Rational Thinking According to Popkin and Stroll, logic can be defined as the most fundamental branch of philosophy that “deals with the nature of thinking itself” (237). However, the depth of understanding logic is so much more than ethical speculations and metaphysics. Whether or not something is deemed logical, depends on how consistent and coherent any particular piece of that reasoning is, as logic attempts to distinguish good reasoning from bad reasoning. This then can determine whether an argument is valid or invalid, and furthermore allows one to establish conclusive inferences about an argument. By understanding the structure of the relationships between concepts and ideas and by utilizing empirical evidence from experiences to ensure
…show more content…
Deductive logic attempts to create valid reasoning that will make it “impossible for the inferences based upon these reasons to be false” (Popkin and Stroll, 239).This means that if reasons are given and if these reasons are valid and are deemed to be true then the inferences made are conclusive. To better understand this, one may further dissect the two forms of an argument. Deductive reasoning is one of the most basic forms of valid reasoning. A deductive syllogism typically begins with a general statement that is the hypothesis. This hypothesis is used to examine the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion. In contrast, inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. From many observations, a pattern is discerned, a generalization is made, and an explanation or theory is inferred. It is often a prediction from the past about the future. From many observations, a person is able to interpret facts to support his or her theories. If a person uses experience or reason, they can justify their beliefs to get to …show more content…
To further dissect the syllogism we must note that each argument has a subject, in this case “Robee” is the subject. The syllogistic argument also has a predicate term and a copula. Logic deals only with declarative sentences that are used for the purpose of making assertions. To declare that all dogs have four legs and that since Robee is a dog, it is only valid to assume that Robee has four legs as well, just like all other dogs. The major and minor premise must coincide to yield a conclusion; this one of the rules that should always be applied when observing a syllogistic argument. One must use good reasoning when creating a logical statement. To look at the big picture, since logic deals with correct reasoning and since correctness of reasoning is closely related with truth and falsity, then when one reasons correctly, “if the premises of his/her argument are true, then it will be impossible for the conclusion to be false” (Popkin and Stroll, 243) because the statement is valid. Validity is the structure of an argument. Once the validity of an argument is established, one can acquire justified true belief. A belief is when a person thinks something to be the case, when their either may or may not be empirical evidence to prove it with certainty. Once that truth is established, then one has reason to believe in the validity of
Deductive logic attempts to create valid reasoning that will make it “impossible for the inferences based upon these reasons to be false” (Popkin and Stroll, 239).This means that if reasons are given and if these reasons are valid and are deemed to be true then the inferences made are conclusive. To better understand this, one may further dissect the two forms of an argument. Deductive reasoning is one of the most basic forms of valid reasoning. A deductive syllogism typically begins with a general statement that is the hypothesis. This hypothesis is used to examine the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion. In contrast, inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. From many observations, a pattern is discerned, a generalization is made, and an explanation or theory is inferred. It is often a prediction from the past about the future. From many observations, a person is able to interpret facts to support his or her theories. If a person uses experience or reason, they can justify their beliefs to get to …show more content…
To further dissect the syllogism we must note that each argument has a subject, in this case “Robee” is the subject. The syllogistic argument also has a predicate term and a copula. Logic deals only with declarative sentences that are used for the purpose of making assertions. To declare that all dogs have four legs and that since Robee is a dog, it is only valid to assume that Robee has four legs as well, just like all other dogs. The major and minor premise must coincide to yield a conclusion; this one of the rules that should always be applied when observing a syllogistic argument. One must use good reasoning when creating a logical statement. To look at the big picture, since logic deals with correct reasoning and since correctness of reasoning is closely related with truth and falsity, then when one reasons correctly, “if the premises of his/her argument are true, then it will be impossible for the conclusion to be false” (Popkin and Stroll, 243) because the statement is valid. Validity is the structure of an argument. Once the validity of an argument is established, one can acquire justified true belief. A belief is when a person thinks something to be the case, when their either may or may not be empirical evidence to prove it with certainty. Once that truth is established, then one has reason to believe in the validity of