Logic seminar

Class 1

Márton Gömöri
gomorim@gmail.com

Fall 2024
Today

1) Practical matters

2) What is logic?

3) Arguments and argument hierarchies

4) Evaluating arguments
Today

1) Practical matters

2) What is logic?

3) Arguments and argument hierarchies

4) Evaluating arguments
Course material

• Texbooks:
P.D. Magnus and T. Button: forallx:Cambridge, 2017.
J. Barwise and J. Etchemendy, Language, Proof and Logic, CSLI Publications, 2011.

• Slides

Available from: Canvas → Files

Grading

• Two homework sets during the semester

• Homeworks are to be sent to gomorim@gmail.com, and you can contact me here

with any question
Today

1) Practical matters

2) What is logic?

3) Arguments and argument hierarchies

4) Evaluating arguments
What is logic about?

Logic is the study of what follows from what

In other words, it is the study of what can be legitimately concluded from given in-
formation. In this sense, logic is about the principles shared by all rational inquiry.
We draw inferences and give arguments all the time

Every day life

The class starts at 12:00 at Astoria. Biking to Astoria takes 35 minutes. So I

have to leave at 11:25 to be on time.
We draw inferences and give arguments all the time

Science
Scientists test theories by inferring experimentally measurable predictions
from them.
We draw inferences and give arguments all the time

Politics
We draw inferences and give arguments all the time

Philosophy
We draw inferences and give arguments all the time

Philosophy

“Whatever is contained in a clear and distinct idea of a thing must be pred-

icated of that thing; but a clear and distinct idea of an absolutely perfect
Being contains the idea of actual existence; therefore since we have the idea
of an absolutely perfect Being such a Being must really exist.” (Ontological
argument for the existence of God)
We draw inferences and give arguments all the time

Philosophy

“Whatever is contained in a clear and distinct idea of a thing must be pred-

icated of that thing; but a clear and distinct idea of an absolutely perfect
Being contains the idea of actual existence; therefore since we have the idea
of an absolutely perfect Being such a Being must really exist.” (Ontological
argument for the existence of God)
Does this really follow?
Rhetoric vs. logic

Two different questions:

• Rhetoric: How convincing is an argument?

• Logic: Is the argument valid? That is, does the conclusion really follow?
Two main questions of logic

• How to tell the difference between a valid and an invalid inference?

• More fundamentally, what makes an inference valid? What is it that makes one
claim “follow logically” from some given information, while some other claim
does not?
Why study logic? (Experiment)

We will look at four inferences.

Your task

1. Judge in each case whether the inference is valid.

2. Note your answer.

Inference 1

If X is a boson, the output is 5.

X is a boson.

Therefore, the output is 5.

Is this a valid inference? (y/n)

Inference 2

If X is a boson, the output is 5.

X isn’t a boson.

Therefore, the output isn’t 5.

Is this a valid inference? (y/n)

Inference 3

If X isn’t a boson, the output isn’t 5.

The output is 5.

Therefore, X is a boson.

Is this a valid inference? (y/n)

Inference 4

If X isn’t a boson, the output is 5.

The output is 5.

Therefore, X isn’t a boson.

Is this a valid inference? (y/n)

Inference 1

If X is a boson, the output is 5.

X is a boson.

Therefore, the output is 5.

This inference is valid (‘modus ponens’).

Inference 2

If X is a boson, the output is 5.

X isn’t a boson.

Therefore, the output isn’t 5.

This inference is invalid (‘denying the antecedent’).

Inference 3

If X isn’t a boson, the output isn’t 5.

The output is 5.

Therefore, X is a boson.

This inference is valid (related to ‘modus tollens’).

Inference 4

If X isn’t a boson, the output is 5.

The output is 5.

Therefore, X isn’t a boson.

This inference is invalid (‘affirming the consequent’).

Empirical evidence from psychology

Form Correct answer % answering “valid”

1 valid 98
2 invalid 79∗
3 valid 52
4 invalid 95∗

Negative conclusion bias (∗)

People are more likely to think that a conclusion follows from some premises if the
conclusion is a negative statement.

Evans, Clibben and Rood (1995): Bias in Conditional Inference.

Upshot

Without logical training

• people may not agree on whether an inference or argument is logically valid or

not,

• people are prone to certain fallacies and biases.

Hence, studying logic is not superfluous.

An important observation

Logical consequence is a relation between linguistically formulated pieces

of information (sentences or propositions), which, as we will see, is essen-
tially tied to language, and so logic is strongly connected with linguistic
analysis.
Goals of this course

• We will learn new languages:

– propositional logic/zeroth order logic

– predicate logic/first order logic

• We will study the nature of logical consequence in terms of propositional logic

and predicate logic.
Formal languages vs. natural languages

• Formal languages, like computer programming languages, are constructed from

a closed collection of symbols, by means of explicit rules.

• Natural languages, like English or Hungarian, evolve organically, and linguistic

rules merely describe them (up to a certain precision), rather than govern their
usage.
Why learn an artificial language (besides studying the nature of logical conse-
quence)?

• Natural language is ambiguous. Often times clarity, rigor and lack of ambiguity
is essential.
→ Mathematics, philosophy
• A formal language can serve as a simplified model of natural languages. One
can study fundamental linguistic/language related notions such as grammati-
cality, meaning, and truth.
→ Linguistics
• A formal language can also serve as a simplified model of thinking, construed
as manipulations with symbols (sentences).
→ Artificial intelligence
• Computer programming is based on formal languages.
→ Computer science
Today

1) Practical matters

2) What is logic?

3) Arguments and argument hierarchies

4) Evaluating arguments
We draw inferences and give arguments all the time

Philosophy

“Whatever is contained in a clear and distinct idea of a thing must be pred-

icated of that thing; but a clear and distinct idea of an absolutely perfect
Being contains the idea of actual existence; therefore since we have the idea
of an absolutely perfect Being such a Being must really exist.” (Ontological
argument for the existence of God)
What is an argument? (Example)

Ontological argument:
1. Whatever is contained in a clear and distinct idea of a thing must be predicated
of that thing.
2. A clear and distinct idea of an absolutely perfect Being contains the idea of actual
existence.
3. Therefore, since we have the idea of an absolutely perfect Being, such a Being
must really exist.
The components of the argument:
• Premises: the first two statements.
• Conclusion: the last statement.
• Conclusion indicator: ‘Therefore’
The conclusion indicator signals that the premises are intended to support the conclu-
sion.
What is an argument? (Definition)

• An argument is a sequence of statements one of which is taken to be supported

by the other statements in the sequence.

• The conclusion of an argument is that statement in the argument which is taken

to be supported by the other statements.

• The premises of an argument are those statements in the argument that are taken
to support the argument’s conclusion.
Distinction: argument vs. inference

In colloquial language, ‘inference’ and ‘argument’ are not synonymous.

Argument Inference
Starting point conclusion premises
Aim convincing, arriving at “new”
giving reasons information

Remark:

• These differences won’t be relevant for our purposes.

• We will view both arguments and inferences as sequences of statements consist-

ing of premises and conclusion.
Identifying arguments

In the “wild,” arguments are often not presented in a clear form:

• Premises and conclusion are often not in a particular order.

• Premises and conclusion may be mixed with (or buried under) sentences playing
a stylistic or rhetorical role.

• Sometimes it is not even clear whether something is an argument at all.

Procedure for identifying potential arguments:

1. Is it an argument at all?
(Are some statements intended to support others?)

2. What is the conclusion?

3. What are the premises?

Conclusion indicators

To identify the conclusion, watch out for conclusion indicators:

‘therefore’ ‘because’
‘hence’ ‘since’
‘thus’ ‘for that reason’
‘so’ ‘it follows that’
‘consequently’ ‘ergo’
‘as a result’ ...

In logic, we use the symbol ‘∴’ as conclusion indicator.

Identifying premises and conclusion

Example:
Studying logic is entirely pointless because logic is innate. Surely, if something is
innate, it is entirely pointless to study it.
Identifying premises and conclusion

Example:
Studying logic is entirely pointless because logic is innate. Surely, if something is
innate, it is entirely pointless to study it.

Standard form:

1. Logic is innate.

2. If something is innate, it is entirely pointless to study it.

∴ Studying logic is entirely pointless.

Argument hierarchies

In practice

• Texts often contain entire hierarchies of arguments.

• In an argument hierarchy, premises of some arguments are conclusions of other

arguments.

Procedure for analyzing argument hierarchies

1. Identify the individual arguments.

2. Order these according to whether an argument provides further justification for

a premise of another argument.
Argument hierarchies

Example:1
“You don’t understand yourself. You don’t understand others. You are unable to gain
insight into the essence of things. And you know all that. So you are a philosopher
and, hence, not a normal person. Since philosophers are surely not normal persons.
After all, normal persons don’t rack their brains over what they cannot understand.
But philosophers do.”

1 Cf. Dorn, G.J.W. (2006). Deskriptive Argumente und Argumenthierarchien

Secondary argument 1 Secondary argument 2

1. You don’t understand yourself. 1. Normal persons don’t rack their brains
over what they cannot understand.
2. You don’t understand others.
2. Philosophers rack their brains over
3. You are unable to gain insight into what they cannot understand.
the essence of things.
∴ Philosophers are not normal persons.
4. You know all that.

∴ You are a philosopher.

Primary argument

1. You are a philosopher.

2. Philosophers are not normal persons.

∴ You are not a normal person.

Today

1) Practical matters

2) What is logic?

3) Arguments and argument hierarchies

4) Evaluating arguments
Fundamental issue

• Arguments and inferences can go “wrong.”

• How can arguments and inferences be evaluated/criticized?

Example

1. All whales are mammals.

2. David Hasselhoff is a whale.

∴ David Hasselhoff is a mammal.

Example

1. All whales are mammals.

2. David Hasselhoff is a whale.

∴ David Hasselhoff is a mammal.

Is this a good argument?

How to criticize arguments

There are two main ways of criticizing arguments and inferences:

I. Criticism concerning content

One can criticize that some premises are not true.

II. Criticism concerning the connection between the premises and the conclusion
One can criticize that the premises do not support the conclusion (irrespective
of whether they are true).
How to criticize arguments

There are two main ways of criticizing arguments and inferences:

I. Criticism concerning content

One can criticize that some premises are not true.

II. Criticism concerning the connection between the premises and the conclusion
One can criticize that the premises do not support the conclusion (irrespective
of whether they are true).

This question is a conditional one: if the premises were true, then would
the conclusion be true?
How to criticize arguments (Exercise)

1. Logic is innate.

2. If something is innate, it is entirely pointless to study it.

∴ Studying logic is entirely pointless.

Boris Johnson has adopted a puppy from an animal rescue shelter.

∴ Boris Johnson is a trustworthy politician who can get Brexit done without harm-
ing the UK.

There is a correlation between the average amount of chocolate consumption in

a country and its number of Nobel prizes winners.

∴ Chocolate makes intelligence.

Quality criteria

An argument can only be successful (“good”) if

(1) its premises are true (or very likely or are at least quite plausible).

(2) its premises support its conclusion.

How can we find out whether an argument satisfies these criteria?

(1): By means of science and experience

(observation, experiment, models, theories).

(2): By means of logic in the wildest sense.