Scribd
Upload
169 views

Traditional and Modern Definitions of Logic

Uploaded by

Samiksha Sharma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
169 views

Traditional and Modern Definitions of Logic

Uploaded by

Samiksha Sharma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

1.

1 Traditional and modern definitions of logic

The science of logic has developed along two different, though related, lines. One line of
development has been influenced by the doctrines of Aristotle. The other line of development
was due to certain advances in mathematics. The logical doctrines of Aristotle, and those who
followed him, are called Traditional Logic, while the doctrines of those logicians influenced
by mathematics are called Mathematical Logic. As mathematical logicians use symbols more,
their treatment is also called Symbolic Logic. Symbolic logic or mathematical logic
developed in modern times. Therefore, it is commonly called Modern Logic. We should bear
in mind that modern logic does not differ radically from traditional logic. It is a development
and extension of the principles of traditional logic.

Traditionally, logic was defined as the science which investigates the general principles of
valid thought. It is a systematic inquiry into these principles. It provides principles which will
enable a person to distinguish between correct and incorrect arguments.

Cohen and Nagel hold that the central topic of logic is implication. They define logic as "the
Science of implication, or of valid inference (based on such implication). "5

The above definition too is not acceptable. It applies to deductive arguments only.

But logic includes inductive arguments too. Given this, today logicians generally agree that
logic deals with valid arguments. So we may define logic as the study of the forms of valid
arguments.

Traditional Logic is the type of logic propagated by Aristotle. This is popularly


known as traditional formal logic. This is because here, the form of statements used in
arguments is given total importance. The traditional formal logic is general
designation for the systems of deductive logic that do not involve the use of formal
languages, or the apparatus of mathematical logic. The basis of traditional logic is
syllogistic reasoning.
Traditional logic is defined as “a system of formal logic mainly concerned with the
syllogistic forms of deduction that is based on Aristotle and includes some of the
changes by contemporary logicians.”

Modern Logic on the other hand contains more form based relationships in the
logical thinking. So, the modern logic is not limited to syllogism based arguments, but
it goes much beyond them. It becomes mathematical and symbolic. This is the reason
why after the modern logic was developed, it started being used practically in every
science where thinking in the right way is needed.
Modern logic is defined as “logic where the subject developed into a rigorous and
formalistic discipline whose exemplar was the exact method of proof used
in mathematics.” The development of the modern "symbolic" or "mathematical" logic
is the most significant in the history of logic, and in human intellectual history.
Valid argument: In an argument it is claimed that the conclusion follows from the premises.
But do the premises provide evidence for the conclusion? And if they do, is the evidence
adequate? Let us understand this with the help of examples.

1. All Hindus are men.

All Brahmins are Hindus.

: All Brahmins are men.

2. • Ram is older than Gopal.

Gopal is older than Ashok.

• Ram is older than Ashok.

3. A, B and C are Jews.

A, B and C are intelligent.


. All Jews are intelligent.

In the first argument, the class of Brahmins is included in the class of Hindus, and the class of
hindus is included in the class of men. So the conclusion asserts that the class Brahmins is
included in the class of men. The premises of the second argument assert a certain relation
between individuals. Ram has the relation of

"being older than" to Gopal, and Gopal has this relation to Ashok. Thus, it is concluded that
Ram has this relation to Ashok. In both these arguments the evidence is sufficient. That is, if
the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. But this is not the case with the third
argument. Its premises may be true, and yet the conclusion may be false. However, we do not
come across such clear cases. Moreover, in real life, even about clear cases, people do have
different feelings. To some men, a black cat crossing the way is sufficient to make them
believe that it was the cause of their ill luck. To others, the reasoning sounds silly. Now logic
cannot go by what we happen to feel about the evidence. It must provide methods for
determining whether an argument
is valid (correct) or invalid (incorrect).
The validity of an argument is determined by the nature of relationship between its premises
and its conclusion. If the premises provide "good" evidence for the conclusion, the argument
is valid.? If not, it is invalid. However, what is regarded as

"good" evidence depends upon the type of argument. "Good evidence" in the case of
inductive arguments differs from "good evidence" with regard to deductive arguments.

For deductive arguments, evidence is considered to be "good" only if the relation between the
premises and the conclusion is that of implication.

You might also like