Philosophy – Roots

◦ Derived from two Greek words Φίλος (pronounced as filos or philos) – meaning to love – and
σοφία (pronounced as sofia or sophia) – meaning wisdom.
◦ Gilbert (n.d.) defines academic philosophy as “the critical study of ideas.”
◦ By combining these two definitions, we get how we engage philosophy – with love in the critical
process of knowing ideas.
◦ Logic is in the heart of philosophy as we carefully analyze ideas to make evaluative judgments of
ideas.
History
◦ The history of philosophy is complicated but we’ll try to section to give you an idea.
◦ There are four periods in philosophy, with each characterized on what topics they focused:
◦ Ancient: Ancient Greek was more concerned on the Universal stuff or the stuff where the
universe came from.
◦ Medieval: Christians and Muslims were very much concerned on philosophical theology at this
time.
◦ Modern: A shift to a wide range of topics (rather than a single one) characterizes this period.
This included topics from how we acquire knowledge (Rationalism vs. Empiricism, with Idealism
as well), about human experience (Existentialism and Phenomenology), and the rise of Social
and Political Philosophy, and the rise of Analytic philosophy (with the Vienna Circle).
◦ Contemporary: This is the period of philosophy wherein topics of relevance in today’s life thrive,
even those understood under Modern Philosophy. It also includes the philosophies discussed
today such as those from Slavoj Zizek, Martha Nussbaum, Ayn Rand, Peter Singer, etc.
Philosophy – Subfields
◦ Gilbert (n.d.) says that there are three major subfields. Some philosophers say there are four.
We’ll discuss everything.
◦ Major subfields are metaphysics, epistemology, axiology, and logic.
Metaphysics
◦ Metaphysics is concerned about theory of reality (Gilbert, n.d.). The basis is what is reality, and
it includes the study of what apparently isn’t real.
◦ For example, are humans free?
◦ Are we just subject to determinism?
◦ Is time real?
◦ Is there a God?
◦ Here’s another example. This dress will look white and gold for some, and will look blue and
black for some.
 ◦ This makes us think about what is the real color of this dress – a question of reality.
◦ Some may also think about this: are all we sense are real or just mere illusions?
Epistemology
◦ Epistemology is about the theory of knowledge. It posits questions about how we obtain
knowledge and other questions surrounding it such as truth or falsity, or even about our ability
to obtain it.
◦ There are three central questions here:
◦ What is knowledge?
◦ Can we have knowledge?
◦ How do we obtain knowledge?
◦ Paanong alam ni Ed Caluag na may engkanto? Baka may alam si Ed na ‘di natin alam?
Axiology
◦ Axiology studies about value or how we set values (valuation). Ethics and Aesthetics go under
Axiology.
◦ Ethics – study of how we ought to live and how our individual actions affect this view.
◦ Aesthetics – study of how we say one is beautiful, i.e. art appreciation. It can also be about how
we experience art.
Ethics
◦ Some questions about ethics:
◦ Is abortion moral?
◦ Is it alright to have a sugar daddy/mommy?
◦ Should the three-month rule be the norm?
◦ Is it our moral responsibility to wear a mask during these times?
Aesthetics
◦ What makes art valuable?
◦ How do we put a value to one and the other?
◦ Is photography an art?
Logic
◦ From the Greek word λόγος (pronounced as logos) which means a lot of things such as speech,
word, reason. First used as a technical term by Heraclitus for “principle of order and knowledge”
(Cambridge Dictionary of Philisophy, 1999)
◦ Logic is the study of correct reasoning, or the principles behind correct reasoning.
 ◦ It studies principles governing validity of arguments, and how they fall on to the hands of falsity.
◦ It employs topic neutrality, and encompasses all topics. Logic is universal.
◦ Logic is more concerned if something follows the laws of truth, rather than the truth.
Formal logic is more concerned on the format or systems to carry out proofs of validity.
For example, formal logic would say this is valid. But a respect of science would tell us otherwise. (False
premises can’t create a true conclusion, but false premises do not guarantee invalidity).
◦ Dogs are birds.
◦ Birds are mammals.
◦ Ergo, dogs are mammals
◦ If converted to symbols, it is still valid:
◦ pVq
◦ qVr
◦ pVr

Informal logic is more concerned on critical thinking, and might include information literacy today.
◦ More of the study of rules of argumentation and reasoning in theory and in practice.
◦ This is more of logic shown in natural language.
Ex. This statement got out after DENR Usec. Benny Antiporda said that dolomite sand is safe. Benny
is a long-time reporter (EIC of Remate), and Isko commits an Appeal to Authority here since Benny’s
statement was believed by him even if Benny isn’t an expert at the subject at hand.
What logic is for?
Reasons to Study Logic
1. DeLancey (n.d.) says that “Nearly every undertaking in life will ultimately require that you
evaluate an argument, perhaps several. I take this in the process of accounting as well mostly in
the process of audit.
2. Moreover, DeLancey (n.d.) says that “Our lives are a long parade of choices. When we try to
answer such questions, in order to make the best choices, we often have only one tool: an
argument.” If this is true, then we should consider to equip ourselves with the ability to make
sound judgments through evaluating arguments. Every field relies upon arguments
3. With all the trickery happening in this world, DeLancey (n.d.) offers us logic since “logic teaches
you is how to demand and recognize good reasoning, and so how to avoid deceit. You are only
as free as your powers of reasoning enable.”
4. 4. Priest (2017) says that logic helps us to reason for it helps us identify what is good reasoning
from bad reasoning.
5. 5. Another reason to study logic, says Priest (2017) is that it helps us understand the effect of
one’s logic (or, in this case, way of thinking rationally) to our own understanding of them.
6. 6. Lopez says studying logic helps to pass this subject. (sorry)
Nature of Logic
1. Logic is the study of sound reasoning. It deals with the study of the methods and principles
which are used to distinguish from incorrect reasoning.
2. Logic is commonly defined also as the science and art of correct reasoning. As a science, logic
furnishes man with a system of knowledge through principles and rules of correct thinking. As
an art, logic pushes man to construct valid and true arguments with the least possible error.
3. 3. Logic is a tool that bridges the gap between truth and absurdity of reality. Reasoning is correct
if it conforms to what is real, i.e. that Granny Smith apple is green, and incorrect if not, i.e. that
Granny Smith apple is blue. Thinking is the process which we use logic as a tool and the final
product attains an answer (to which logic gives us more or less the correct one).
4. 4. Logic is not an end for itself. As said, it is a tool (a medium). It gets something from here and
from there, and works around those objects to make sense to humans.
5. 5. Logic helps students to make valid arguments. In this world full of deceit, let’s try to take the
advantage of knowing what works and what does not.
Three Operations of the Mind
Simple apprehension
◦ Simple apprehension is the process in which an external object (from the world) enters the mind
and becomes an idea.
◦ For example, take the Granny Smith in the picture.
 ◦ What enters the mind of the concepts from this apple are called ideas. The process of entering is
simple apprehension.
◦ Ideas we got:
◦ Fruit, green, apple, granny smith
Judgement
◦ The process of affirming or denying the connections between ideas in the mind is what we call
judgment.
◦ For example:
◦ Apple is a fruit – affirm
◦ Granny Smith is an apple – affirm
◦ That apple is NOT red – deny
◦ That green object is NOT a chair - deny
Reasoning
◦ Reasoning is now the mental operation that lays out everything to arrive at an inference or
conclusion. In the absence of the object (while understanding that it is already in your mind),
you can arrive to an inference connecting to that object. For example:
◦ You saw an apple fall on the ground. (Just an example, there’s no apple trees AFAIK in the
Philippines)
◦ You look up, and saw a tall apple tree.
◦ Reasoning: That apple (which fell) was from that tree. – Good reasoning
◦ Genius reasoning: there’s Gravity (well, Newton already said that)
◦ Take this fable for example:
◦ One day, an acorn fell from a tree and landed on Chicken Licken’s head
◦ Chicken Licken said “Help! The sky is falling down!”
◦ This is bad reasoning because:
1. Chicken Licken did not see the sky fall down (nor is it possible, by ways of science).
2. Chicken Licken did not realize that it happened under an oak tree, which produces acorns.
What is logic?

The term "logic" came from the Greek word logos, which is sometimes translated as "sentence",
"discourse", "reason", "rule", and "ratio". Of course, these translations are not enough to help us
understand the more specialized meaning of "logic" as it is used today.

So what is logic? Briefly speaking, we might define logic as the study of the principles of correct
reasoning. This is a rough definition, because how logic should be properly defined is actually quite a
controversial matter. However, for the purpose of this tour, we thought it would be useful to give you at
least some rough idea as to the subject matter that you will be studying. So this is what we shall try to
do on this page.

§1. Logic is not the psychology of reasoning

One thing you should note about this definition is that logic is concerned with the principles
of correct reasoning. Studying the correct principles of reasoning is not the same as studying
the psychology of reasoning. Logic is the former discipline, and it tells us how we ought to reason if we
want to reason correctly. Whether people actually follow these rules of correct reasoning is an empirical
matter, something that is not the concern of logic.

The psychology of reasoning, on the other hand, is an empirical science. It tells us about the actual
reasoning habits of people, including their mistakes. A psychologist studying reasoning might be
interested in how people's ability to reason varies with age. But such empirical facts are of no concern to
the logician.

§2. The principles of logic

So what are these principles of reasoning that are part of logic? There are many such principles, but the
main (not the only) thing that we study in logic are principles governing the validity of arguments -
whether certain conclusions follow from some given assumptions. For example, consider the following
three arguments :

If Tom is a philosopher, then Tom is poor.

Tom is a philosopher.
Therefore, Tom is poor.

If K>10, then K>2.

K>10.
Therefore, K>2.

If Tarragona is in Europe, then Tarragona is not in China.

Tarragona is in Europe.
Therefore, Tarragona is not in China.

These three arguments here are obviously good arguments in the sense that their conclusions follow
from the assumptions. If the assumptions of the argument are true, the conclusion of the argument
must also be true. A logician will tell us that they are all cases of a particular form of argument known as
"modus ponens" :

If P, then Q. P. Therefore, Q.

We shall be discussing validity again later on. It should be pointed out that logic is not just concerned
with the validity of arguments. Logic also studies consistency, and logical truths, and properties of logical
systems such as completeness and soundness. But we shall see that these other concepts are also very
much related to the concept of validity.

§3. Topic neutrality

Modus ponens might be used to illustrate two features about the rules of reasoing in logic. The first
feature is its topic-neutrality. As the four examples suggest, modus ponens can be used in reasoning
about diverse topics. This is true of all the principles of reasoning in logic. The laws of biology might be
true only of living creatures, and the laws of economics are only applicable to collections of agents that
enagage in financial transactions. But the principles of logic are universal principles which are more
general than biology and economics. This is in part what is implied in the following definitions of logic by
two very famous logicians :

[Logic is] ... the name of a discipline which analyzes the meaning of the concepts common to all the
sciences, and establishes the general laws governing the concepts.Alfred Tarski (1901-1983). From
his Introduction to logic and to the methodology of deductive sciences, Dover, page xi.
To discover truths is the task of all sciences; it falls to logic to discern the laws of truth. ... I assign to logic
the task of discovering the laws of truth, not of assertion or thought.Gottlob Frege (1848-1925). From
his 1956 paper "The Thought : A Logical Inquiry" in Mind Vol. 65.
§4. Necessity in logic

A second feature of the principles of logic is that they are non-contingent, in the sense that they do not
depend on any particular accidental features of the world. Physics and the other empirical sciences
investigate the way the world actually is. Physicists might tell us that no signal can travel faster than the
speed of light, but if the laws of physics have been different, then perhaps this would not have been
true. Similarly, biologists might study how dolphins communicate with each other, but if the course of
evolution had been different, then perhaps dolphins might not have existed. So the theories in the
empirical sciences are contingent in the sense that they could have been otherwise. The principles of
logic, on the other hand, are derived using reasoning only, and their validity does not depend on any
contingent features of the world.

For example, logic tells us that any statement of the form "If P then P." is necessarily true. This is a
principle of the second kind that logician study. This principle tells us that a statement such as "if it is
raining, then it is raining" must be true. We can easily see that this is indeed the case, whether or not it
is actually raining. Furthermore, even if the laws of physics or weather patterns were to change, this
statement will remain true. Thus we say that scientific truths (mathematics aside)
are contingent whereas logical truths are necessary. Again this shows how logic is different from the
empirical sciences like physics, chemistry or biology.
§5. Formal and informal logic

Sometimes a distinction is made between informal logic and formal logic. The term "informal logic" is
often used to mean the same thing as critical thinking. Sometimes it is used to refer to the study of
reasoning and fallacies in the context of everyday life. "Formal logic" is mainly concerned with formal
systems of logic. These are specially constructed systems for carrying out proofs, where the languages
and rules of reasoning are precisely and carefully defined. Sentential logic (also known as "Propositional
logic") and Predicate Logic are both examples of formal systems of logic.

There are many reasons for studying formal logic. One is that formal logic helps us identify patterns of
good reasoning and patterns of bad reasoning, so we know which to follow and which to avoid. This is
why studying basic formal logic can help improve critical thinking. Formal systems of logic are also used
by linguists to study natural languages. Computer scientists also employ formal systems of logic in
research relating to Aritificial Intelligence. Finally, many philosophers also like to use formal logic when
dealing with complicated philosophical problems, in order to make their reasoning more explicit and
precise.
The Nature of Logic

Abstract: Logic is defined and described with examples; deductive arguments are distinguished from
inductive arguments. Logic differs from psychology as it is a prescriptive science rather than a descriptive
science.

What is logic?

Logic is the study of the methods and principles used in distinguishing correct from incorrect reasoning.

A. As a discipline which evaluates arguments of different kinds, logic is the study of how a
concluding statement logically follows from another statement or statements (termed premises)
either with some probability or with certainty.

B. Logic differs from psychology in being a normative or a prescriptive discipline rather than

a descriptive discipline.

1. I.e., logic prescribes how we ought to reason; it's not directly concerned with describing
how people actually do reason in their everyday activities[1] — although both formal and
informal logic are often used to evaluate reasoning in the public sphere.

2. So, logic provides the rules for correct thinking, and identifies fallacies of incorrect
thinking.

3. Consequently, logic distinguishes good arguments from poor arguments.

C. Important: The logic examples used in the remainder of this page are for illustration of the types
of problems studied in this course. You are not expected to understand anything in detail — the
examples are provided only to suggest some of the skills which will acquired in this course.

II. How logic helps reasoning:

A. The practice solving logic examples and constructing good arguments improves logic skills. Some
examples of how this course can help our reasoning skill can be suggested by looking at a few
common arguments.

1. Consider the following syllogism 

Syllogism

“A syllogism (properly, a categorical syllogism) is the inference of one proposition from two
premises.”
 from Thomas Blundeville's 1619 The Art of Logicke:

“Every covetous man doth violate the Lawes of liberalitie;

but every prodigall man doth violate the Lawes of liberalitie;

therefore every prodigall man is a covetous man.”[2]

In today's English Blundeville is arguing here:

Since both greedy people and wasteful people don't freely share, wasteful people are
greedy.

It will become easy for us to recognize the fallacy in this argument as a fallacy of the
undistributed middle term. Or, in plain language, just because two different things are alike
in one characteristic doesn't mean that one of them is necessarily part of the other.

To glimpse why this is the case, consider that the argument is just like claiming since all dogs
are animals and all cats are animals, it follows that all dogs are cats.

2. Evaluate the following informal argument stated by Air Chief Hugh Marshall Lord
Dowding, who led the Royal Air Force in World War II:

“More than 10,000 [UFO] sightings have been reported, the majority of which cannot be
accounted for by any ‘scientific’ explanation … I am convinced that these objects do exist
and they are not manufactured by any nation on earth. I can therefore see no alternative to
accepting the theory that they come from an extraterrestrial source.[3]

While this argument might seem convincing, consider this counter-example about money

put under a child's pillow during the night after the child loses the first primary (baby)
tooth[4]:

In spite of the large number of quarters put under kid's pillows which can be attributed to
sneaky parents, there are hundreds of cases which cannot account for the source of the
money. Therefore, what better evidence could there be for the existence of the tooth fairy?

The UFO argument is an example of an informal fallacy termed the argumentum ad

ignoratiam; it's a common fallacy often used by promoters who have flimsy evidence to
support their beliefs.
B. As well, this course can help with “the negative approach” in that we can avoid errors by being
aware of common mistakes in logic e.g., being aware of common formal and informal fallacies.

1. For example, how would you evaluate the following argument drawn from dialogue in a
novel:

“Who did he think he was, Napoleon, because he was so short?”[5]

In this short implicit argument, the fallacy of false cause (or non causa pro causa) occurs. If
this inference were to be adequate, all, or most, short persons would have to presumed to
become great like Napoleon.

2. Here's another example of a common error from a historical study:

“Contrary to the commonly held belief that in antiquity and as late as 1700 A.D. normal
lifespan was about 35 years, there are indications that the ancient Greeks lived longer. … A
limited number of skeletal findings and demographic data have encouraged amongst
scientists and laymen alike the general opinion … the average length of life was about 35
years. … All men living in Greece in the 5th and 4th century B.C. whose data of birth and
death have been documented with certainty by grammarians and historians [were found to
have a mean length of life of] 71 ± 13.4 years.”[6]

The reasoning here is another kind of fallacy of distribution. There is an essential difference
between an average lifespan estimate with infant mortality data included and an average
lifetime estimate excluding that data.

C. Methods, criteria, and techniques, all are given in this course for the development of procedures
to test for argument correctness. Here are some illustrations of a few approaches we will be
learning and using in this course of study.

1. For example, we can test problem I, A stated above by drawing a Venn Diagram to show
the fallacy of the undistributed middle term. This can be facilitated by first “translating” the
argument into a simplier form as follows:

1. All [covetous men]P are [violators of liberality]M

All [prodigal men]S are [violators of liberality]M

Thus, all [prodigal men]S are [covetous men]P.

1. Here, the shaded lines are drawn in those sections of the overlapping circles where the two
premises indicate there is an absence of all individuals. Areas where no shaded lines are drawn are
areas in which individuals have not been be eliminated by the two premises.

So the first statement means that all of the P's (covetous men) are ”pushed into” the area of
the M's (violators of liberality) — the empty lens area between the P and M circles.

We can see there is a small area in the lower part of the S circle which is not shaded. The
unmarked area indicates not all S (prodigal men) have been definitely excluded from the
overlapping P (covetous men) circle.

So the diagram indicates that the premises do not exclude the possibility that there could be
some S's which are not P's. This means the premises do not prove with certainty that “All S's
([prodigal men) are P's (covetous men).

So the conclusion of this argument has not been proved.[7]

2. We can show the fallacy in this example by appealing to specific rules known rules of the
syllogism by looking at its form:

All P is M U
All S is M U
All S is P

The term M shared by both premises is said to be undistributed because as part of the predicate

of these two statements, M does not refer to each and every person who is a violator of liberality,
but only those M's who are either covetous or prodigal men. But these are not the only persons
who are violators of liberality. We cannot be sure that either the covetous or the prodigal men
referred to in these statement have any definite relation specifically to each other.

So the fallacy of the undistributed middle term is based on the violation of a rule like this:

Rule: In a valid standard form categorical syllogism, the middle term must be distributed in at
least one premise.

Another way to envision this fallacy is to study the following diagram:

 For the two terms of the conclusion to be connected through the
third, as in the mechanism shown here, at least one term must be
related to the whole of the class designated by the middle term.

III. There are many kinds of logic which exhibit a kind of family relation
to each other: dialectic, classical, symbolic, multivalued, deontic, fuzzy, etc.

IV. In this course, basically, we will study two general types of logic: classical deductive and
inductive logic.

A. Deductive Logic is concerned with determining when an argument is valid (i.e., deals with
conclusive inferences)

A deductive argument is one in which it is claimed that the conclusion follows with necessity.

If that claim is not met, then the argument is said to be invalid.

Consider this example from Time magazine discussion about the assassination of U.S. President John F.
Kennedy:

“Since tests proved that it took at least 2.3 seconds to operate the bolt on Oswald's rifle,
Oswald obviously could not have fired three times — hitting Kennedy twice and Conally once
— in 5.6 seconds or less.“[8]

The Time magazine essay assumes it takes 2.3 seconds to load a round and fire one shot, so it
would would require 6.9 seconds to fire three shots:

2.3 sec. — 1st shot.

2.3 sec. — 2nd. shot.
2.3 sec. — 3rd shot.
6.9 sec. — total time.

So under these assumptions the assassin Lee Harvey Oswald could not have fired all three shots.
In a subsequent issue of Time, Frederick T. Wehr points out that this apparently indisputable
argument was fallacious:

“This argument, which has appeared in many publications since the assassination, is faulty, and
I am surprised that I haven't seen it refuted before this. Assuming that the bolt of Oswald's rifle
 can, in fact, be operated in 2.3 seconds, then Oswald definitely could fire 3 shots in less than
5.6 seconds, for a stop watch would be started when the first shot was fired; the second shot
would be fired when the stop watch read 2.3 seconds, and the third shot would be fired when
the stop watch read 4.6 seconds. You have apparently overlooked the fact that, in the time it
takes to fire 3 shots, it is only necessary to operate the bolt twice.”[9]

The time for the first load need not be counted since Oswald could have loaded the cartridge well
before the first shot was fired.

0.0 sec. — 1st shot.

2.3 sec. — 2nd. shot.
2.3 sec. — 3rd shot.
4.6 sec. — total time.

Consequently, the rifle could have been fired in 5.6 seconds or less.

B. Inductive Logic is concerned with the correctness of inferences for which the evidence is not
conclusive — inductive logic involves only probable inferences.

Hence, an inductive argument is one whose conclusion is claimed to follow with probability.

Consider this example from Mark Twain:

“[A]t bottom I did not believe I had touched that man. The law of probabilities decreed me
guiltless of his blood, for in all my small experience with guns I had never hit anything I had
tried to hit and I knew I had done my best to hit him.”[10]

Within the context of the fictional story, Mark Twain's humorous retelling is an argument whose
reasoning would result in a conclusion with some probability.[11]

Or consider the inductive extrapolation techniques used in

stock market prediction by Wall Street traders, e.g., the wedge
formation in a stock chart:

Stock market analysts argue that the rising-wedge trend signals

a downward trend in a stock or bond price based on past
experience. The inductive claim is that this trend will probably
continue to be mostly reliable for future stock and bond price
wedge-formations.

What logic is not:

Logic is not the science of the laws of thought; hence, logic is distinguished from psychology which is a
descriptive science.[12]

1. Sometimes people can come to realize future possibilities — conclusions reliably reached
without being able to know or explain how the conclusion came about. E.g., C.J. Jung
suggests that such an ability is characteristic of the intuitive type of personality.[13]

The unconscious “logic” involved here is part of psychology, not logic.

2. Often people can come to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons; however, logic is the
study of the modes of correct reasoning which arrive at the right conclusion manifested in
an prescriptive, not descriptive, manner.

B. Logic is not really the science of reasoning either because the logician is not interested, as we
have said, in the psychological processes of reasoning.

1. Instead, logicians are interested in the structure of arguments.

2. In sum, people infer  statements and entail other statements.

3. An entailment can hold between statements even though, at the time, it could be that no
one understands the entailment is correct.