INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC

Part II

Jamillah Mohamed Mustapha, Esq.

07081634128: jamillahmustapha@bacolaw.edu.ng
THE NATURE OF PHILOSOPHICAL INQUIRY

Any rational inquiry is a problem-solving

activity. It is usually stimulated by doubt. Its
purpose is to enable us (the inquires, and,
perhaps the society) to arrive at a state of
belief; regardless of whether the belief is true or
not.

Therefore we can say that the sole end of

inquiry is the settlement of opinion or the
articulation of what we could call considered
judgments concerning the problem or
This judgment is an answer or explanation to
the problem, which while enriching our
understanding is, nonetheless, tentative in the
sense that it could raise fresh doubts that can
lead to further inquiry.

Little wonder, the, that the process of inquiry is

an unending one in which there should be little
room for certitude or dogma.

Generally speaking, rational inquiry is a process,

which begins with doubt and terminates in the
establishment of belief. in the specific case of
motivation derives from observation that things
are not usually what they appear to be and the
realisation that many of the assurances of
common sense can be mistaken.

An appreciation of these facts is at the basis of

the desire - without which any claim to being a
philosopher will be suspect - to explore our
claims or beliefs, by iddentifying and examining
assumptions that are easily overlooked and, in
the process helping people “to recognize and
appreciate alternative points of view”..
So philosophy is the quest for understanding,
Among such problems are the following:
The problem of nature and structure of reality,
the problem of relation between the mind and the
world,
the problem of nature and scope of human
knowledge,
the problem of induction,
the problem of the human person, particularly the
reference of the first-person pronoun, “I”.
the problem of free will,
the problem of the basis of moral obligation,

THE NATURE OF PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS

A careful look at these problems will reveal

three interrelated features. The first one is that
they are general in nature. This is to say that
they are not problems that can be tackled
through the accumulation of facts.

Rather, they involve a careful consideration of

how best to describe the facts that are available,
with a view to generating insights about them,
which although tetantive, are nonetheless, clear
In short, answers to philosophical questions do
not give further information about their subject.
Rather, they are concened about, “the reason
of things”, that is how best to explain how
things are.

This leads us to a second feature of

philosophical problems, which is not unrelated
to the first. It should not be difficult to see from
examples given above that philosophical
problems are fundamental problems, which
should interest any reflective person,
regardless of whether he or she is a
These problems are fundamental, first because the
answers we we give to them, implicit or explicit,
are at the basis of the beliefs, in terms of which
people organise their lives and social relations.
In short, they influence judgments and actions in
various ways. In other words, philosophical
questions are essential questions, the answers to
which should enable us to cope with the challenges
of life.
But this connection between philosophy and life is
easily missed because of the third characteristic of
APPROACHES TO PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS

It should be clear from the examples given and

the characteristics discussed above that
philosophical questions are essential questions
the answers to which should assist us in the
search for “order and meaning” in the world.

But what are the activities involved in the

search for these answers? Three of such
activities are here identified, namely, critical
thinking, conceptual analysis and the
Critical Thinking

This philosophical activity involves a careful

examination of claims or beliefs with a view to
determing whether they are sustainable or not.
It’s primary aim is to drag hidden assumptions
“into the light of day” and scrutinise them with a
view to seeing “whether they will survive, by
being self-consistent and also cohering with the
established body of human knowledge.

In short, the activity of critical thinking is an

“philosophical detection”, which has no other
authority of reason itself.

Hence it is sceptical, in the sense that it is

concerned with a rigorous examination of our
ideas and values and general, because it
beams its searchlight on all aspects of human
life, including morality, religion, social and
political life, law, history, and even the natural
sciences.

Finally, it is rational because it is primarily

concerned with seeking grounds for it is
concerned with seeking grounds for establishing
the justification for whatever is considered as a
justified belief.

The purpose of this kind of criticism is to enable

us see things in a new light or from a new
perspective about them as a means of
encouring us to “reform our beliefs and modify
our values” when they are found wanting on the
scale of reason.

Critical thinking is thus an essential element

Conceptual Analysis

Human thinking is impossible without the use of

concepts, which are general terms that enable
us to group together things that share some
essential characteristics in common.

The meaings of these concepts particularly the

most general ones like knowledge, reality, mind,
obligation, justice, democracy and so on, are not
always clear.

And experience has shown that a dictionary is

where common usages are inadequate as
indications of the
implicit distinctions they harbour.

It is important to ote that conceptual

analysis is not simply about defining concepts
carefully. It involves the establishment of a
logical relationship between a concept and
other concepts whose meanings are believed
to be less problematic.

The purpose of of doing this is to make

explicit the conditions of its use not only as a
also as a prerequisite for clear or straight
thinking and ensuring that our claims or
beliefs do not rest on a confusion about the
meaning of the words we express them.

Conceptual analysis is thus not an end to

itself. On the contrary, by avoiding
vagueness and “getting clearer about the
structure of how we speak”, we are placed
in a better position to evaluate the ideas
and values we live by and to have a clearer
understanding of the domains of life which
It should be clear, then, that conceptual
analysis is not a trivial philosphical
preoccupation. Without it we cannot have the
kind of conceptual awareness that is required
to ensure the hidden assumptions are
exposed and scrutinised.

For those societies, such as we have in

Africa, in which the languages of self
expression and philosophical inquiry are non-
indigenous, it is a means of ensuring that the
mind is not befogged by received ideas,
Conceptual analysis is therefore ultimately a
means of reducing error in thinking and
promoting human self-understanding. It is not
just a question of words, but also a question of
worth.

In conclusion, conceptual ananlysis is the

process of breaking down complex concepts into
their constituent parts to understand what they
really mean and how they are used.

The GOAL of conceptual analysis is to clarify

Now let us practically look at the key elements of
conceptual analysis by identifying the following
concepts:
What do we mean by justice, freedom, law,
knowledge?

Now let us analyze the usage:

How is the concept used in different contexts
(law, everyday language, science, etc.)?

The concept of law according to the Positivists

(e.g. H.L.A. Hart) might define it as a system of
Natural law theorists say law must include moral
content.

Conceptual Analysis:
Break down what we mean by “rules”, “authority”,
“morality”.
 Explore whether unjust laws are still laws.

Why does concept matter for law students?

Legal terms like rights, duty, responsibility,
intention are often contested.
Understanding the concept helps an
Renconstruction of ideas
But when all has been said and done, it has to be
recognised that criticism and analysis will lose their
value unless they are employed in the service of a
quintessential philosophical task - that of making
sense of fragmentary human experience through
the generation of visions that can serve as guides
to life.

In other words, the philospher’s arguments and

conceptual distinctions can be significant or
worthwhile only if they promote a better
Conclusion
It should be clear from the above that
philosophical inquiry is not a trivial activity. It
deals with those problems or questions to which
well-reasoned answers are required as a means
of promoting human self-understanding.

Therefore philosophy matters because answers

to them can assist us in transcending pre-
conceived ideas and common prejudices to live
a considered or examined life, which can only
be a life of reason, choice and responsibility.
FALLACIES
One of the roles of logic in practical life is to
teach us how to avoid errors in reasoning.
Logicians use the word, fallacy, to refer to
errors in reasoning or in an inference.

A fallacy is therefore a logically defective

argument that is capable of misleading people
into thinking that it is logically correct.

One of the characteristics features of fallacies

is that they are bad arguments in which the
truth of the premises is irrelevant to
Formal Fallacies
Fallacies that are classified as formal are so called
because they are “non sequitur”. The literal
meaning of this term is “it does not follow”. Non
sequitur is applied only to those formal fallacies in
which there appears to be relevant connection
between the premises and the conclusion, but which
do not comply to the criteria of validity.

Examples of this are:

Fallacy of affirming the consequent and
fallacy of denying antecedent
Fallacies of Relevance

Fallacies of relevance are committed when the

premises of an argument are irrelevant to the
establishment of its conclusion. Traditionally,
fallacies of relevance are known as ignoratio
elenchi (ignorance of what is required to
establish or refute a conclusion).

The premises of an argument are irrelevant to

the conclusion when the truth of the premises
provides no support or in no way provides
knowledge that the conclusion is true.
We shall treat them briefly one after the other,
giving their latin names where necessary.
1. Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum):
This is an argument that fallaciously employes a
threat as a logical and sufficient reason or evidence
for believing a conclusion.
My offer is high
And they must be appreciated or else, I will sack
whosoever demands for more.
This book is your compass for this course
If you fail to buy one, you can’t pass the course.
2. Appeal of ignorance, (Argumentum ad
ignorantiam)
This argument takes the form that a proposition is
true simply because it has not been proved false or
vice versa.
Consider, for example:
 The theist’s argument that God must exist
because no one has shown that he does not.
The atheist’s argument that God cannot exist
because no one has shown that he does.
The fact that no one has or has not come up with
the proof for the evidence of the existence of God
3. Appeal to pity (Argumentum ad misercordiam)

This fallacy is committed when an irrelevant

appeal to the pitiable circumstances of an agent
is accepted. Although, sometimes a person’s
misfortunes should be taken into consideration
but this fallacy comes up when such
circumstances are allowed to confuse the issue.

Examples are:

I justify a good grade in GNS 106 because I

have so many courses as carryovers. I have
several times, and I am the only university
student from a polygamous home.

Lawyers often appeal to pity in the court of law

in order to seek favour for their clients.
Consider the worker who has been relieved of
his job and pleads for leniency without
considering the condition of service.
I must be reinstated to my work, I have many
children, hungry wives and jobless relations to
feed.
4. Appeal to Authority, (Argumentum ad
Verecundiam)
This fallacy is committed when one appeals to the
testimony of others whom we think are in better
position than ourselves to ascertain the evidence
of some proposition.
In this case, the premises do not contain sufficient
evidence for the conclusion; rather the conclusion
is based on the authority of an expert.
e.g. Chief Oluwo is a reputable Ogun priest
So, his view that Ogun is the god of iron is nothing
but the truth.
5. Fallacy of Hasty Generalization
The fallacy of hasty generalization, or what we
call “jumping to conclusion” is committed
whenever anyone generalises about an entire
class on the basis of examples that are either not
representative of the class or are too few in
number to support the conclusion.

Examples of such are:

Alcohol does a lot of harm to a drunkard’s
health, therefore, the law should forbid the sale
and the use of Alcohol.

6. Complex Question
The fallacy of complex question occurs when a
question is asked that presupposes an answer to
another question that has not been asked.

This fallacy is based on unstated assumptions. If

the question is answered, then the unstated
assumption is accepted as being true.

Complex questions are questions to which it is

not advisable to give a straight forward “yes” or
“no” answer.
Consider these examples:
Have you given up your wicked ways?
Do you mean that you use this ladder to cut
NEPA’s cable?
Have you stopped stealing?
In answering question one, for instance,
whether one says yes or no, one has addressed
the following questions:
“Has your life been a wicked one in the past?”
“Have you now dropped those wicked habits”?
The only way to avoid being trapped by this
fallacy is to tell the questioner that his or her