Quarter 1 – Module

6
USING LOGIC TO
EVALUATE TRUTH
AND OPINION AS
METHOD OF
PHILOSOPHIZING
Logic: A method of Philosophizing

Truth as the object of thinking is difficult to be

acquired. Knowing the truth lies generally in
reasoning and Logic as the branch of Philosophy
which deals with thinking, not just thinking but
“correct thinking,” is the tool of philosophy shall
provide one with the necessary skills to think
critically. The aim of logic is correct thinking, and
thinking consists mainly of reasoning. The function of
logic is toinvestigate the various types of arguments
and the rules which govern their consistency.
 St. Thomas Aquinas on his
Comments on the on the Posterior
Analytics of Aristotle said that what Logic
examines are the three acts of the reason
or the mind namely: simple
apprehension, judgment and reasoning.
These acts of the mind are the main
themes one must be acquainted with so
as to be fruitful in situations that might
involve critical thinking skills. Below is
the schematic flow of these acts of the
mind.
 Understanding Arguments
The purpose of logic, as the science that evaluates
arguments, is thus to develop methods and techniques that
allow us to distinguish good arguments from bad. As
apparent from the above definition, the term ‘‘argument’’
has a very specific meaning in logic. It does not mean, a
mere verbal fight, as one mighthave with one’s parent,
spouse, or friend.
An argument is a set of statements, one or more of the
statements are called the premises which attempt to
provide the reason to believe for decidingthat some other
statement which is called the conclusion is true. A
statement is asentence that is either true or false—in other
words, typically a declarative sentesentence or a sentence
component that could stand as a declarative sentence. The
same is true with syllogism, that these statements are called
proposition.
 As you go on with the lesson, you will be looking at
some ways to evaluate arguments, but for now, let us learn
first on how to identify an argument since it is important to
be able to identify arguments and understand their
structure, whether or not you agree with conclusion of the
argument. Here is the illustration:
Deductive and Inductive Arguments

A deductive argument is an argument

such that the premises provide (or appear to
provide) complete support for the conclusion.
An inductive argument is an argument such
that the premises provide (or appear to
provide) some degree of support (but less than
complete support) for the conclusion.
 Recognizing Arguments
The first among the schemes one has to take is to
identify whether an argument is present. This is to ask
whether there is a statement that someone is trying to
establish to be true by grounding it on some other
statements. If it is known, then there is an argument
present. If not, then there is no argument present.
It is crucial for one that before refuting or counter
reacting a statement, the point of argument must be
perceived first for it will be the point from where the
counter statement must be based. If none, the statement is
merely an explanation. Looking at the illustration above, the
point of argument is established since both the premises
settled on the idea of “crime”. This is called in syllogism as
the middle term which is the issue of the argument.
 Another scheme that can help in identifying
arguments is knowing certainkey words or phrases that are
premise indicators or conclusion indicators. One of the
most important tasks in the analysis of arguments is being
able to distinguish premises from conclusion. If what is
thought to be a conclusion is really apremise, and vice
versa, the subsequent analysis cannot possibly be correct.
Frequently, arguments contain certain indicator words that
provide clues in identifying premises and conclusion. Some
typical conclusion indicators are:
therefore consequently implies that
wherefore it follows that hence
entails that hence entails that it must be that
wherefore we may infer as a result
 If an argument does not contain a conclusion
indicator, it may contain a premise indicator. Any
statement following one of these indicators can usually be
identified as a premise. Some typical premise indicators
are:
 Validity and Soundness of Arguments

Validity relates to how well the premises support

the conclusion. A valid argument is an argument whose
conclusion cannot possibly be false, assuming that the
premises are true. Another way of putting this is as a
conditional statement: A valid argument is an argument in
which if the premises are true, the conclusion must be
true. To test an argument for validity we begin by
assuming that all premises are true, and then we
determine if it is possible, in light of that assumption, for
the conclusion to be false.
 Here is an example:

All television networks are media companies.

---- if this is true

ABS CBN is a television network.

---- and this is true

Therefore, ABS CBN is a media company.

---- this must be true
 A good argument is not only valid, but also sound.
Soundness is defined in terms of validity, so since we
have already defined validity, we can now rely on it to
define soundness. A sound argument is a valid argument
that has all true premises, which means the conclusion of
a sound argument will always be true.Why? Because if an
argument is valid, the premises transmit truth to the
conclusion on the assumption of the truth of the
premises.
 The concepts of validity and soundness that
we have introduced apply only to the class of what
are called “deductive arguments”. A deductive
argument is an argument whose conclusion is
supposed to follow from its premises with absolute
certainty, thus leaving no possibility that the
conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.
 Fallacies

When we form arguments or examine others’

arguments, we need to be cognizant of possible
fallacies. A fallacy can be defined as a flaw or error
in reasoning. At its most basic, a logical fallacy
refers to a defect in the reasoning of an argument
that causes the conclusion(s) to be invalid,
unsound, or weak. The existence of a fallacy in a
deductive argument makes the entire argument
invalid. The existence of a fallacy in an inductive
argument weakens the argument
Thank you 😊