Types of Logic

Types of Logic
Logic in general can be divided into Formal

Logic, Informal Logic and Symbolic
Logic and Mathematical Logic:
 Formal Logic:
Formal Logic is what we think of as traditional
logic or philosophical logic, namely the study
of inference with purely formal and explicit content
(i.e. it can be expressed as a particular
application of a wholly abstract rule), such as the
 rules of formal logic that have come down to us
from Aristotle. (See the section on Deductive Logic
below).
A formal system (also called a logical calculus) is
used to derive one expression (conclusion) from one
or more other expressions (premises). These
premises may be axioms (a self-evident proposition,
taken for granted) or theorems (derived using a fixed
set of inference rules and axioms, without any
additional assumptions).
Formalism is the philosophical theory that formal
statements (logical or mathematical) have no
intrinsic meaning but that its symbols (which are
regarded as physical entities) exhibit a form that
has useful applications.
 Formal Logic
 Formal logic deals with deductive reasoning and the validity of the inferences produced.
For an argument to work, the conclusion must logically follow the premises and the
premises must be true. For example:
Every cat is mammal

Some carnivores are cats
Therefore some carnivores are mammals
Informal logic is the mode used in everyday reasoning and argument analysis.
Informal logic consists of two types of reasoning: deductive and inductive.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-logic-
definition-examples-quiz.html
Usually formal logic can also be called deductive logic because the form of thinking allows one to deduce it's
conclusion from its premises (as in the Chris process of elimination example argument described just above).
Informal logic is usually called inductive logic. Reasoning based on informal, inductive logic moves from
statements of evidence (the premises) to a conclusion that extrapolates from, amplifies, or generalizes the
evidence.
http://thelogiccafe.net/logic/ref1.htm
 Informal Logic:
Informal Logic is a recent discipline which
studies natural languagearguments, and attempts to
develop a logic to assess, analyse and
improve ordinary language (or "everyday")
reasoning. Natural language here means a language
that is spoken, written or signed by humans
for general-purpose communication, as
distinguished from formal languages (such
as computer-programming languages)
or constructed languages (such as Esperanto).
It focuses on the reasoning and argument one finds in
personal exchange, advertising, political debate, legal
argument, and the social commentary that
characterizes newspapers, television, the Internet and
other forms of mass media.
Deductive Logic
Deductive reasoning concerns what
follows necessarily from given premises (i.e. from
a general premise to a particular one).
An inference is deductively valid if (and only if) there is
no possible situation in which all the premises
are true and the conclusion false. However, it should be
remembered that a false premise can possibly lead to
a false conclusion.
Deductive reasoning was developed
by Aristotle, Thales, Pythagoras and other Greek
philosophers of the Classical Period. At the core of
deductive reasoning is the syllogism (also known as term
logic),usually attributed to Aristotle), where one
proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others
(the premises), each of which has one term in
common with the conclusion. For example:
Major premise: All humans are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is human.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
An example of deduction is:
All apples are fruit.
All fruits grow on trees.
Therefore all apples grow on trees.
One might deny the initial premises, and therefore deny
the conclusion. But anyone who accepts the premises
must accept the conclusion. Today, some academics claim
that Aristotle's system has little more than historical value,
being made obsolete by the advent of Predicate
Logic and Propositional Logic (see the sections below).
Inductive Logic Back to Top
Inductive reasoning is the process of deriving a
reliable generalization from observations (i.e. from
the particular to the general), so that the premises of an
argument are believed to support the conclusion, but do
not necessarily ensure it. Inductive logic is not concerned
with validity or conclusiveness, but with
the soundness of those inferences for which the evidence
is not conclusive.
Many philosophers, including David Hume, Karl
Popper and David Miller, have disputed or denied
the logical admissibility of inductive reasoning. In
particular, Hume argued that it requires inductive
reasoning to arrive at the premises for the principle of
inductive reasoning, and therefore the justification for
inductive reasoning is a circular argument.
An example of strong induction (an argument in which
the truth of the premise would make the truth of the
conclusion probable but not definite) is:
All observed crows are black.
Therefore:
All crows are black.
An example of weak induction (an argument in which
the link between the premise and the conclusion is weak,
and the conclusion is not even necessarily probable) is:
I always hang pictures on nails.
Therefore:
All pictures hang from nails.
The Basics of Philosophy (2008)

https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_logic.html

Types of Logic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Types of Logic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Types of Logic

Logic in general can be divided into Formal

Every cat is mammal

The Basics of Philosophy (2008)

You might also like