Dr. V.K.Maheshwari, M.A. (Socio, Phil) B.Sc. M. Ed, Ph.D.
Former Principal, K.L.D.A.V.(P.G) College, Roorkee, India
Mrs Sudha Rani Maheshwari, M.Sc (Zoology), B.Ed.
Former Principal, A.K.P.I.College, Roorkee, India
Logic (from Classical Greek λόγος (logos), originally meaning the word, or what is spoken, but coming to mean thought or reason, is most often said to be the study of arguments,
Logic is the science of exact thought. The systematic treatment or a study of methods distinguishing valid thinking from thinking which is fallacious: The study of the proper methods of thinking and reasoning among the branches of philosophy, logic is concerned with the various forms of reasoning and arriving at genuine conclusions. It includes the system of statements and arguments. It is now divided into mathematical logic and philosophical logic. It tries to avoid the imaginary or assumptions without real logical proof. Logic languages, like Predicate Logic, promise to produce arguments which, if the premises are true, can only lead to true conclusions. Logic is slightly different than the other branches as it aims to suggest the correct ways of studying philosophy in general.
A.Induction. Reasoning from particulars to a general conclusion.
B.Deduction. Reasoning from general principle to particulars included within the scope of that principle.
C.The syllogism. A form in which to cast deductive reasoning. It is comprised of three propositions : the major premise, the minor premise, and the conclusion.
D.Experimental reasoning or problem-solving. A form of reasoning, largely inductive but using deduction as well, which begins wigh a problem observes all the data relating to the problem, formulates hypotheses and tests them to reach a workable solution of the problem.
E.Dialectic. A method of reasoning of reasoning in which the conflict or contrast of ideas is utilized as a means of detecting the truth. In hegel’s formulation of it there are three stages: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.
The principles of logic (the art of no contradictory identification [Rand, 1967]; the method rationality demands) were originally discovered and identified by Aristotle using a conceptual analysis of the direct perception of reality. These axioms are true because they are inherent in the nature of reality and constitute the basis for any understanding. They are epistemology primaries which are not “logically” provable since they form the foundation for all logical proofs (Peikoff, 1967, 1991; Rand, 1967). Again, the touchstone is objective reality.
Laws of logic
The basic three laws of logic are:
1) The Law of Identity: A is A (something is what it is),
2) The Law of No contradiction: Not both A and not-A (something cannot both have and not have some trait in the same sense at the same time), and
3) The Law of Excluded Middle: Either A or not-A (something is either what it is or it is something else). Despite certain claims to the contrary, any “logic” which rejects these laws is invalid as a means of trying to understand reality. Any attempt to refute these laws must, itself, use them.
Logic in Naturalism
There are two general observations to be made concerning the logic of naturalism which will help to describe the setting for its more specific discussion. The first is that, most generally considered, formal deductive logic such as was mentioned briefly in the introduction has a minor place in the methods of logic approved by naturalism.
The second observation is that is great variation in the methods of logic employed by naturalists. The logic of the earlier and more naïve naturalism is the simple material logic of induction. In modern naturalism, greater place is given to deductive logic because of the confidence placed in the independence of relations by realists.
This narrows the task of the present discussion to a consideration of simple induction as the logic of naturalism. Of course, the kind of naturalism referred to is more especially the earlier naturalism such as inspired the first steps in the development of scientific method. In its most elementary form, induction is the accumulation of accurate and detailed information by direct relation with Nature. Whereas the formal logic of education deals wit the forms by which propositions’ are dependably tied together; induction is the collection of the material on which propositions must be based if theory are to be true propositions. Syllogisms may do well in relating propositions correctly; but their value depends almost entirely upon the material truth of their propositions. Does the major premise describe a fact about a class of individuals in Nature. And does the minor premise assert what is fact concerning one individual in that class? One the answer to these questions the whole value of the syllogism rests. How could men ever have come to the conclusion. “All men are mortal” without having observed a great number of people and having recognized that their lives were all terminated by death? And to do this is to follow inductive method.
Simple induction involve careful observation of Nature, accurate description of what is observed, and caution in formulating generalizations. The way in which to get acquainted with Nature as it actually is, is to go directly to Nature and see what is there. This means painstaking observation in which there is a rigorous piety ruing out everything but smile recognition of facts. In order to accumulate facts for later use in large messes, or in groups or classes, or for use by other than those making the direct observations, it is necessary to record what is observed, and to do it carefully and accurately, representing the facts only as they are. True enough one of the chief values of observing and collecting facts is the discovery of generalizations about Nature; but in this stage of induction there must be much caution. It is so easy for wishful thinking or preconceived ideas to influence the handling of the facts. Francis Bacon, the father of inductive method, even advised caution about hypotheses; he regarded them as “anticipations of Nature”. Here too, in forming conclusions, as well as in observing the facts and recording them, there must be rigorous natural piety. There must be careful and patient accumulation of the facts until the conclusion almost seems to suggest itself as the only generalization to which the facts could possibly point.
The naturalist rejected the role that intellect or reason plays in the knowing process and put forth the claim that the only valid form of knowledge is that derived from experience. For the early naturalists “ experience “ chiefly meant that mode of acquiring knowledge based on direct contact of the organism with the physical world through the senses. The more sophisticated naturalists included the refined modes of knowing used by the empirical sciences. Both however, imply a denial of reason as a source of knowledge. In practice, both type of experience are evident in naturalistic educational theory.
Naturalists highlight the value of scientific knowledge the scientific knowledge acquiring through specific observation, accumulation and generalization. They also lay emphasis on the empirical and experimental knowledge. Naturalists also lay stress on sensory training as senses are the gateways to learning. Naturalism does not necessarily claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labelled as supernatural do not exist or are wrong, but insists that all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either nonexistent or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses.
Logic in Idealism
The idealist take a rationalistic approach to the knotty problems of knowledge and truth and relies heavily on deductive logic (the process of reasoning from the general to the more specific) Although some idealist thinkers have carefully denied reliance on empirical or sense data, such data usually serve as the basis for the premises of deductive logic.
As to knowledge, idealism holds that knowledge is man thinking the thoughts and purposes of this eternal and spiritual reality as they are embodied in our world of fact.
The idealist attempts to find in the universe general principles which can be given the status of universal truths. In order to do this, it is necessary for the idealist to turn inward; to see, as it were, the ocean in a drop of water and the universe in a grain of sand. Most idealists will accept that notion that man’s being and absolute mind are qualitatively the same, but while we have all the attributes of the Absolute we are like the drop of water and the sea. Just as the drop of water is not the whole ocean, man does reflect, albeit dimly, the Absolute, we can look inward to see the true nature of reality. Idealists believe that all knowledge is independent of sense experience. The act of knowing takes place within the mind. The mind is active and contains innate capacities for organizing and synthesizing the data derived through sensations. Man can know intuitively; that is to say, he can apprehend immediately some truth without utilizing any of his senses. Man can also know truth through the acts of reason by which an individual examines the logical consistency of his ideas. Some Idealists believe that all knowledge is a matter of recall. Plato was one who held this notion. He based this conclusion upon the assumption that the spirit of man is eternal. Whatever he knows is already contained within his spirit. Existence depends upon mind. Every stimulus received by the mind is derived ultimately from God. God is the Infinite Spirit.
Logic of Realism
It can be seen that for realism there is logic of investigation as well as a logic of reasoning. The one functions largely at the level of sense perception, the other more especially at the conceptual level. Both are important in any effective adjustment to the real world and in any adequate control of our experience.
Montague suggests still other ‘ways of knowing’ which have their contribution to make to the material of logic-
(1)The accepting of authoritative statements of other people, he says ‘ must always remain the great and primary source of our information about other man’s thoughts and about the past
’(2)Intuition, of the mystical sort, ay also be a source of truth for us, but we should always be careful to put such knowledge to the test of noninituitative methods before accepting it
.(3) Particularly in the realm of practical or ethical matters, the pragmatic test, ‘how effective it is in practice’ may be a valid source of truth
(4) And even scepticism also has its value in truth-seeking; it may not yield any positive truth for us but it can save us from cockiness and smugness, and help us to be tolerant and open minded.
Bertrand Russell, who came to philosophy by way of mathematics, has always held that particular science in high repute as an instrument of truth. As is the case with many realists. He feels that traditional logic needs to be supplemented by the science of mathematics because of the inaccuracy and vagueness both of words and grammer. He thinks that if logical relations are to be stated accurately .they must be represented by mathematical symbols and equations, words are too bungle some.
Logic in Pragmatism
Logic in Pragmatism is regarded as autonomous. This characterization can be elaborated by comparing the pragmatic pattern in logic to induction and deduction. Both induction and deduction, it may be said, superimpose a pattern upon any given situation in which thinking is involved. If deduction is followed, the pattern of the syllogism is brought in from the outside, as it were, and applied to the present situation in which a problem of thought is to be worked out. Similarly, if induction is followed, the pattern of extended observation of particulars and building conclusions which apply to all of these particulars is imported into the situation and applied somewhat arbitrarily. Pragmatist argue that each indeterminate situation is more unique than to permit this wholesale importing of patterns from outside the situation. The contention is that the pattern of thought must arise from within the situation because they cannot be peculiarly effective in that situation if they are ready-made forms which are imposed from the outside.
The pragmatic pattern of logic is closely related to the biological realm. This is to say that the indeterminate situations in which thought goes on are vital situations intimately tied up with th onward flow of the life processes of organisms. Consequently there is more than a coincidental connection between the pattern of inquiry and the struggling of animal existence. In indeterminate situations and in the problem-solution movement, thought and life constitute one continuous process. They are not distinct levels of existence; and they do not have different pattern of organization. This is the logical aspect to which man and Nature are continuous.
The pattern of logic is closely related to the culture. This is a companion to the characterization just given. For pragmatists, logic is as closely tied with the culture as with the processes of animal existence. Indeterminate situations have their sociological context as well as their biological;. Individual men do not act and think in isolation from the society of which they are a part. Of necessity they do their inquiring with in a context of meanings which are supplied by the social group. Consequently, language, as a system of symbols for meanings, together with arts, institutions, traditions, and customary beliefs, as media of communication, are all contributors to each indeterminate situation in which thought goes on.
Indeterminate situations may be either individual or social, immediately circumscribed by time or broadly inclusive. This pragmatic pattern of logic is a necessary addition to the one just stated. It may be easier to outline the pattern of logic in individual terms and in relation to a strictly immediate and present situation. But this does not do justice to it; for individual thought is never isolated from society and culture in any important sense, and although there are limited immediate situations, which are faced both individually and socially, in point of time, there are also situations which stretch out over longer periods.
Logic in Existentialism
The existentialist approach to knowledge is known as the phenomenological method. The atheistic existentialists inherited this method from Husserl. It was adapted further byHeidegger and Sartre to suit their philosophy of “will and action,” especially as it concerns the individual… The phenomenological method consists in the expression of the experiences of consciousness through the media of ordinary language
Existentialists have given little attention to inductive reasoning. Science, they believe, has been one of the major dehumanizing forces in the modern world. It is not that existentialists want to put an abrupt halt to all scientific work. Rather, they argue, the philosopher should not concern himself with such matters. It should be quite evident from the section above that ‘ philosophizing “ is performed on such topics as the nature and importance of freedom, man’s mental states, decisions, and action. The nature of scientific method, the nature of the physical universe, and similar topics are conspicuously absent from their philosophical treatises.
The existentialist approach to knowledge is known as phenomenological method. The first step of this method consists in an intuitive grasp of one’s conscious experiences with objects, people, and events. The second step in this method consists in the expression of the experiences of consciousness through the media of ordinary language, the fine arts, and when need be, through the language of technical philosophy.
Clearly existentialism is not so concerned as are other modes of thinking with kind of knowledge found in the empirical sciences..Such knowledge is not concerned with choices of values, modes of living, and acting. Scientific knowledge is objective; it must be removed from the realm of value-judgement; it becomes meaningful only when all personal, subjective elements are removed.
In opposition to this cold impersonal approach to knowledge, the existentialist argues that true knowledge is “choosing, actions, living, and dying.” Let the scientist continue his pursuit of cold, lifeless fact and theory, but let the philosopher concern himself with the aspects of world which involve personal, subjective experience. Sartre considers this approach as true humanism.