Semantics I acknowledgements
Download 332.89 Kb. View original pdf
|
| 3.2 Formal Logic This sort of logic is the part of logic, which examines the form of thought with a view to ensuring the correctness of our reasoning activities. The word form itself was taken originally by Aristotle from the form of statue, which maybe realized over and over again in many different blocks of stones. Thus the analogy of repeated pattern, according to Aristotle is called form. We can see for example Every dog barks. - But every wolf is dog. - Therefore, every wolf barks. - Every vertebrate is an animal. - But every horse is a vertebrate. - Therefore every horse is an animal. SEMANTICS Page What the arguments are talking about (their content) is different but the form is the same, so that we can make a substitution by using symbols for the things reasoned about Every A is B. - But every C is A. - Therefore every C is B. So formal logic is concerned about the form of thought without any regard as to whether or not their content is true. We cannot ensure whether every A is B or every C is Abut based on relation of the consequent upon the antecedent we can make a conclusion. To make it clear the operation of formal logic cane charted as follows: Operator of the Though Product Language Intellect Expression Simple apprehension concept/definition Term Affirmation/negation Judgment Proposition Reasoning Argument : inductive Inductive sequence Deductive syllogism (Daniel J. Sullivan, 1963 : Part of logic, which investigates the content of thought with a view to determine the truth of reasoning in material logic. What this definition teaches us is that we are claimed to determine the truth of reasoning. Truth is actually the fact of reality. Thus the truth of reasoning depends on the truth of judgments we make about the way things are in actual existence. If SEMANTICS Page we find an error we try to seethe cause of the error, for example a wrong judgment of determining the first step from which conclusion derives, or the judgment like make a wring estimate of the nature of things, as what is seen in the argument below : Every oyster is a vertebrate But every claim is an oyster Therefore every claim is vertebrate. As a matter of fact, oyster is not a class of vertebrate, then calm is not a vertebrate. So before we state a fully valid acts of reasoning we must make a true judgment about the things. If a doctor underestimate the disease of his patient the medicine he gives will be wrong, and we can guess what will happen to the patient, no matter how accurate the doctor examined his patient. Another argument which has a wrong conclusion is Everybody is a male. - Every girl is a male. - Therefore every boy is a girl. The conclusion is wrong because its antecedent is wrong. We never equalize a boy with a girl, or in their real existence they are quiet different. By this description we can say : This is very logical but it is not necessarily true”. In our daily speech we always find such logical arguments regardless of their truth (whether not or they are true according to the fact). Perhaps inmost of our debate we try to make logical arguments of this kind by the act of reasoning. A student may say : I am intelligent because I received an A on te examination. In this case he is reasoning and presenting an argument. The fact of getting A is the evident for the truth of SEMANTICS Page the conclusion that he is intelligent. It is not enough to say that the remark A signal his intelligent, but the fact of how he got that mark. Download 332.89 Kb. Share with your friends:
|