Logic 101: Think for yourself

Written by: Dei Amicus

This is our first article on The Truth. We call it The Truth because we are Christian and believe that The Church which Jesus Christ founded provides the light to reason correctly.

Also, a disclaimer, we are not professionally trained in philosophy, though, we are well read. One might call The Truth “street philosophy,” in which we pontificate on various occasions such as daily reflections, thought processes of groups of people, practical ways of living, and non-empirical ways of living.

To start proper reasoning, we must know that reason is composed of arguments. An argument in this technical sense is a logical sequence which usually starts with two facts and then ends with a conclusion which draws from said two facts.

The facts are called premises. To compose a logical sequence, or an argument, you will need at least two premises. Compare and contrast these two sequences:

SEQUENCE 1:

Premise 1: Everyone should go to college

Conclusion: you should go to college

Regular (conversational) form: If everyone goes to college then you should go to college.

SEQUENCE 2:

Premise 1: Attending higher education puts you in debt

Premise 2: debt is bad

Conclusion: you should not attend higher education

Regular (conversational) form: If attending higher education puts you in debt, and debt is bad, then you should not attend higher education (admittedly a third premise would be that you should not do bad things).

Hopefully you will see that a second premise is necessary because in Sequence 1 you could debate the fact that just because everyone is doing it doesn’t mean you should go. In fact, the lone premise is seemingly irrelevant to the conclusion, so the second premise must exist to make an argument.

Analogous to a one premise argument is a lopsided mathematical equation (e.g. 1 + = 4). Instead, the second number on the additive side of the equation is necessary to make the math equation complete (e.g. 1 + 3 = 4).

Sequence 2 is harder to argue, because of the multiple premises which make the conclusion relevant to them. You might counter sequence 2 by saying that debt isn’t bad, therefore, not everyone who attends higher education goes into debt. Those counters are correct, but The Truth must explain more about logical sequences.

The best arguments are VALID and SOUND.

Valid means that the conclusion follows from the premises, in other words, a valid argument makes sense, whereas an invalid argument does not make sense. A sound argument means that the premises and conclusions are true.

Compare and contrast the following sequences in terms of Validity:

SEQEUNCE 3:

Premise 1: modern phones have touch screens

Premise 2: you have a modern phone

Conclusion: your phone has a touch screen

Regular (conversational) form: If modern phones have touch screens, and your phone is a modern phone, then your phone has a touch screen.

SEQUENCE 4:

Premise 1: school busses are vehicles which are yellow

Premise 2: that vehicle over there is blue

Conclusion: that vehicle over there is a school bus

Regular (conversational) form: If school busses are vehicles which are yellow, and that vehicle over there is blue, then that vehicle is a school bus.

HOPEFULLY, you can see that sequence 3 makes sense and sequence 4 does not. Let us use an argument to teach about arguments: If valid arguments have conclusions which follow from their premises, and sequence three has a conclusion that follows from its premises, then sequence 3 is valid.

On the contrary,, if valid arguments have conclusions which follow from their premises, and sequence 4 has a conclusion that DOES NOT follow from its premises, then sequence 4 is invalid. An invalid argument can be called illogical and dismissed or countered.

Compare and contrast the following sequences in terms of Soundness:

SEQUENCE 5:

Premise 1: something cannot come from nothing

Premise 2: there is something

Conclusion: this something came from something

Regular (conversational) form: If something cannot come from nothing, and there is something, then this something must have come from something.

SEQUENCE 6:

Premise 1: computers do not need electricity to operate.

Premise 2: IBM Watson is a computer

Conclusion: IBM Watson does not need electricity to operate

Regular (conversational) form: If computers do not need electricity to operate, and IBM Watson is a computer, then IBM does not need electricity to operate.

Hopefully, you can see the trueness of sequence 5 and the lack of truth in sequence 6, premise 1.

If a sound argument is one that has true premises and a true conclusion, and sequence 5 has both sound premises and a sound conclusion, then sequence 5 is a sound argument. On the other hand, if a sound argument has true premises and a true conclusion, but sequence 6 does not have true premises, then sequence 6 is not a sound argument.

Consider the following to put some practicality to this whole philosophical argument concept: it is curious how sheer skeptics and relativists can be philosophers at all. Sequence 7: If philosophy requires validity and soundness, and soundness requires absolute truth, AND skeptics and relativists do not believe in absolute truth, then they cannot perform sound arguments. They literally cannot operate on a logical basis.

Even if skeptics and relativists presume that there is truth on an individual level (e.g. “my truth” and “your truth”), then they still cannot believe that any of their arguments are absolutely true. Either way, skepticism and relativism as philosophical systems are bankrupt and someone should rethink their lives if they find themselves in a skeptic or relativist phase.

Pax Christe,

The Truth Team