Logic: Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, UKM Bangi E-Mail: Mostafa@ukm - Edu.my

Logic
Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar

Faculty of Social Science and Humanities,
UKM Bangi
E-mail: mostafa@ukm.edu.my.
Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 1

The study of Human Thinking
HUMAN Descriptive
THINKING (Psychology)
How does
human think?
How does brain
work?
Prescriptive/Normative What is right or

(Philosophy)
wrong thinking?
What is rational
thinking?

Thinking in Philosophy & Psychology
 Psychology is concerned with describing how

the human mind actually functions and
describing the various factors that seem to enter
into the process of decision making, thus its
interest is descriptive
 Philosophy seeks to distinguish between correct
and incorrect ways of thinking, thus is interest is
prescriptive as the search for normative criteria

What is logic?
Scoundrel: a person, especially a man, who treats other people very badly
and has no moral principles

Logic (‫?)علم املنطق‬
 Logic, from Classical Greek λόγος (logos), originally
meaning the word, or what is spoken, (but coming to
mean thought or reason)
 It is the study of criteria for the evaluation of arguments,
therefore it is also commonly used today in
argumentation theory.
 The task of the logician is to advance an account of valid
and fallacious inference, to allow one to distinguish
logical from flawed arguments; the systematic study of
valid inference
 Logic is the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or
inference; The principle of correct reasoning

What is logic?
 Logic is the study of valid reasoning.
 That is, logic tries to establish criteria to
decide whether some piece of reasoning is
valid or invalid.
 OK, so then what do we mean by ‘valid
reasoning’?
Reasoning
 A piece of reasoning consists of a
sequence of statements, some of which
are claimed to follow from previous ones.
That is, some are claimed to be inferred
from others.
 Example: “Either the housemaid or the
butler killed Mr. X. However, if the
housemaid would have done it, the alarm
would have gone off, and the alarm did not
go off. Therefore, the butler did it.”
Example!
 The argument All professors are brilliant;
Smith is a professor, therefore, Smith is
brilliant is a valid inference
 The argument All professors are brilliant;
Smith is brilliant; therefore, Smith is a
professor is an invalid inference that
relates to formal fallacy, even if Smith is a
professor.

Valid Reasoning
 While in every piece of reasoning certain
statements are claimed to follow from others,
this may in fact not be the case.
 Example: “If I win the lottery, then I’m happy.
However, I did not win the lottery. Therefore, I
am not happy.”
 A piece of reasoning is valid if the statements
that are claimed to follow from previous ones do
indeed follow from those. Otherwise, the
reasoning is said to be invalid.
Sound Reasoning
 Not all valid reasoning is good reasoning.
 Example: “If I win the lottery, then I’ll be
poor. So, since I did win the lottery, I am
poor.”
 This piece of reasoning is valid, but not
very good, since it assumed an absurd
claim (‘If I win the lottery, I’ll be poor.’
Huh??)
 Sound reasoning is valid reasoning based
on acceptable assumptions.
Truth and Implication
 Logic studies the validity of reasoning.
 Logic does not study soundness.
 Therefore, logic alone cannot tell us
whether an argument is good. Hence,
logic alone is not a guide to truth.
 Instead, logic can tell us, assuming certain
things to be true, what else will be true as
well. Thus, logic is a guide to implication.
Nature of Logic: Formal & Informal
 Formal logic
 The study of logical inference that is explicit.
 Informal logic
 The study of natural language arguments,
especially on fallacies in argument.

Deductive Validity vs
Inductive Validity
 An argument is said to be deductively valid
if, assuming the premises to be true, the
conclusion must be true as well.
 An argument is said to be inductively valid
if, assuming the premises to be true, the
conclusion is likely to be true as well.
The nature of reasoning: Deductive
 Deductive reasoning (syllogism)
 which concerns what follows necessarily
from given premises; moving from the
general to the specific case
 A deductive inference is one that is
intended to be valid, where a valid
inference is one in which the conclusion
must be true if the premises are true
 Deduction has to do with necessity

The nature of reasoning: Inductive
 Inductive reasoning
 the process of reasoning in which the premises of an
argument are believed to support the conclusion but
do not ensure it.
 Typical forms of inductive argument include reasoning
from a part to a whole, from the particular to the
general, and from a sample to an entire population
 Induction has to do with probability
 Example: All cats are observed to eat mouse, Pussy
is a cat, therefore, pussy will probably eat mouse

Syllogism (‫?)املنطقي ;القياس‬
 A syllogism is a sequence of three propositions:
two premises and the conclusion
 Major Premise: All professors are brilliant
 Minor Premise: Smith is a professor
 Conclusion: therefore, Smith is brilliant
 Every syllogism is a sequence of three

propositions such that the first two imply the
third, the conclusion.
 There are three basic types of syllogism:
hypothetical, disjunctive, and categorical.
Types of syllogism
Syllogism If P then Q
hypothetical It is P
Therefore Q
Either P or Q
disjunctive It isn’t P
Therefore Q
All X are Y;
categorical No X is Y;
Some X is Y;
Some X isn’t Y

What is criteria for truth?
 Criteria for truth and falsity
 From mythology to rationality (western
thinking from fifth century BC onward)
 Based on reason or ‘appeal to reason’
(individual reason) or human reason
 Reasonable means knowing why, having
good justification to do or believe, standing for
any decision made

Truth and Implication
 Logic studies the validity of reasoning.
 Logic does not study soundness.
 Therefore, logic alone cannot tell us
whether an argument is good. Hence,
logic alone is not a guide to truth.
 Instead, logic can tell us, assuming certain
things to be true, what else will be true as
well. Thus, logic is a guide to implication.
Argument?
 An attempt to demonstrate the truth of an
a conclusion, based on the truth of a set of
premises.
 The process of demonstration of deductive
and inductive reasoning that shape the
argument, and presumes some kind of
communication, which could be part of a
written text, a speech or a conversation

Arguments, Premises and
Conclusion
 In logic, pieces of reasoning are analyzed using
the notion of an argument
 An argument consists of any number of
premises, and one conclusion
 Again, in logic, we are merely interested in
whether the conclusion follows from the
premises: we are not interested in whether those
premises are true or acceptable.
Characteristics of Argument!
 A claim is made in the statement
(conclusion)
 Therefore, women is weak.
 Support/evidence is offered for the claim
(premises)
 Women always cries when she has problem
 Attempts to influence someone (function)
 Do not support women’s superiority

Anatomy of argument
premises
or evidence AgB
CgA
------------
sCgB
conclusion
or claim

Fallacies
 Bad arguments are called fallacies.
 Fallacies tend to exploit common
psychological aspects of our mind: many
people think that they are good
arguments.
 Fallacies usually follow certain patterns, so
there are several categories of common
fallacies.
 You can see fallacies around you all the
time once you recognize these patterns.
Fallacy in argument?
 a component of an argument that is demonstrably
flawed in its logic or form, thus rendering the argument
invalid in whole
 In logical arguments, fallacies are either formal or
informal. Because the validity of a deductive argument
depends on its form
 a formal fallacy, or logical fallacy is a reasoning
(inference making) errors based on incorrect form or
structure of an argument
 informal fallacy is a reasoning errors based on
incorrect content of an argument

Division of Fallacy
Affirmed
consequence
formal
Denied
antecedence
Fallacy
inductive
causal
informal
misdirection
verbal
Formal Fallacy
 Argument from fallacy (ad logicam)
 Affirming the consequent
 If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich. Bill
Gates is rich. Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort
Knox.
 Denying the antecedent
 If Queen Elizabeth is an American citizen, then
she is a human being. Queen Elizabeth is not an
American citizen. Therefore, Queen Elizabeth is
not a human being

Informal Inductive fallacy
Biased sample
Faulty
generalization
conclusive
Inductive/
Half truth
Small sample
Hasty/over
generalization
False dilemma

Faulty generalization:
Biased sample
 To show whether married life is

good or bad, but only taken the
samples from the broken married
couples.

Faulty generalization : Half-Truth
 "You should not trust Peter with your

children. I once saw him smack a child
with his open hand." In this example the
statement would be technically true, but
the other half of the story is that Peter
was actually slapping the child on the
back, because he was choking."

Over or Hasty Generalization:
unrepresentative or small sample
A conclusion is made by only a small
sample/case which is not
representative
All Malay students have no English
command of language. The conclusion
taken from a small group of Malay
students

False Dilemma
 An argument assumes a false dilemma
when it assumes that one of two cases
must be true, where in fact there are other
options as well. Examples:
 Since you’re not a capitalist, you must be a
communist!
 You’re either with us, or against us.
 Are you a Democrat or a Republican?
 Nature or nurture?
Over or Hasty Generalization:
Package-deal fallacy or False
dilemma (hitam-putih)

Informal Causal fallacy
False Cause
Questionable
causal
Appeal to force
cause
Correlation
Slippery slope
Implies causation
Circular logic

Informal causal fallacies: Questionable cause or Post hoc ergo propter
hoc (after this, therefore because of this) or false cause

Informal
causal
fallacies:
Questionable
cause
Appeal to force
(threatening) as a
basic for
accepting or
rejecting a point
of view
(argumentum ad
baculum)
Informal causal fallacies:
Questionable cause or appeal to
probability

Slippery Slope
 A slippery slope fallacy makes a dubious
assumption that one thing will lead to
another
 Ifthe “experts” decide today that we should
have fluorides in our tea, coffee, frozen
orange juice, lemonade, and every cell of our
bodies, what’s next? Tranquilizers to avoid
civil disorders? What about birth-control
chemicals to be routed to the water in certain
ethnic neighborhoods?
Causal Fallacy: Slippery slope

Informal causal fallacies:
Correlation implies causation

Begging the Question
 Circular reasoning:
 God exists because the bible says so. …
What, why we can trust what the Bible says?
Easy, the Bible is the word of God.
 Of course my salary is higher than yours,
because my work is more important. …You’re
asking me why it is more important? Well, my
salary is higher, isn’t it?
 The “True Scotsman” Fallacy:
 AllGermans like sauerkraut. … Oh, your
brother-in-law is German and he doesn’t like
sauerkraut? Well, he is not a true German
then, is he?
Informal causal fallacies: Begging the
question or circular logic (putar-belit)

Fallacies of Relevance
 Fallacies that violate the first criterion of good
arguments (the premises should support the
conclusion) are fallacies of relevance. In other
words, any time the conclusion cannot
reasonably be drawn from the premises, we are
dealing with a fallacy of relevance.
 Ad Hominem
 Appeal to Authority
 Red Herring
 Appeal to Fear, Force, Pity, Vanity, etc.
 Appeal to Ignorance
Informal Misdirection fallacy
misdirection Red herring
Straw man
Guilt by association
Argument from ignorance
Wishful thinking
Appeal to emotion
Ad hominem attack
Appeal to tradition,
Majority, authority

Red Herring
 Sometimes the premises seem related to
the conclusion, but they really aren’t: you
are being led down the wrong path.
Example:
I can't believe you thought that latest Disney
movie was ok for children to watch. Disney
pays 12-year old girls 31 cents an hour to sow
their products together.
Informal Irrelevance Fallacies or misdirection: Irrelevant
conclusion (Ignoratio elenchi); Red herring or sidetracking the
argument from the real issue considered.

Informal Irrelevance Fallacies or
misdirection
 Association fallacy or Guilt by association
 Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. Adolf Hitler was evil.
Therefore vegetarianism must be evil.

Straw Man
 A Straw Man argument attacks something
by attacking a helpless caricature of that
something: it often distorts the original by
exaggeration. Example:
 The movement to allow prayer in public
school classrooms is a major threat to our
freedom. The advocates of prayer in school
want to require every school child to
participate in a Christian religious program
prior to every school day.
STRAW-MAN FALLACY is when a person misrepresents his opponent’s
position and then proceeds to refute that misrepresentation (i.e., the “straw
man”) rather than what his opponent actually claims
misdirection
 Straw man: substituting ideas into only simplistic caricature.
 The man-women equal right law should be abolished. Do you
want man and woman sharing the same toilet?

Appeal to Ignorance
 An appeal to ignorance is made when one
argues that something is the case since no
one has shown that it is not the case:
 Smoking is ok, since no one has proven that it
is bad for your health.
 Our factory output shouldn’t be restricted for
environmental reasons, since no one has
shown that the green house effect really
exists.
 Argument from
ignorance
(argumentum ad
ignorantium): a
proposition is true
because it has not
been proven false,
or a certain
proposition is false
because it has not
been proven true

Wishful Thinking

Appeal to Emotions (Fear, Pity,
Vanity, etc)
 Fear:
 If
you don’t believe in God, God sure won’t be
happy about that!
 Pity:
I deserve an A in the class because my mom
was really sick and so I couldn’t concentrate
 Vanity:
 Intelligent
people like yourself deserve [fill in
any product here]
misdirection : Appeal to emotion like
Appeal to fear, flattery, pity, spite

Informal Relevance Fallacies or misdirection:
Appeal to tradition (ad antiquitatem)

Appeal to the majority
(Argumentum ad populum)

Appeal to Authority
 Inappropriate Authority:
 According to my dad …
 Einstein said … [something about evolution]
 Unidentified Authority:
 Studies show …
 Experts agree …
 Science says …
 Appeal to the Masses:
 Everybody knows …
Ad Hominem
 The Ad Hominem Fallacy is committed
when someone rejects a belief or
argument based on its source. Examples:
 BillClinton’s proposal is bad, because he had
sex in the White House (abusive ad hominem)
 Of course he opposes rent control. He owns
two apartment buildings himself!
(circumstantial ad hominem)
 John Kerry criticizes George Bush’s military
record? Wait, didn’t Kerry get those 3 purple
hearts by blowing up some innocent
Vietnamese? (inconsistency ad hominem,
pseudorefutation or ‘tu quoque’)
An Ad Hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin:
"argument to the person", "argument against the man, not the idea") consists of
replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the
argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument

 It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad
hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which
consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's
proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.
Informal Verbal Fallacies
 Ambiguity: having or expressing more than one
possible meaning, sometimes intentionally
 The furore started last week in the Dewan
Rakyat when opposition MPs tried to raise a
motion on the leaking ceiling near the media
centre. Bung Mokhtar and Mohd Said then
said, “Mana bocor? Batu Gajah pun bocor
setiap bulan.” (Where is the leak? Batu Gajah
(MP Fong Po Kuan) also leaks every month.)
[The star, May 17, 2007]

Equivocation: unclear and seeming to have two opposing meanings,
or confusing and able to be understood in two different ways
 “Jangan
sumbangkan
lagu ye!”
 As far as I
know, it is hard
to get to work
with him! And
you are lucky if
you can…!

What fallacy is this?








Obstacle in logical thinking?
 Egocentricity
 Wishful Thinking & Self-deception
 Culture and Ethnocentricity
 Relativism & Subjectivism
 Conformist, orthodoxy and Group-thinking
 Reliance on Authority

Between logical & physical strength!

Reference
 David Stewart & H Gene Blocker. (1996).
Fundamentals of Philosophy. 4th eds. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall (pg. 45-97)
 Joel Rudinow & Vincent E Barry. (1984)
Invitation to Critical Thinking. Fort Worth:
Harourt Brace College Publishers.

Logic: Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, UKM Bangi E-Mail: Mostafa@ukm - Edu.my

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Logic: Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, UKM Bangi E-Mail: Mostafa@ukm - Edu.my

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Logic

Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 1

Prescriptive/Normative What is right or

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 2

 Psychology is concerned with describing how

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 3

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 4

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 5

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 8

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 12

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 14

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 16

 Every syllogism is a sequence of three

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 21

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 22

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 24

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 26

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 27

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 29

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 31

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 32

 To show whether married life is

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 33

 "You should not trust Peter with your

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 34

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 35

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 37

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 38

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 39

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 41

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 43

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 44

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 46

Argument from ignorance

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 49

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 51

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 52

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 55

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 57

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 58

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 60

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 61

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 62

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 66

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 68

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 69

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 70

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 71

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 72

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 73

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 74

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 75

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 76

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 77

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 78

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 79

Sunday, March 15, 2015 Mostafa Kamal Mokhtar 81

Вам также может понравиться