1. Concepts, Judgment and Reasoning
1.1. Reasoning
1.1.1. Is one of the most complex mental operations since it implies the coherent relation between two judgements as a conclusion
1.1.1.1. example:
1.1.1.1.1. 1.-"Trees are woody stem plants" 2.- "cedars are trees"
1.2. Judgement
1.2.1. Judgement is a complex mental operation that enunciates the realtion ship between two or more concepts. Its linguistic expression is the proposition or statements.
1.2.1.1. To construct a judgement we need three elements: subject, couple and predicate. Example:
1.2.1.1.1. The rose (S) is (C) beautiful(P)
1.3. Concepts
1.3.1. This term means the mental representation of an object, and is a simple element of a thought. The formamtion of a concept is done through a process called absraction, which stars from birth , when our sences and thougths are stimulated.
1.3.1.1. Example
1.3.1.1.1. dog: animal with 4 paws, barks, is friendly, cute,etc
1.4. Argument
1.4.1. Reasoning by which idea is demostrated or justified. This reasoning is expresed in several statements called propositions that lead us to a conclusion about the subject or the idea treated
2. The logical Principles of Judgment and Arguments
2.1. principle of identity
2.1.1. The words and statements of our inferences must have the same and unique meaning trhough them
2.1.1.1. examples: you are you
2.2. principle of non-contradiction
2.2.1. it is impossible to affirm that a preposition is true and false at the same time and under the same circustances
2.2.1.1. example: a human begin is mortal because is not inmortal
2.3. principle of excluded middle
2.3.1. It tell us that by having two statements that contradic each other; necesarily one of them must be false and the other true.
2.3.1.1. example: yoday is cloudy or not cloudy
2.4. principle of suficient reason
2.4.1. To decide that a premiss is true or flase it is necessary to have reasons to support such a decision
2.4.1.1. Example: Although in television that reincarnation is possible I don't think so
2.5. Inductive inference
2.5.1. It stars from various observations made abot the same fact or object, so that conclusion is a statement that can be generalized to all cases that shares the properties observed so far.
2.5.1.1. Example
2.5.1.1.1. P1: Lucho is a cat and meows P2: Guero is a cat and meows P3: fluff is a cat and meows C: All cats meows
2.6. Deductive inference
2.6.1. Unlike the inductive inference, this one leads to neceseary conclusions; par of the facts and absolute security.
2.6.1.1. Example
2.6.1.1.1. P1: All humans begins are free P2: Maria is a human being C: Maria is free
3. The Syllogism in Classical Logic
3.1. Syllogism
3.1.1. An instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn (whether is validly or nor) from two given or assumend prepositions
3.1.1.1. Example
3.1.1.1.1. All mamas are animals
3.2. Types of Propotitions
3.2.1. A: universal afirmative (sceheme: all S is P) E:universal negative(scheme. All S is not P) I: affirmative particular(scheme: some S is P) O: negative particula(scheme;some Sis not P)
3.2.1.1. example
3.2.1.1.1. A: all the dogs are white ( quantity of terms: S=Universal P= particular) E: No dog is white (quantity of terms: S=Universal P=particular) I: the dog is withe (quantity of terms: S= paticular P=particular) O: the dog is not white (quantity of terms: S= paticular P=particular)
3.3. Premisses
3.3.1. Major premiss: Where is the predicate of the conclusion or major terms (P). Generally this premiss is presented first Minor premiss: Where is the subject of the conclusion or minor term (S). Middle term(M): It serves as a comparasion between both premises, however, it does not go to the conclusion. Conclusion: The conclusion is where the relation between S and P is established considering that M does not appear in this proposition.
3.4. Fallacy
3.4.1. Fallacies are incorrect reasoning because they appear to comply whit validity and logical principles, althoug whem analiying them, this compliment is not true. For this reason, fallacies are wrong argument that seems correct. In this sense, they constitute violation of the rules of reasoning and obstruct our capacity for interpretation and dialogue in any communicative situation.
3.5. Type of Fallacies
3.5.1. Attack to the person
3.5.1.1. Reffearing to any condition of person who issues an opinion and ignoring the content of what he says, is often very common when we no longer have reasonable elements to refute the argument
3.5.1.1.1. example
3.5.2. Appeal to popularity
3.5.2.1. It happen when we seek to support our arguments in popular opinios and not because of the confidence that they are right.
3.5.2.1.1. Example
3.5.3. false generalization
3.5.3.1. This fallacy consists in generalazing from very few observed cases
3.5.3.1.1. Example
3.5.4. Petition of principle
3.5.4.1. In making an argument, one of the premisses is again and again stablished as a conclusion, and then the conclusion is changed to one of the premises, this mechanism does not prove anything, but it turns over the same idea over and over again
3.5.4.1.1. Example
3.5.5. Appeal to force
3.5.5.1. This fallacy consists of the use eof force (physical or verbal) to impose a vision or opinion. Hence in reality there is no kind of argument or dialogue
3.5.5.1.1. Example
3.5.6. Appeal to emotions
3.5.6.1. This fallacy seeks to expose an idea that moves the feelings or pity instead of ofering reasons. Thw so-called "emotional blackmail" is common.
3.5.6.1.1. Example
3.5.7. Appeal to ignorance
3.5.7.1. This fallacy is used when it is intended to offer the ignorance of something to evade responsability.
3.5.7.1.1. Example
3.5.8. Appeal to authority
3.5.8.1. It occurs when an idea or argument is not analzed but is taken for garanted as correct and valid for having been issued by a person or institution with a supposed recognition of the subject.
3.5.8.1.1. Example
4. Modern Logic and its Symbolic Language
4.1. Modern Logic
4.1.1. It has a strog relationship with mathematics and symbolic language
4.1.1.1. Example
4.1.1.1.1. Symbolic language
4.2. Classical Logic
4.2.1. This logic focuses on indicating the belonging or non-belonging of an element within a set, according to the prpieties it shares with it.
4.2.1.1. Example
4.2.1.1.1. The orange is orange
4.3. Quantificational logic
4.3.1. This logic focuses on the relation ships between a quantiq and the propositions, distingushing between individuals and their predicates
4.3.1.1. Example
4.3.1.1.1. some apples are delicious
4.4. Propositional logic
4.4.1. This logic deals with analyzing formally valid reasonings based on their propositions
4.4.1.1. Examples
4.4.1.1.1. if the moon is made of cheese then basketballs are round