Logical Inference, Argument and Other Components of Logic - Term Paper Example

Philosophy and Logic Logic is an aspect that entails two different senses of reasoning, which are effective and deceptiveas well as the application of thinking. This implies that logic deals with the concepts of rationality of implication and demonstration. Logic indicates the causes the arguments and how an individual handles them. Logic is always formal if it is meant to evaluate and signify the form of any practical claim. Logical form is established through the language structure that a person uses when representing claims about events. This is applicable because analytic sentences of normal language show a substantial diversity of form and complexity that makes their use in interpretation unreasonable. Although logic is favorable in real time interpretation of concepts, other philosophical applications are also essential in making inferential arguments. Inductive and Deductive Reasoning This reasoning entails evaluation of suggestions resulting from some examples. In this manner, interpretations are made from general ideas to individual instances that suggest truths (Hausman, Kahane and Tidman 5). This concept involves reasoning from detailed observations and processes, which start from discovering patterns and consistencies, articulating some tentative suggestions that are discovered and then formulating a general inferences or theories. The synthesis of ideas from general opinions of specific makes this logic to be called “bottom up” logic (Burgess 8). For instance, if A is true and B is true, the C is probable. These logics also employ restrictive probability meanings to signify procedures of the degree to which suggestion statements support theories. Inductive reasoning is probable to fail and produce misconceptions, such as a speedy conclusion mistake. Despite the mistakes made in inductive and considering the level of the limitations, most perception is inductive. For instance, inductive reasoning is applied in cell theory, which is among the basics of current biology uses the concepts of inductive reasoning. This is because all creatures observed are made up of cells. The argument is either true or false because biologists consider that all existing things are made up of cells (Minto 17). On the other hand, deductive reasoning operates to provide the truth of the inference offered that the statement’s evidences are accurate. This explains that, in a deductive argument, the evidences are planned to provide such close support for the deduction that, if the suggestions are true, then it would be inconceivable for the deduction to be untrue. Such an argument where the evidence accurately supports the conclusion is a “deductively” valid argument. For instance, if A is correct, and B is correct, then C must be true. This means that if a valid claim has true deductions, then the argument is comprehensive and valid. This is approach explains the use of the term "top-down" approach. It entails narrowing down on a topic of interest into comprehensive and specific theories that can be explained (Hausman, Kahane and Tidman 7). However, the variance between the inductive and deductive arguments originates from the connection the author of the claims takes to be between the evidences and the deduction. This implies that if the author of the claim believes that the accuracy of the evidences establishes the truth of the inference due to description, reasonable structure or scientific requirement, then the argument is logical (Burgess 10). On the other hand, if the author of the claim does not consider that the accuracy of the evidences establishes the truth of the assumption, but considers that their truth offers good cause to believe the inference true, then the claim is inductive. The two bases of argument help philosophers and authors to make convincing conclusions about their theories or claims. This makes arguments valid and reasonable by the connections derived from claims and conclusions (Burgess 10). Conversely, deductive reasoning is either valid or invalid while inductive reasoning does not have a standard term for a successful argument. For instance, researchers may detect patterns in data that lead them to introduce new theories. Logical thinking is essential when establishing claims from other people’s general opinions to come up with genuine inferences. In reality, inductive reasoning is flexible and investigative, especially during the initial stages of conducting a research. Deductive reasoning is constricted and is applied to test or confirm theories. However, most social researches use both inductive and deductive reasoning during the research procedures. The scientific model of logical thinking provides a mutual link between theory and investigation. In practice, it means that researchers normally like alternating between deduction and induction to make sound arguments (Minto 23). Cogent and un-cogent Cogent and Un-cogent are also reasoning arguments that determine the conclusions and premises of claims. A cogent claim is an inductive argument that is both durable and has all accurate evidences. Whereas, a un-cogent claim is an inductive argument that is either weak or has at least one wrong evidence. This means that good or cogent reasoning involves two main portions, which are one or several premises. The conclusion is the other portion and derives facts from background analysis of the premises. Cogent is appropriate in determining the accuracy of premises before making inferences. Absence of a valid premise will make cogent be deductive argument where rules ought to be followed to determine a premise (Hausman, Kahane and Tidman 12). Fallacies of logical thinking arise most often in the elimination of evidence misconceptions. This implies that if all significant information is not accessible, then a valid deduction cannot be drawn. Therefore, most fallacies arise in the demonstration of a claim. For instance, phrasing of one's platform is essential to the deduction one needs the other party to apply. In addition, since most English words lack emotive value, then any given expression can have a positive meaning, a destructive meaning, or can be an impartial expression (Minto 28). In situations where the premises do not mark the deduction likely true or the evidence do overlook some vital piece of the premise, which overshadows the given premise, but would involve a changed conclusion, then that is a weak inductive argument. An unsound disagreement is a deductive claim that is either unacceptable or has at least one wrong evidence. This implies that if the reality of the premises would not make the deduction possibly true, then the inductive claim is weak. On the other hand, a sound argument is a deductive argument that is both binding and has all factual principles. However, if at least one of the premises is wrong, then the valid argument is unsound. This means that sound arguments only arise if all the premises are valid (Hausman, Kahane and Tidman 14). Applications of logic Most scientists and other careers use logics to make conclusions and support their arguments concerning inventions. Logic is an essential philosophical concept that is also applied in the daily lives and endeavors. For instance, lawyers normally use logics to sway cases for their clients in courtrooms. This means that logic usage must incorporate induction and deduction reasoning for it to be considered accurate and substantial. Most of the users of logic must have valid premises to make the argument substantial and recognized by other philosophers (Minto 34). The use of induction embraces pattern-recognition, suggestion, fixing, inventive guessing and that indefinable perception. This implies that the use of induction is different from deduction since it does not involve a process of deductive logic. Philosophies and laws are expected to comprise of such form that an individual can deductively advance from philosophies to rulings to data. The outcomes of conclusion must meet a strict standard. The conclusion arrived at must comply with experiment and explanations of nature (Minto 42). For example, mathematics is a procedure of deductive reasoning. Therefore, it is preferably appropriate to be the language and the deductive connection between concepts and new evidences. As a result, some non-scientists assume that calculation and logic are used to substantiate technical proposals. In addition, mathematics is not used in scientific experiments or any ordinary application to deduce new rules and concepts, and create laws and concepts with mathematical conviction. Mathematics is either wrong or right and cannot depend on other people’s explanation to state the rules. Another feature of the values of reasoning is that they are non-contingent. This is because they are not influenced by on any accidental structures of the world. For instance, physicists might argue that no motion can travel quicker than the speed of light, but if the rules of nuclear physics have been changed, then possibly this would not have been correct. Similarly, ecologists might investigate how dolphins relate with each other, but if the progression of evolution had been changed, then maybe dolphins might not have been existent (Burgess 11). Therefore, the concepts in the experimental disciplines are reliant because they could have been different. The philosophies of logic, instead, are arrived at using thinking only, and their legitimacy is not influenced by any liable characteristics of the world. The disciples do not depend on any features of the world since some are just assumptions that cannot lead to valid conclusions. There must be validity and rules that indicate how a premise will give a correct conclusion without doubts or false. Formal logic helps in identification of forms of good thinking and forms of immoral reasoning. This helps people in observing appropriate forms that are acceptable by the society. Philosophers conclude that formal reasoning is instrumental because it helps in improvement or development of critical thinking in diverse situations. In addition, formal forms of logic are also applied by linguists to study natural dialects. For example, a person can construct logical sentences by following instructions issued by the natives (Burgess 14). Similarly, computer experts also use formal forms of logic when conducting investigations concerning AI. This is a computer concept that helps in scrutiny of computer mistakes operated by users. Finally, many logicians also like to employ formal logic when dealing with complex rational complications to make their perception clear and exact. Informal logics also exist, but cannot help in making conclusions. This is because they lack genuine premises in the application of scientific or philosophical conclusions (Burgess 16). Conclusion Logic is a vital concept in philosophy. It is the feature that entails two different senses of reasoning, which are effective and deceptive as well as the application of thinking. Logic uses inference and argument. Inferences are rule-managed procedures from one or more suggestions called premises, to additional suggestion called the conclusion. On the other hand, a deductive inference is anticipated to be valid, where a binding conclusion is one in which the deduction must be accurate if the evidences are correct. The concept of inductive involves reasoning from detailed observations and processes, which start from discovering patterns and consistencies, articulating some tentative suggestions that are discovered and then formulating a general inference or theories. However, the variance between the inductive and deductive arguments originates from the connection the author of the claims takes to be between the evidences and the deduction. This implies that if the author of the claim believes that the accuracy of the evidences establishes the truth of the inference due to description, reasonable structure or scientific requirement, then the argument is logical. The use of induction embraces pattern-recognition, suggestion, fixing, inventive guessing and that indefinable perception. This implies that the use of induction is different from deduction since it does not involve a process of deductive logic. For example mathematics is a procedure of deductive reasoning. Therefore, it is preferably appropriate to be the language and the deductive connection between concepts and new evidences. Cogent and Un-cogent are also reasoning arguments that determine the conclusions and premises of claims. A cogent claim is an inductive argument that is both durable and has all accurate evidences. Whereas, a un-cogent claim is an inductive argument that is either weak or has at least one wrong evidence. Works Cited Burgess, John P. Philosophical Logic. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. Print. Hausman, Alan, Howard Kahane, and Paul Tidman. Logic and Philosophy: A Modern Introduction. Australia: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2013. Print. Minto, William. Logic: Inductive and Deductive. Whitefish, Mont.: Kessinger Pub, 2006. Print. Read More