Logic




COURSE CODE: GEHU111
COURSE TITLE: LOGIC                              
COURSE CREDIT: 3 UNITS CLASS SCHEDULE: Friday, 7:30am-10:30am, Room 106

COURSE DESCRIPTION
This course covers a comprehensive study of logic as a way to philosophical inquiry with special emphasis upon reasoning and argumentation and the nature of language and its relation to philosophical problems.

COURSE OBJECTIVES
At the end of the course, the students should be able to:
1. Understand the nature of philosophy and its importance;
2. Grasp the principal competing theories, arguments, and philosophical positions within the different areas of philosophical research;
3. Learn how to distinguish acceptable arguments from poor ones;
4. Gain appreciation on the complexity of language;
5. Learn effective methods of resolution for a variety of disagreements;
6. Identify common fallacies in arguments;
7. Understand, recognize, and evaluate different kinds of arguments;
8. Apply the principles of logic to ordinary language-reasoning;
9. Develop the ability to think critically;  and
10. Realize that the proper use of logic is a reasonable way to solve problems.
   
COURSE OUTLINE

I. Introduction
1.1 Housekeeping and discussion of syllabus
1.2. What is Philosophy?
1.3. Nature and importance of critical thinking
1.4. Characteristics of a critical thinker

II.  Definition of basic terms
2.1 Idea, proposition and argument
2.2. Premise and conclusion
2.3. Recognizing arguments
2.4. Truth, logic and soundness

III. Language
3.1. Ambiguity and vagueness
3.2. Verbal disputes
3.3. Kinds of definition
3.4. Rules of definition
3.5. Uses of language

IV. Deductive reasoning
4.1. Deductive arguments
4.2. Kinds and properties of propositions
4.3. Categorical syllogisms
4.4. Rules for categorical syllogisms
4.5. Hypothetical syllogisms
4.6. Rules for hyphothetical syllogisms

V. Inductive reasoning
5.1. Inductive arguments
5.2. Generalization
5.3. Hyphothesis testing
5.4. Analogical argument

VI. Fallacies
6.1. Nature of fallacy
6.2. Fallacies of ambiguity
6.3. Fallacies of relevance

1 comments:

MARILYN H SANJOSE said...

MARILYN SAN JOSE
1,ARISTOTLE BELIEVE THAT IF EVERY Bertrand Russell along with Whitehead and others came forward with a new 'logic' to unearth the loopholes involved in Aristotelian logic. Russell examined the influence of Aristotelian logic upon many philosophers and brought to light the fact that these philosophers shaped their philosophy in accordance with the Aristotelian model of logic. In his celebrated essay 'Logic as the Essence of Philosophy', Russell claimed that Aristotelian logic is a 'trivial nonsense', a scholastic collection of technical terms and rules of syllogistic inference. Western metaphysics is a direct result of the Aristotelian conception of subject-predicate logic in which we have to posit a subject term as fundamental. Hegel, as Russell points out, although he started with a critical attitude toward Aristotle's logic, could not help being influenced by Aristotle, with the result that he came to believe that if every proposition ascribes a predicate to a subject, then there can be only one subject, namely the Absolute. This point is directly based on the Aristotelian belief in the universality of the subject-predicate form.

Again, the Hegelian confusion between the 'is' of predication and the 'is' of identity became an object of criticism for Russell. Hegel's example of the sentences 'Socrates is mortal' and 'Socrates is the philosopher who drank the hemlock' depicts this confusion. Hegel asserted that in the second sentence, 'Socrates is a philosopher who drank the hemlock', the copula 'is' expresses a relation of identity between the subject and the predicate. So he argued that it should be the same relation with regard to the first sentence also, i.e. 'Socrates is mortal'. The copula 'is' is supposed to express the relation of identity in both the cases. But this cannot be the case as 'Socrates' is particular and 'mortal' is universal. To say 'particular is the universal' is self-contradictory. Yet in spite of this obvious contradiction, Hegel did not suspect the legitimacy of his logic, but proceeded to synthesize particular and universal in the individual and tried to justify his position by his theory of the 'concrete universal', according to which subject and predicate exhibit 'identity-in-difference', or 'unity-in-plurality'. PROPOSITION ASCRIBES A PREDICATE TO A SUBJECT NAMELY AND ABSOLUTE. FOR RUSSEL PREDICATION BECAME AN OBJECT OF CRITISM.
2.COHERENT BODY OF BELIEFS IS POSSIBLE.IT MAY BE THAT,WITH SUFFICIENT IMAGINATION A NOVELIST MIGHT INVENT A PAST FORTHE WORLD THAT WOULD PERFECTLY FIT ON TO WHAT WE KNOW AND YET BE QUITEDIFFERENT FROIM THE REAL FAST.
3.THE OTHER OBJECTION TO THIS DEFINITION OF TRUTH IS THAT IT ASSUMES THE MEANING OF COHERENCE KNOWN WHEREAS IN FACT COHERENCE PRESUPPOSES THE TRUTH OF THE LOGIC.TWO PROPOSITION ARE COHERENT WHEN BOTH MAY BE TRUE AND ARE INCOHERENT WHEN ONE AT LEAST MUST BE FALSE

4WE KNOW THAT ON VERY MANY SUBJECT DIFFERENCE PEOPLE HOLD DIFFERENCE AND INCOMPATIBLE OPINIONS;HENCE SOME BELIEFS MUST ERRONEOS. SINCE ERROUNEOUS BELIEFS ARE OFTEN HELD JUST AS STRONGLY AS TRUE BELIEFS.

Post a Comment

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Infolinks In Text Ads

top