Is formal logic about Truth, or about the structure of arguments?

[Catherine]

I am trying to form a plan for logic study for my rising eighth grader. In researching the different curricula, I encountered Traditional Logic, and Introductory\Intermediate Logic. I think I grasp the basic thrust of these programs, but in the course of my searching, I found some wonderful postings that address the "Why study logic?" question with answers like, "To recognize Truth"--but I thought that formal logic was not about recognizing factual Truth, but recognizing valid arguments, which may have true or untrue conclusions.

 

Help me-what am I not grasping about this? And my bigger question, maybe, is-if studying logic is NOT about finding or recognizing, what IS it about, and why study it?

[angela in ohio]

It's really, really going to depend on your worldview. :001_smile:

[Caitilin]

As I understand it, logic is about what you describe. It's possible and desirable to be able to use logic in the search for Truth, but also to be able to discern fallacious arguments. :)

[simka2]

I agree worldview. But I also think it is to be able to "detect" fallacies, and present arguments in logical ways ;)

 

Someone else will probly respond better!

[Catherine]

Please, could you clarify this?? I don't understand.

[Geek]

I am assuming that when you say "formal logic" you are referring to verbal and not symbolic...?

 

All forms of logic study are amazing exercise for your brain. They are similar to chess, which is really strategic logic, in that they increase ability to concentrate (sometimes by a very great deal). Studying logical proofs allows you to stay with something abstract long enough to "see" all the dots connected in your brain, and this has broad applications to daily life.

 

For example, if you're reading about something political in nature on a reputable blog, and then you read about something else not overtly connected to it elsewhere, having studied logic allows you to make connections, often (as in my example) between two seemingly disparate events.

 

Of course this is also dependent upon content knowledge, but the actual neural flexibility to do this was initiated by some form of logic study.

 

Formal logic--as in a course--is obviously not the only way to sharpen powers of concentration, make connections, and draw conclusions on down the line. But think of it as one way to train for a race: you may never run a 10K again as long as you live, but training for that first one taught you a lot about yourself and what you needed to do to be ready. It created "grooves" in your brain's gray matter, connected neurons in a particular fashion, thereby giving you a template for the rest of your life. The next time you encounter something that you need to prepare for (or endure!) you'll be able to call upon your training for the 10K to get through it.

 

Physicians do this when they work obscenely long hours during residency. It disciplines them to where they can still think clearly even while exhausted. I remember reading good stories along these lines after the Sumatra tsunami: doctors were grateful for their training as they could not only call upon their knowledge, they could call upon their learned ability to endure.

 

Now the content aspect of logic study is also highly beneficial. As others have already said, learning what fallacies are will change how you read blogs, watch the news, and hear conversations between relatives at Thanksgiving. You may have thought to yourself, "What he is saying sounds good, but it just doesn't seem to 'fit' somehow. But I can't quite put my finger on why...." Studying fallacies allows you to clearly see why Uncle Fred's conclusions about X are bothering you (assuming he is speaking with weak logic). Understanding fallacies help you to see that conclusions being drawn by any author or speaker aren't cogent.

 

They are the grammar of critical thinking. Once you have exercised your powers of concentration, made efficient road maps within your frontal cortex, and collected concrete names for why things don't seem logical, the ability to sort through information intelligently changes permanently. When you ask your 8yo, "Does that make sense?" you will know how to guide her to "see" the holes in her thinking. When you watch the news with your 12yo, he will be more skeptical of what he hears than he was before he studied logic. He will see that opinions need to be tethered to facts, and that the conclusions drawn need to be connected in a sensible fashion and not floating on air or going in circles.

 

Obviously the best way to develop strong mental sifting skills in your children is to do it within yourself, and then let that carry over into your relationships with them. But teach them the language, too. :001_smile:

Edited July 1, 2010 by Geek

[Geek]

 

It's really, really going to depend on your worldview. :001_smile:

How so? Just curious about your take on this. Studying logic seems like studying mathematics: the anthropological and sociological layers on it aren't really much to speak of.

[Catherine]

Angela-or others, please. I'm not being snarky. I don't understand what you mean by this and it may be why I'm confused about logic as a topic. Can someone clarify please? What does my worldview have to do with it?

[Suzanne in ABQ]

Help me-what am I not grasping about this? And my bigger question, maybe, is-if studying logic is NOT about finding or recognizing, what IS it about, and why study it?

 

 

Formal Logic, the course of study, and the rules that govern deductive reasoning (Formal Logic is sometimes called "Deductive Logic") has little to do with truth. It definitely doesn't define Ultimate Truth. If fact, one could produce an infallibly logical argument, but if it is based on false premises, it will produce a false conclusion.

 

For example, here is a simple, logical statement:

If all "a" are "b", and all "b" are "c", then all "a" are "c".

 

All cats are mammals.

All mammals have hair.

Therefore, all cats have hair.

 

This is a logical statement. But it is true only if the premises are true.

 

 

 

Or, one could say

 

All cats are cute.

All dogs are cute.

Therefore, all animals are cute.

 

This is not a logical statement. It doesn't follow a logical structure.

 

 

 

"Geek" gave some good reasons to study Logic. It is about "finding and recognizing". It only helps you find Truth if the premises presented in the argument are absolutely true.

[TravelingChris]

Studying logic is not about truth. Some books urge you to use it that way but you can have a logical argument where the first statement is not true but the argument is true. For example, I could say the following argument:

 

Blonde haired girls are stupid.

Sally has blonde hair.

Therefore, Sally is stupid.

 

That is a logical argument but is not true.

[Cedarmom]

I think it is a step to finding the truth in the argument. Before you can determine if an argument is true, you have to determine the logic behind it. Is the way someone arrived at a conclusion logical? If you determine it is logical, then the next step is to look at the premises and see if they are true.

Studying logic helps you follow the line of reasoning in the argument-which is an important step. to finding the truth

[Ester Maria]

Formal logic is a formal science, the same way mathematics is. As such, it actually operates with the "valid - invalid" distinction rather than the "true - false" - factually true and factually false, that is. It would perhaps be the most correct to say that the logic deals with the proper and improper relations between claims, rather than the claims themselves.

 

All frogs are butterflies.

John is a frog.

= John is a butterfly. is a logically valid conclusion, and the claims are connected in a logically valid way, even though the claims themselves are a nonsense that has nothing to do with objective truth.

 

Logic is about the processes of thought and the validity of thought in constructing the arguments and claims, not about the external reality those claims refer to. There are also several different subdisciplines of logic, theoretically speaking, informal logic would deal with rhetoric.

[Shelly in the Country]

I think it is a step to finding the truth in the argument. Before you can determine if an argument is true, you have to determine the logic behind it. Is the way someone arrived at a conclusion logical? If you determine it is logical, then the next step is to look at the premises and see if they are true.

Studying logic helps you follow the line of reasoning in the argument-which is an important step. to finding the truth

 

:iagree: And the connection to "worldview" is that everyone goes in with certain presuppositions. Depending on where you start in your argument (what premises you assume to be true), you can end up at a very different place than someone else in the end even if you are both "logical". (I've only ever studied symbolic logic and it was several years ago, so forgive me if my terms are confused :001_smile:.)

[TerriMI]

Wow! I DO think logic is about Truth! I've been looking over Cothran's Material Logic for a course for my eldest ds. We've also done Traditional Logic I and II. We've also studied Informal Logic. Cothran quotes Jacques Martain who says that logic is a tool used for getting to the Truth. In deduction if the premises are true and the form is valid the conclusion is true. It is infallible. Induction is less sure because we cannot see all the input that there can possibly be. We always miss something. So conclusions gained through induction are merely reasonable or unreasonable. They carry with them some degree of doubt. BUT: Why else do we bother if it is not about Truth?