.
This flower is a rose.
Therefore: This flower will wither in the autumn.

Or if I argue

Whatever displays the harmonious ordering of many

parts is due to an intelligent cause.

The world displays the harmonious ordering of many parts.

Therefore: The world is due to an intelligent cause.
I am said in each case to infer the third judgment. An inference of the form
which we have employed in these examples is called a syllogism. The two
judgments given are known as the premises. The judgment derived from
them is the conclusion. It is of these three acts of the mind that logic treats
and science falls correspondingly into three main divisions: logic (1) of the
Concept, (2) of the Judgment, (3) of Inference (Barrett, 2013; Jacquette,
2002; Lukasiewicz, 1957).

INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, IEP, a peer-reviewed academic
resource, (2023), an argument consists of a set of statements called premises that serve as
grounds for affirming another statement called the conclusion. Philosophers
typically distinguish arguments in natural languages (such as English) into two
fundamentally different types: deductive and inductive. Each type of argument is said to
have characteristics that categorically distinguish it from the other type. The two types of
argument are also said to be subject to differing evaluative standards. Pointing to
paradigmatic examples of each type of argument helps to clarify their key differences.
The distinction between the two types of argument may hardly
seem worthy of philosophical reflection, as evidenced by the
fact that their differences are usually presented as
straightforward, such as in many introductory philosophy
textbooks. Nonetheless, the question of how best to distinguish
deductive from inductive arguments, and indeed whether there
is a coherent categorical distinction between them at all, turns
out to be considerably more problematic than commonly
recognized.
 INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING
Deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning. Deductive
reasoning begins with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to
reach a specific, logical conclusion. It is often used in sciences to test hypotheses and
theories and occurs when a researcher works from the more general information to the
more specific. This is called the ‘top-down approach’ because the researcher begins at
the top with a very broad spectrum of information and they work their way down to a
specific conclusion. For instance, a researcher might begin with a theory about his or her
topic of interest. From there, he or she would narrow that down into more specific
hypotheses that can be tested. The hypotheses are then narrowed down even further
when observations are collected to test the hypotheses. This ultimately leads the
researcher to be able to test the hypotheses with specific data, leading to a confirmation
(or not) of the original theory and arriving at a conclusion. An example of
deductive reasoning can be seen in this set of statements:
Everyday, I leave for work in my car at eight o’clock.
Everyday, the drive to work takes 45 minutes
I arrive at work on time. Therefore, if I leave for work
at eight o’clock today, I will be on time.
The deductive statement above is a perfect logical statement, but it does rely on the
initial premise being correct. Perhaps today there is construction on the way to work and
you will end up being late. This is why any hypothesis can never be completely proved,
because there is always the possibility for the initial premise to be wrong (Barrett, 2013;
Jacquette, 2002).
Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning, moving from specific
observations to broader generalizations and theories. This is sometimes called a ‘bottom-
up’ approach. The researcher begins with specific observations and measures, begins to
then detect patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses to explore,
and finally ends up developing some general conclusions or theories. An example of
inductive reasoning can be seen in this set of statements:

Today, I left for work at eight o’clock and I arrived on time.

Therefore, every day that I leave the house at eight o’clock,
I will arrive at work on time.
While inductive reasoning is commonly used in science, it is not
always logically valid because it is not always accurate to
assume that a general principle is correct. In the example
above, perhaps ‘today’ is a weekend with less traffic, so if you
left the house at eight o’clock on a Monday, it would take
longer and you would be late for work. It is illogical to assume an
entire premise just because one specific data set seems to
suggest it.