LECTURE 1  LECTURE 2   LECTURE 3 LECTURE 4   LECTURE 5

Lesson Two Lecture, Principles of Logic

Lesson Two Lecture: Principles of Logic

Logic makes the world make sense. It is a codified process for answering questions, making decisions, and solving many of life’s riddles.

Traditional logic is widely considered a Western phenomenon, in that it emerged from the Greeks’ efforts to rationally explain the world around them. Aristotelian logic, named after the great Greek philosopher, is one of the oldest and most respected logic systems known.

As a system of evaluating arguments and dissecting meaning, logic is unsurpassed. It is especially useful as a means of separating that which is correct from that which “sounds good.”

Some observers find the calculating, precise nature of logic too cold. Logic, according to this critique, is too concerned with facts, not enough with feelings. It is too concerned with solutions, not enough with compassion.

In fact, those observations about logic are true. Logic is firmly grounded in reality. Further, it is not only concerned with concrete realities, it is concerned with ideal realities, perhaps making it even less accessible to some.

Formal vs. Informal Logic
One of logic’s fundamental characteristics is its concern with the form arguments take. Precise, logical argument requires attention to the form of an argument as well as to its semantic content.

Informal logic, not to be confused with informal speech or an informal manner, is concerned with the semantics of words and phrases. With many logicians, and with some legal operatives, it is necessary to parse the meaning of each word of their arguments to accurately follow their real logic.

Abuse of Logic
Because proper logic requires a substantial investment of brainpower, it is easily bent to the purposes of those who would use it to mislead. Politicians, especially, engage in logical misconduct for the purposes of promoting their agenda.

Those who would misuse logical properties to mislead others make especially productive use of common logical fallacies. They use emotional appeals, appeals to authority and, false dilemmas with great effect.

In our information-soaked culture, one of the most pervasive misuses of logic involves the manipulation of the sheer volume of information in our environment. In this case, a fallacy, logical or otherwise, becomes true, or more accurately, believable if it is repeated often enough.

Many logical fallacies, and many acts of logical mischief, derive from our sense of information overload. If we had time, energy, or focus to logically evaluate every argument we encounter every day, we may find ourselves either amused or enraged by the assault on our good sense.

Logic vs. Rhetoric
Logic is the process by which the human mind reaches proper conclusions about arguments. Rhetoric is the science of designing arguments. Sometimes the principles of logic and the rules of rhetoric collide.

Some time ago, a well-known actress and model was involved in a car accident, hitting another vehicle, the driver of which was severely injured. The well-known actress apparently also drove away from the scene of the accident in a case of “hit and run.”

Interviewed on a television talk program, a colleague of the well-known actress put forth the argument that the well-known actress was really the one injured in the accident, since she might have injured her “beautiful face.” The statement went unchallenged by the adoring host.

We do not always require that parties to an argument carry the burden of proof, sometimes because we want so much to believe what they have to say.

Inductive and Deductive Arguments
Inductive arguments leave open the possibility that correct premises could lead to an incorrect conclusion. Deductive arguments do not.

Inductive arguments can be skillfully used in persuasion because in many cases, correct premises can strongly suggest a “correct” outcome.

Consider the following conversation between Senator A and Senator B:

Senator A: “Our tax package will benefit the country. More revenue for the federal government helps us help needy citizens. That is good for the country!”

Senator B: “Balderdash! Our tax cut package will benefit the country. Paying less taxes lets people keep more of their own money. That is good for the country!”

In either case, the Senators’ premises might be true without their conclusions also proving true. In either case, more information is needed to form a cogent argument.

Discussion Questions:
Please review the following questions and post your responses here by pressing “add a reply.”

Are the rules of logic too rigid? If so, revise them so that they work better and still meet the standard as “the process by which the human mind comes to correct conclusions.”

Should we insist that politicians, media personalities, and other public figures make cogent arguments? Would they do so if we insisted? How would that impact our public debates?