HISTORY OF LOGIC

Human beings have certainly been thinking logically since before the dawn of recorded history. But the
academic discipline named logic dates back only to the 4th century B.C., to the city of Athens, Greece. For
it was there that the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) wrote the first known treatises of
logical theory and began teaching the first logic classes in history. The subject matter of the new academic
subject was not specific reasoning about a particular topic, rather, it was the standards any reasoning
must follow if it is to be good reasoning.
In sum, logical thinking has been around as long as human beings have been reasoning, but the academic
discipline named logic only dates to the 4th century B.C., to the creative genius of one of the greatest of
the ancient Greek philosophers, Aristotle.
Incidentally, the subject founded by Aristotle was not called logic at first and apparently did not have a
formal name during his lifetime. Several decades after the death of Aristotle, it was named Logos by a
school of philosophers who met every day in downtown Athens on a painted porch (Greek: stoa), the
philosophers known to history as the Stoics.
The founder of logic as an academic subject was born and spent his early years in Macedonia, a state
located on the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula. After his father died, Aristotle was sent to Athens,
to study philosophy at Platos Academy, the first recognizable university in world history. (The name of the
school came from its location: the grove of Akademos, a garden of olive trees named after a legendary
Greek hero.) Aristotle studied under the great philosopher Plato (429-347 B.C.) for nearly 20 years before
leaving to found his own university and research institute, the Lyceum.
It is likely that the seed idea for a subject devoted solely to the study of reasoning occurred to Aristotle
while he was studying philosophy at Platos Academy. In order to see why the study of philosophy might
inspire the birth of logical theory, let us take a brief look at the discipline the Greeks named philosophy
(from the Greek words philo for love and sophia for wisdom, literally, the love of wisdom).
At the dawn of the 6th century B.C., ancient people everywhere made sense of the world on the basis of
customary myths (stories passed down orally from generation to generation) and by obediently believing
what priestly and political authorities told them to believe. Beginning with Thales of Miletus (c. 625- 546
B.C), a group of individuals in ancient Greece began questioning the customary myths and the traditional
explanations of the universe. In written works and in discussions recorded in the historical record, these
individuals pioneered a radically new way to make sense of the world. Named philosophers by the
Greeks, Thales and his associates were the first persons in history to do all three of the following:
<

They rejected the explanations of the world contained in the traditional myths and the claims of
religious and political authorities, on the grounds that there was no good reason to believe that
unbacked myths and unquestioned claims of authorities are true, that is, in correspondence with
reality.

In place of mythical stories and authoritative pronouncements, they sought explanations based on
unaided reasoning and on observations that could in principle be made by anyone.

They put their theories and the supporting evidence for their theories into written form and passed
this around for critical comments, reasoned discussion, and intellectual debate. Philosophical
theories were to be proposed, criticized, defended, revised, and / or rejected on the basis of
reasoning and observable evidence, without reference to unbacked myth and authorities whose
statements could not be questioned.

<
<

In short, the first philosophers sought rational explanations of the world and of things within the world
accounts justified on the basis of evidence and reasoning alone. The birth of the philosophical tradition, in
ancient Greece during the 6th century B.C., was one of the first intellectual revolutions in world history.
The Value of Logic
The principles of logic are thus no mere academic exercise. They are guides to correct reasoning just as
the principles of accounting are guides to keeping a correct set of books, the principles of arithmetic are
guides to correctly adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing numbers, the principles of photography
are guides to taking good pictures, the principles of physics are guides to correctly landing a manned
spacecraft on the moon and getting it back home again afterwards, and so on. Not everyone reasons

correctly all the time. Everyone makes logical errors at least sometimes. We all need to pay attention to
the principles of logic, at least when matters get complicated and things get hard to sort out.
(The Worlds of Many Logic, http://www.manyworldsoflogic.com/whatIsLogic.html)

The Significance of Logic for Law

Prof. Douglas Lind
Ever since Justice Holmes asserted that [t]he life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience,
lawyers and judges in the United States have minimized the importance of formal logic for understanding
law and legal reasoning. Many legal scholars and practitioners have feared that to acknowledge that logic
is central to law would risk a return to the rationalistic excesses of the formalistic jurisprudences that
dominated nineteenth century legal thought. It was, after all, against that formalist tradition that Holmes
wrote. And it was in spirited opposition to that tradition that members of the Legal Realist movement in
America, as well as the Free Law movement in Europe, directed much of their energies early in the
twentieth century.
There is good reason to remain skeptical of overly rationalistic accounts of law and judicial practice. The
weave of historical doctrine, legal principle, and factual nuances that goes into each judicial decision is far
too intricate to permit critical appraisal under any single evaluative method, including the principles of
logic. So we are rightfully apprehensive when we recollect the formalistic visions of nineteenth century
jurists visions which found the essence of adjudication in the logical derivation of conclusions
necessarily required by predetermined legal principles.
Yet it is somewhere between strict formalistic jurisprudence and an outright disregard for logic and
argumentative form where the law and judicial practice really find repose. Though all that is typically
repeated of Justice Holmes view is the pithy remark quoted above, his jurisprudential writings together
with his judicial opinions show clearly that he never intended to suggest that logic is not a central aspect
of law or judicial decision making. He, as well as the legal realists and other critics of legal formalism, well
recognized that evaluating and creating arguments lie at the heart of the crafts of lawyering and judging.
It is thus worthwhile for practitioners and students of the law alike to possess an understanding of the
basic principles of logic that are used regularly in legal reasoning and judicial decision making. This
understanding requires, in important part, skill in navigating the processes of inductive reasoning the
methods of analogy and inductive generalization by which inferences are drawn on the basis of past
experience and empirical observation. The common law method of case law development, as well as the
general prescript often referred to as the Rule of Law that like cases be decided alike are grounded
logically in inductive reasoning.
Equally important is a second basic category of argumentation deductive logic, especially the deductive
argument forms known as syllogisms. These are the classic forms of deductive argument consisting of a
major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. It was this aspect of logic that a century ago stirred
such virulent opposition to formalism. And it is this aspect of logic which was so severely downplayed
throughout the twentieth century. Yet even a rudimentary understanding of deductive logic gives lawyers,
judges, and students of the law a valuable tool for determining whether an argument in a legal opinion or
brief is valid or fallacious.
In essence, the domain of the law and, within that domain, perhaps most especially the practice of judicial
decision making are exercises in practical reasoning. Law, to be sure, involves more than logic. Yet the
myriad of factors that contribute to good lawyering and fair judging suggest that the life of the law, while
not logic alone, is a manifold of activities that all use and depend upon reason in specialized ways. The
precision of detail required in the drafting of contracts, wills, trusts, and other legal documents is a rational
precision; the care in planning and strategizing demanded of trial attorneys in deciding how to present
their cases is a rational care; the skill in written and oral argumentation required for appellate practice is,
quite obviously, a rational skill; the talent expected of administrative law judges in crafting coherent
findings of fact and conclusions of law is a rational talent; and the ability of trial and appellate court judges
to separate, dispassionately and without bias, the kernel of argument from the rhetorical and emotive chaf
of adversarial presentation, so as to render judgments that are justified under the law, is a rational ability.
While it is true that many other factors from self-interest to moral values, from psychology to science
enter into the decision making of lawyers and judges, all such factors bear the ever-present tincture of
reason and logic. Trial attorneys may appeal to the psychology or sentiments of the jury, but only so far as
they reasonably expect to influence the jury to draw rational inferences in their clients favor. Self-interest

may be the sole driving motive for each party in the drafting of a contract, yet the recognition, grounded in
reason, that insisting on onerous provisions will likely undermine the entire contractual arrangement has
the tendency to hold everyones self-interest in check. And while adjudicative practice calls for a good deal
of value judgment in the choice, interpretation, and application of legal principles, such value judgments
are not free of the constraints of reason. As stated by one appellate court, [E]very legal analysis should
begin at the point of reason, continue along a path of logic and arrive at a fundamentally fair result.
(Sunrise Lumber v. Johnson, Appeal No. 165). To criticize, reverse, or overrule an administrative or judicial
decision as arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by law, or contrary to precedent is to say nothing
more, but nothing less, than that the decision is deficient in logic and reason.
(THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE, http://www.judges.org/the-significance-of-logic-for-law/)

Induction vs. Deduction

In writing, argument is used in an attempt to convince the reader of the truth or falsity of some proposal or thesis. Two of the methods
used are induction and deduction.
Induction:
Example:
A process of reasoning (arguing) which infers a general conclusion based on individual cases, examples, specific bits of evidence, and
other specific types of premises.
In Chicago last month, a nine-year-old boy died of an asthma attack while waiting for emergency aid. After their ambulance was
pelted by rocks in an earlier incident, city paramedics wouldnt risk entering the Dearborn Homes Project (where the boy lived)
without a police escort.
Thus, based on this example, one could inductively reason that the nine- year-old boy died as a result of having to wait for emergency
treatment.
Guidelines for logical and valid induction:
1. When a body of evidence is being evaluated, the conclusion about that
Deduction:
Example:
evidence that is the simplest but still covers all the facts is the best conclusion.
2.

The evidence needs to be well-known and understood.

3.

The evidence needs to be sufficient. When generalizing from a sample to an entire population, make sure the sample is large
enough to show a real pattern.

4.

The evidence needs to be representative. It should be typical of the entire population being generalized.

A process of reasoning that starts with a general truth, applies that truth to a specific case (resulting in a second piece of evidence), and
from those two pieces of evidence (premises), draws a specific conclusion about the specific case.
Free access to public education is a key factor in the success of industrialized nations like the United States. (major premise)
India is working to become a successful, industrialized nation. (specific case)
Therefore, India should provide free access to public education for its citizens. (conclusion)
Thus, deduction is an argument in which the conclusion is said to follow necessarily from the premise.

Guidelines for logical and valid deduction:

1.

All premises must be true.

2.

All expressions used in the premises must be clearly and consistently defined.

3.

The first idea of the major premise must reappear in some form as the second idea in the specific case.

4.

No valid deductive argument can have two negative premises.

5.

No new idea can be introduced in the conclusion.

PROPOSITIONS AND SENTENCES

Leitgeb distinguishes between statements, which are declarative sentences (he calls them 'descriptive
sentences'), from propositions, which, unlike statements, are not linguistic objects. Propositions are the
sort of objects that can have truth-values. E.g., [that snow is white] is a true proposition (Lecture 2-1).
Once the distinction is made, the key idea is this: statements express propositions, which are then said to
be true or false. E.g. "snow is white" is a statement that itself doesn't have a truth-value, but instead
expresses the proposition that snow is white, which happens to be true. That's pretty much it.

Logicisthesciencethatevaluatesarguments.
Anargumentisagroupofstatementsincludingoneormorepremisesandoneandonlyoneconclusion.
Astatementisasentencethatiseithertrueorfalse,suchas"Thecatisonthemat."Manysentencesarenotstatements,suchas
"Closethedoor,please","Howoldareyou?"
Apremiseisastatementinanargumentthatprovidesreasonorsupportfortheconclusion.Therecanbeoneormanypremisesina
singleargument.
Aconclusionisastatementinanargumentthatindicatesofwhattheargueristryingtoconvincethereader/listener.Whatisthe
argumenttryingtoprove?Therecanbeonlyoneconclusioninasingleargument.