Topic:
The Reliability of Logics in the Perspective of Ancient and Modern Philosophers
Part 2 (E):
Continued from Part 2D:
The validity of inductive and deductive logic is doubtful.
The Aristotle’s logic is primarily based on one main element deduction; according to Aristotle deduction is actually the case, in which few things have been assumed that makes the premise of the reason, and what result of that supposition is the necessity. This deduction is also called syllogism, Aristotle says:
“A deduction is speech (logos) in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from those supposed results of necessity because of their being so.”[1]
The modern notion of logic does not contradict the old psychological point of view of Aristotle so far at the point of deduction. This can be easily comprehended by the fact that if event A (necessity) is the consequence of B and C (suppositions) then if B and C are true it is not viable for A to be false.
The element of deduction seems alright as far as the modern notion of logic is concerned, but for modern arguments and reasoning there are things that surpass the arguments of Aristotle. For example Aristotle explicates clearly that the consequence or necessity of supposition or premises must be different from the parent suppositions. What if the consequence in reality is identical to any one of the premises??
Therefore there are things that are uncertain and ambiguous in some actualities if the traditional logical schemes are applied on those. Now as for Aristotle explication, consider an example of mother and father which are two premises for a consequence like child. We focus on one of the specific characteristics of mother and father like level of tolerance. It might be possible that father is less tolerant and mother is more tolerant, but the resultant child is also less tolerant very identical to his father in this characteristic, here in this reality this argument of Aristotle failed. But on the other hand in some cases the same logic can really work, if the child is totally different from the parent premises in this characteristic of tolerance this limitation of deduction according to Aristotle hold true. Therefore there are other factors as well that are defining the validity of the philosophical proposals.
The two main logical schemes or instruments of traditional logic are deductive logic and inductive logic. Deduction is one element of argument and reason according to Aristotle and other philosophers, the other is induction. Deductive inference is also about a notion that if the variable ‘x’ is equal to variable ‘y’ and variable ‘y’ is equal to variable ‘z’ then the conclusion is ‘x’ is also equal to ‘z’, therefore deductive logic is basically related to given premises and concluding out from the given premise, whereas on the other end Inductive logic is the process of working out and concluding a result from a set of observations made on that subject.
The research work is made by SM Waqas Imam, he is a fresh engineer and has graduated from NED university of engineering and technology in 2010.
[1]Aristotle. Prior Analytics. Trans. A. J. Jenkinson. n.d.