COURSE TITLE: INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY AND HUMAN EXISTENCE

COURSE CODE: GEN 102

COURSE LECTURER: Aliyu Mamman

TOPIC: LOGIC - The “Queen” of Philosophy

Logic is another important branch of Philosophy. Indeed, it is described as the

“Queen” of Philosophy or the “tool- box” for doing philosophy.

● The word “Logic” is derived  from the Greek word "logos", which is sometimes
literally translated to mean “ word”, “sentence”, “thought”, “ idea” , “argument”,
“account”, “reason” or “principle”.
● Generally speaking, Logic is defined a science that deals with precision rules
that guide human reasoning in the quest for knowledge. Jacque Maritain (1979)
asserts that Logic is concerned with the study of reasoning as the tool for
knowledge. Emphasis is put on reasoning as a process or activity which must be
engaged in conformity with the appropriate principles of ratiocination (the
process of exact thinking (or reasoning) that yields knowledge regardless of the
aspect of human inquiry.
● Specifically, Logic can be defined as the study of valid reasoning and correct
argumentation. It examines the principles used to distinguish correct (sound)
reasoning from incorrect (unsound) reasoning. According to Lemon (1965),
Logic’s main concern is with the soundness and unsoundness of arguments
and it attempt to make as precise as possible the conditions under which an
argument from whatever field of study is acceptable. It should be noted that the
concern with argument in logic does not necessarily imply disputations or verbal
wrangling intended to defeat an opponent in a discourse. Rather, it refers to the
attempt to bring evidence in support of a conclusion.
● An argument consist of a set of statements called premises together with
another statement called the conclusion. The conclusion is supposed to be
supported by or derived from the premises. A good argument provides support
for its conclusion and a bad argument does not. In this regard, as noted by
Church (1990) Logic is in part, the study of arguments and, in particular, a study
of the conditions under which we are justified in believing a conclusion in an
argument. The Logician, like the natural scientist is seeking for grounds to accept
a given conclusion as basis for knowledge claim.

1
 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOGIC AND PHILOSOPHY.

● The essence of all philosophical reflections and inquiries is the quest for new
knowledge and understanding. Aristotle, regarded as the founding father of Logic
described Logic as "new and necessary reasoning"; "new" because it allows
us to learn what we do not know through inference and "necessary" because it
lead to inescapable conclusions. Inference here is the act of drawing a
conclusion from one or more premises. It can also be seen as a process by
which one proposition is arrived at and affirmed on the basis of one or more initial
facts or data. From facts or general statements based on facts, we draw
conclusions.
● Relating Logic to Philosophy, Popkin and Kelly (1969) defined logic as that
branch of Philosophy which reflects on the nature of thinking itself. Philosophy
uses the tool of Logic and reason to analyze the ways in which humans
experience the world. In this sense therefore, logic deals with the analyses of the
language used to express human experience.

Basic Questions in Logic

● Logic deals with  questions such as "What is correct reasoning”? "What makes a

good argument”? "What distinguishes a good argument from a bad one?" “What
makes for good thinking”? “How can I think critically about complicated
argument”? "How can we detect a fallacy in reasoning?" “When can I say that
something just does not make sense”? etc. Logic tells us how we ought to reason
if we want to reason correctly.
● These questions are also at the heart of philosophical reflections and inquiries. It
is for this reason that Logic is regarded as the most fundamental branch of
philosophy or the “tool box” for doing philosophy. It should be understood that all
branches of Philosophy employ thinking. Whether this thinking is correct or not
will depend upon whether it is in accord with the laws of Logic.
● Affirming the above point further, Geisler and Freinberg (1980), opine that since
Philosophy is a rational inquiry and since Logic systematically sets forth the laws
of thought, in some ways the most fundamental area of philosophy is Logic.
● The primary goal of all philosophical inquiry is knowledge. And, Logic deals with
thinking and thinking as pointed out by David K.(1998) is a cognitive process we
use in the attempt to gain knowledge. Hence the quest for knowledge is
underpinned by logic and its principles. The student of philosophy should
therefore have a good grasp of Logic. For to be able to philosophize gainfully in
the quest for knowledge, it is necessary to be grounded in the “queen” of
philosophical thinking namely; Logic.

What Logic is not (Fallacies about what Logic is)

2
 ● There are certain misconceptions about Logic which need to be clarified. These
include:
i) The erroneous conception of Logic as “the factual description of human
thought”. This is not the pre-occupation of Logic. Though logic deals with the
way people reason, the factual description of how human thought or thinking
process occur belong to the field of psychology.
ii) Logic as the cunning, dubious and deceitful use of human reasoning. In this
case we hear the wrong use of the term ‘logic’ when one is outwitted by the
tricky use of the principles of Logic. This is in fact referred to as logical
fallacy (which means false logic)
iii) Since Logic does not describe the way people actually think, then perhaps it
provides rules of correct or rational thinking i.e. Logic prescribes the way we
ought to think. However, it has been argued that the imposition of strict rules
to guide human thinking would likely lead to intellectual sterility rather than
encourage high degree of rationality. It has been pointed out that Creative
Thinking for example, can occur in a wide range of ways that cannot be pre-
determined. The element of creativity in human reasoning in this case is
rather ratified by the principle of logic instead of being pre-determined by it.
(See Okong K.A 2004, ‘What is Logic’?)

TYPES OF LOGIC

Logic in general can be divided into Formal Logic, Informal Logic, Symbolic

Logic and Mathematical Logic.

Logic covers core topics such as the study of fallacies and paradoxes, as well as

specialized analysis of reasoning using probability and arguments
involving causality and argumentation theory

MODES REASONING IN LOGIC

The principles of Logic which form the foundation of philosophical thinking hinge on
one’s ability to make sound, reasoned arguments. Ideas about how mankind should
live, behave and conduct business etc. for example, would not mean much if they can’t
stand up to logical scrutiny. The principles of logic enable the philosopher to make
sound, reasoned arguments and draw conclusions that stand up to scrutiny.

To construct rational arguments and test the validity of their observations, philosophers
and scientists overtime, established two main types of logical reasoning: deductive and
inductive reasoning. Both deductive and inductive reasoning provide the basic
framework for the kind of logical analysis that drives philosophical thinking as well as
scientific research and discovery.

3
Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning in Logic dates back to Aristotle in ancient Greece. It is a method of

reasoning by which you start with a general premise, which leads to another premise,
which then leads to a conclusion. The conclusion derived from this reasoning process is
based on the concordance (agreement) of two or more premises that are generally
assumed to be true.

An often cited example of deductive reasoning referred to as Syllogism credited to

Aristotle is:

All men are mortal

Socrates is a man

Therefore Socrates is mortal

Or

All Mammals are warm blooded, - (Major Premise)

Whales are Mammals, - (Minor Premise)

Whales are warm blooded. - (Conclusion)

The structure of reasoning in a deductive logic or statement as given above comprises

the Major Premise, the Minor Premise and a Conclusion.

Deductive reasoning involves top-down reasoning starting with generalizations to

specific instance.

Another Example of deductive reasoning is explained in the statement made by the

French skeptic philosopher Rene Descartes : Cogito, Ergo Sum ( I think, Therefore I
am) meaning in effect that:

What Thinks must exist - Major Premise

I am Thinking - Minor Premise

Therefore, I exist - Conclusion

Or

The statement that:

4
 Good students pass exams – Major Premise

Jameela is good student - Minor Premise

Therefore Jameela will pass her exams. – Conclusion

The Goal of deductive reasoning is certainty. It is important to note that a false

premise can possibly lead to a false conclusion.

Aristotle considered Syllogism (deductive reasoning) as important because to him, they

clarify the structure of how we reason properly. Such reasoning could be expanded
beyond its subject matter. For example, the sentence above, “All men are mortal”
“Socrates is a man” “Therefore Socrates is mortal” may be validly expressed as in the
more general form as;

“ All X are Y”,

“ Some Z is X”

“ Therefore Some Z is Y”

Deductive reasoning concerns what follows necessarily from given premises. Given
some hypothesis or a premise, we can go on to deduce a number of conclusions that
must necessarily follow. The hallmark of deductive reasoning/logic therefore is that
conclusions being inferred must logically follow from what went before. An inference is
deductively valid if (and only if) there is no possible situation in which all the premises
are true and the conclusion false. However, it should be remembered that a  false
premise can possibly lead to a false conclusion.

Note:

● Deductive reasoning begins with a generalization as part of its premise, to draw

a conclusion about a specific individual instance i.e. top - down reasoning
● The generalization applied is usually a stated law or theory – something that has
not yet been proven as untrue. The goal of deductive reasoning is certainty
● Because deduction relies more on proven theories, it is considered a higher and
more reliable form of reasoning than induction. However, being able to reason
deductively requires the right facts on hand at any given time.
● Deductive reasoning only works when both major and minor premises are true
● One might deny the initial premises, and therefore deny the conclusion. But
anyone who accepts the premises must accept the conclusion.
● Using words like ‘all’ will generally falsify your statements (only one example of
the contrary is needed)
● However, if you use words like ‘many’ or ‘some’ or ‘most’ it is less likely that your
premise will be rejected. So when using this type of reasoning make sure your
premises are verifiable.

5
 Inductive Reasoning:

Inductive reasoning as a method of reasoning in logic was made popular by

Francis Bacon, the 17th century British natural philosopher who espoused the
method in his book called Novum Organum (The New Method)

Inductive reasoning in logic refers to a reasoning that takes specific information or

instance and makes a broader generalization that is probable, allowing for the fact
that the conclusion may not be accurate.

Here, we make repeated observations, these repeated observations then lead us to

conclusions that are probable.

Unlike deductive reasoning which is top- bottom; inductive reasoning is bottom- up.

Examples of inductive reasoning include:

i) Jennifer leaves for school at 7:00, Jennifer is always on time. Jennifer

assumes, then that she will always be on time if she leaves at 7:00.
ii) Every windstorm in this area comes from the North, I can see a big cloud
of dust caused by a windstorm in the distance ; so, a new windstorm is
coming from the north.
iii) The chair in the living room is red, the chair in the dining room is red, the
chair in the bed room is red. All chairs in the house are red.
iv) All cats you have observed purr . Therefore every (all) cat (s) purr.
v) Two thirds of the students at Baze University receive student aids.
Therefore, two-thirds of all university students receive students aids.
vi) All chickens that we have seen have been brown; so all chickens are
brown.
i) All basket ball players in your school are tall, so all basket ball players
must be tall.
ii) All cars in this town drive on the right side of the road; therefore all cars in
all towns drive on the right hand side of the road.

While the goal of deductive reasoning is to establish certainty, inductive reasoning

is a function of probability.

An Inductive argument can be described as either weak or strong.

6
A weak induction occurs when the connection between the premise and the conclusion
is highly tenuous. e.g.

I know two Baze University students and they both use drugs.

Therefore most Baze university students probably use drugs.

In this case the sample size is far two too small to draw a conclusion and so the
conclusion drawn is weak

Another example of weak induction ( in which the link between the premise and the
conclusion is weak, and the conclusion is not even necessarily probable) is:

I always hang pictures on nails.

Therefore:
All pictures hang from nails.

or

Mr. Joseph is a Grandfather

Mr. Joseph is bald
Therefore all grandfathers are bald

With  strong induction however, the premise and conclusion are closely linked

All observed crows are black.

Therefore:
All crows are black.

Or,

So far, my Lecturer has given a falling grade for every essay submitted late,
If I am late in submitting my essay, It will probably receive a falling grade.

The argument is strong because both premise and the conclusion only concern the
observed behavior of a specific individual. Still, chances are, the conclusion might be
wrong.

In both examples above, the argument in the truth of the premises make the truth of the
conclusion probable but not definite

Note:

- Inductive reasoning requires a lot of data

7
 - The more data you present, the easier to make the necessary leap to your
conclusion
- The more data, the shorter the leap

Many philosophers, including David Hume, Karl Popper and David Miller, have

disputed or denied the logical admissibility of inductive reasoning.

In particular, Hume argued that it requires inductive reasoning to arrive at

the premises for the principle of inductive reasoning, and therefore the justification for
inductive reasoning is a circular argument.

The main issue between Inductive and deductive reasoning stems from certainty.
While Deductive reasoning assumes certainty in so far as the premises are correct, Inductive
reasoning is simply a measure of probability ranging from strong to weak, high to low.
Though flawed, both methods provide the basic framework for the kind of logical analysis that
drives rigor in philosophic thinking as well as in scientific research and discovery.

LOGICAL FALLACIES.

A Logical Fallacy is variously defined as:

● An error in the logic of an argument (or reasoning) that prevents it from being
logically valid but does not prevent it from swaying peoples’ minds.
● Common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of an argument.
● It is a false statement or deceptive argument that proves nothing.
● Either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points and are often identified because they
lack evidence that support their claim. So, while a good argument (or sound reasoning)
provides support for its conclusion, a logical fallacy does not.
● Logical Fallacy constitutes an argument that provides inadequate grounds or support
for a valid conclusion. A fallacious argument therefore is that whose premises are not
strong enough to justify the conclusion to be drawn. Aja (1992) noted that a fallacy is
“ a violation of logical principles” . It is a “lapse in good thinking”.

One way to understand weaknesses of an argument is knowledge of common

logical fallacies.

Types of fallacies:

i) Formal Fallacies: An argument in which the conclusion would not be true whether
or not its premises are correct because it does not follow valid logical structure.
ii) Informal Fallacies: An argument in which the conclusions would be true if the
premises were true, but those premises are almost always incorrect.

8
 Examples of logical fallacies (formal and informal)

1. Ad Hominem (Argumentum Ad hominem) Latin: meaning “against the man” –

attacking the person instead of the argument.; an argument based on the
perceived failings or weaknesses of the adversary rather than on the merit of
the case; attacks against people as a means of discrediting their ideas.
Example: Yetunde is a woman and a single parent therefore, she cannot be
a good leader.
Related fallacies: i) genetic fallacy – when the source of an argument is
attacked rather the merit (ii) mudslinging (iii) poisoning the well – alleges
that the person holds a hidden agenda or something to gain and therefore not
an honest and objective arguer or when someone is pre-painted as terrible.
iv) To quroque: where a criticism is falsely dismissed because the
author/arguer is also guilty of the charge.
2. Ad populum: An attempt to prove an argument as correct simply because many
people believe it to be so e.g. 80% of people are for death penalty, therefore
death penalty is moral.
3. Post Hoc(False cause)/ergo propter hoc-: This fallacy assumes that
correlation equals causation or in other words, if one event predicts another
event, it must have also caused the event e.g. it happened before this, therefore
it happened because of this – statements like “ Every time I wash my car, it
rains’” or “ the football team gets better grades than the baseball team, therefore
playing football makes you smarter than playing baseball”

4. Appeal to Authority: In this fallacious argument, the arguer claims that his
argument is right because someone famous or powerful supports it .e.g. we
should allow guy marriages because Barak Obama believes guy marriage is
proper.
5. Hasty generalization: Occurs when the arguer uses too small a sample to
support a sweeping generalization. e.g. Bola couldn’t find any cute clothe at the
boutique and neither could Kemi so the boutique doesn’t have any cute clothes;
Moses, Irene and Joseph are students of Baze university and they are all drug
addicts, therefore all Baze University students are drug addicts.
Also Nut picking – when a few extremists from a group are taken as a
representation of the group.

Stereotyping - Identifying particular traits with particular people; e.g. all

politicians are crooks, all black people are lazy.

6. Missing the point: In this logical fallacy, the premise of the argument supports a
specific conclusion but not the one the arguer draws e.g. Anti –depressants are
overly prescribed which is dangerous, so they should be illegal.
Scape goat – Using someone to take the blame e.g. when a student fails an
exam and he blames the teacher for his failure

9
 7. Blaming the victim: When a victim’s actions are used as proof that some
offence against them are justified .e.g. blaming a theft victim for being careless
with their property.
8. Damming with faint praise: When someone is attacked through praise of an
achievement that is not worthy or isn’t significantly praise worthy, suggesting that
no achievement worthy of praise exist.
9. Spotlight Fallacy: occurs then the author or arguer assumes that the cases that
receive the most popularity are the most common cases.e.g.90% of new reports
talk about negative events. Therefore, it follows that 90% of events that occur in
the real world are negative.
10. Straw man: In this logical fallacy, the author/arguer puts forth one of his
opponent’s weaker, less central arguments forward and destroys it while acting
like this argument is the crux of the issue; a fallacy in which the opponents
argument is overstated or misrepresented in order to be easily attacked.

PARADOXES

A paradox is explained as an idea:

● Derived from the Greek word paradoxon which means “contrary to

expectations, existing belief or perceived opinion.
● A seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when
investigated may prove to be true or well-founded;
A paradox is often used to make a reader think over an idea in an innovative
way.

Examples of a Paradox:

✔ “ Your enemy’s friend is your enemy”

✔ “ Truth is honey, which is bitter”
✔ “ All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”
From: George Orwell’s Animal Farm
✔ “I must be cruel to be kind” – Hamlet
From: William Shakespeare’s famous play titled Hamlet

Further Readings:

i) www.philosophy basics.com

ii) Sludds K.Introduction To Philosophy – Module Booklet, Baze University.

iii) Kneller G.F (1971) Introduction to Philosophy of Education, John Wiley and
Sons Inc (Second Edition)
iv) Asouzu I.I (Edit) (2004) Philosophy and Logic Today, University Of Calabar
Press, Nigeria

10
11