Course Title: fundamentals of Philosophy-1 Course Code: UMJPHT-201

UNIT: 1- Logic
1.1. Propositions- Definition and Types
1.2. Argument- Definition and Types
1.3. Truth and Validity

Propositions- Definition and Types

A proposition is the verbal expression of an act of judgment. The precise logical form of a
proposition differentiates it from grammatical sentences. Ordinary sentences express not only
statements of facts but also express- wishes, feelings, commands, questions etc. Logical
propositions are statements or indicative sentences in which something is said about
something else either affirmatively or negatively. Hence, propositions precisely have the forms -
‘S is P’ or ‘Sis not P’. It is clear that even though a proposition is a sentence, not every sentence
is a proposition.

Propositions are the building blocks of our reasoning. A proposition asserts that
something is the case or it asserts that something is not. We may affirm a proposition, or deny
it—but every proposition either asserts what really is the case, or it asserts something that is not
the case. Therefore every proposition is either true or false. There are many propositions about
whose truth we are uncertain. “There is life on some other planet in our galaxy,” for example, is
a proposition that, so far as we now know, may be true or may be false. Its “truth value” is
unknown, but this proposition, like every proposition, must be either true or false.

Simple Propositions: Simple propositions are those that do not contain any other
propositions as a part of their meaning. They are also called atomic or elementary propositions.
Simple propositions are either true or false, and their truth value is independent of other
propositions. For example, "The sun is shining," "I am hungry," etc. Simple propositions are the
building blocks of more complex propositions.

Examples: Love is happiness.

Tiger is ferocious.
It is raining outside.
The moon orbits the Earth.
John is taller than Mary.
The Earth is round.
A simple proposition has only one subject and one predicate. Note that the subject ‘All white
men’ is one subject though it has many words. Similarly ‘Red Indians’ is one predicate.

Complex or Composite Propositions: Composite propositions are those that are made up
of two or more simple propositions, combined using logical connectives such as "and," "or," "if-
then," etc. Composite propositions can be broken down into their constituent parts, and their
truth value depends on the truth values of their component propositions and the logical
connective used. For example, "It is raining outside and the sun is shining" is a composite
proposition made up of two simple propositions connected by the logical connective "and."

Examples: Violence does not pay and leads to unhappiness.

She is graceful but cannot act.
Either he is honest or dishonest.
If John comes home, then you must cook chicken.

‘She is graceful’ is a simple proposition. ‘Cannot act’ can be written as ‘She cannot act’, which
is a simple proposition again. These simple propositions are connected by a conjunction ‘but’.
When two or more simple propositions are combined into a single statement we get a complex or
composite proposition.

In summary, simple propositions are statements that cannot be broken down into smaller parts,
while composite propositions are made up of two or more simple propositions combined using
logical connectives.

What is an argument? Distinguish between

Deductive and Inductive Arguments.
Define Argument: Argument is a technical term in logic. Here it does not necessarily mean disagreement
or controversy. In logic, argument refers strictly to any group of propositions of which one is claimed to
follow from the others, which are regarded as providing support for the truth of that one. When we reason
about any matter, we produce arguments to support our conclusions. Thus, in an argument we affirm one
proposition on the basis of other propositions. Arguments are constructed with propositions as building
blocks. The conclusion of an argument is the proposition that is affirmed on the basis of the other
propositions of the argument. These other propositions, which provide support for the conclusion, are the
premises of the argument.

Types of Arguments: Every argument claims that its premises provide grounds for the truth of its
conclusion. However, there are two different ways in which a conclusion may be supported by its
premises, and thus there are two different classes of arguments: the deductive and the inductive.
Understanding this discussion is essential to the study of logic.

In a deductive argument, the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. This means that
if all the premises in the argument are true, then the conclusion has to be true. In such an argument, the
conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. Here is an example:

All men are mortal. (premise)

Socrates was a man. (premise)
Therefore, Socrates was mortal. (conclusion)

Here it can be seen that if the premises are true, then it simply isn’t possible for the conclusion to be false.
A deductive argument does not guarantee that its premises are true. However, it does guarantee that if the
premises are true, there is no way for the conclusion to be false. The categories of validity and invalidity
apply to deductive arguments. In a valid deductive argument with all true premises, the truth of the
conclusion is necessary and its falsity is impossible. The kind of support that valid deductive arguments
give to their conclusions is not a matter of degree; it is ‘all or nothing.’ That is why deductive arguments
give us certainty, although they tell us nothing new. This is because all the information contained in the
conclusion is already contained in the premises.

In deductive arguments, the reasoning goes from general or universal to particular. Deductive reasoning is
often used in mathematics where we make conclusions about a specific case according to more general
principles or rules.

In an inductive argument, the truth of the premises supports the truth of the conclusion. However, it does
not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. This means that even if all the premises of the argument are
true, the conclusion may still be false. Here the link between the premises and the conclusion is based on
probability, so that if the premises are true, then it can be said that the conclusion is true with a degree of
probability. In other words, the conclusion follows probably from the premises. Here is an example:
Socrates was Greek. (premise)
Most Greeks eat fish. (premise)
Therefore, Socrates ate fish. (conclusion)

In this example, even if both premises are true, it is still possible for the conclusion to be false (maybe
Socrates was allergic to fish, for example.)
Validity and invalidity do not apply to inductive arguments. Inductive arguments are either strong or
weak. In a strong inductive argument with all true premises, the truth of the conclusion is merely likely
and its falsity is merely unlikely. The kind of support that strong inductive arguments provide their
conclusions is a matter of degree; it is ‘more or less.’ That is why inductive arguments are always
uncertain to some degree, although they provide us with lots of new information. This is because the
conclusion of an inductive argument contains information not contained in the premises.
In inductive arguments, the reasoning goes from particular to general. Inductive reasoning is often used in
empirical sciences, such as physics, biology, psychology, and sociology. In these sciences, there is data,
and inductive reasoning is used to draw conclusions from the data.
What is meant by truth, validity and soundness?
Truth is the characteristic of those propositions that assert what really is the case. When I assert that India
is the seventh largest country in the world, I assert what really is the case, what is true. If I had claimed
that India is the largest country in the world my assertion would not be in accord with the real world;
therefore, it would be false.

Validity is a technical term that relates to a deductive argument. A deductive argument is valid when it
succeeds in linking, with logical necessity, the conclusion to its premises. Its validity refers to the relation
between its propositions – between the set of propositions that serve as the premises and the one
proposition that serves as the conclusion of that argument. If the conclusion follows with logical necessity
from the premises, that is, if it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true, we say
that the argument is valid. If the conclusion does not follow, we say that the argument is invalid.
Following is the example of a valid argument: ---
Money is more valuable than good looks.
Freedom is more valuable than money.
Therefore, freedom is more valuable than good looks.

Here if the premises are true, the conclusion has to be true.

Here is the example of an invalid argument: ---

Courage is more important than honesty.
Kindness is more important than honesty.
Therefore, courage and kindness are equally important.
Here the premises do not imply the conclusion. Even if the premises are true, the conclusion is false.

There is an important difference between validity and truth: Truth and falsity are features of individual
propositions; validity and invalidity are features of arguments. Validity can never apply to any single
proposition by itself, because the needed relation cannot possibly be found within any one proposition. A
single statement that serves as a premise in an argument may be true; the statement that serves as its
conclusion may be false. This conclusion might have been validly inferred, but to say that any conclusion
(or any single premise) is itself valid or invalid makes no sense.

Just as the concept of validity cannot apply to single propositions, the concept of truth cannot apply to
arguments. Of the several propositions in an argument, some (or all) may be true and some (or all) may be
false. However, the argument as a whole is neither true nor false. Propositions, which are statements
about the world, may be true or false; arguments, which consist of reasoning from one set of propositions
to other propositions, may be valid or invalid.

We should never be misled by true premises or true conclusions to suppose that an argument is valid. Nor
should we be misled by false premises or false conclusions to suppose that it is invalid. Nor should we be
misled by valid reasoning to suppose that statements are true, or by invalid reasoning to suppose that
statements are false. To recognize this can go a long way in saving ourselves from deceptive arguments.

Truth and validity are combined in the concept of soundness. Soundness is the highest praise for an
argument. It is reserved for arguments which we regard as perfect. When an argument is valid and all of
its premises are true, it is called a sound argument. Following is an example of a sound argument:
All mammals feed milk to their young.
All humans are mammals.
Therefore, all humans feed milk to their young.

The above is a valid argument, and all of its premises are true. In fact, this is the main difference between
a valid argument and a sound argument. A valid argument contains a big if: If all the premises are true,
then the conclusion must also be true. A sound argument is a valid argument with one further condition:
The premises really are true, so the conclusion is really is true as well.

Connect with Us:

YouTube: @PhilosophySimplified
Instagram: Philosophy_Simplified