The article is titled “Logically Social” on which it tackles the role played by Logic in man’s social being. As I study man’s social being, I have learned that it will involve language, the fundamental tool for communication. A good example is a relationship between speakers and listeners whereas the speakers must establish the truth of what they say and express and uses reasoning as a way of relating to listeners and the listeners play their part by understanding the message we receive and like the speakers they use reasoning as the means of analyzing the intended meaning of the speaker.
Reasoning is one of the objects of study in Logic, which is a fundamental learning to me. I also learned that Logic constitutes two basic types of reasoning, the inductive and the deductive which are both necessary for the correct understanding of a matter. I’m enlightened that under the province of logic there is a hodgepodge of studies under the realm of reasoning: the criteria for our arguments to be valid, the conditions for the statements become true, the fallacies we commit, the norms in properly defining terms, and the way to eliminate ambiguity and vagueness in our expressions.
I can also tell that Language is Logic because it prompts us the proper usage of language and it is an objective standard that work in authentically effective communication. I’ve been made aware that logic facilitates the option of choosing among ambiguous, vague, or definite terms that are useful for every call of usage. Like poetry, we must use vague or ambiguous terms for aesthetics. Also when clarity is of prime concern, it must use well defined or exact terms.
As I read through I’ve observed that logic plays a big role in the grammatical construction of sentences; good usage of logic means a choice between misleading or precise sentences. I’ve learned that misleading sentences falls in two categories: vague and ambiguous. Ambiguous sentences are those that have two or more meaning and it’s vague when its meaning is not determined with precision. Now I learned that an argument is basically a group of statements, one of which is the conclusion and the rest are the premises.
Upon learning I also procured the two kinds of argument based on the two kinds of reasoning that: deductive and inductive. A reasoning or argument is deductive if the premises claim to give conclusive grounds for the truth of the conclusion, or if the premises claim to support the conclusion with necessity. Deductive argument is therefore either valid or invalid. I have learned that to make a deductive argument valid, the premises that should be assumed are true. It will be inconsistent and self-contradictory to accept these premises but deny its conclusion, because the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.
I have also acquired the meaning of invalid deductive argument, where the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premise/s. I have also learned that when you reason inductively on the other hand, you infer a general conclusion from a collection of particular facts. Whereas deductive argument is either valid or invalid, inductive argument is either reliable or unreliable. I have known for the fact that inductive reasoning to be reliable; the conclusion must be based on ample amount of individual representative instances.
I must be aware not to confuse inductive argument with invalid deductive argument because its difference between deduction and induction is not the difference between good and bad reasoning, but between two ways to support the truth of conclusions. I’ve learned that when creating argumentative paragraph in writing or speaking, logic prescribes that we can use both valid deductive and reliable inductive argument. To sum all this up, what logic warns us from, when it comes to using arguments is the use of invalid deductive and unreliable inductive argument.