RESEARCH NO.

Subject: NGEC 10
Schedule: 2:30 – 4:00 pm TTH

Group: 7
Members:
Leader: Velasquez, Jesse Angelo G.
Basila, Jade V.
Neri, Joseph R.
Panitic, Cedric N.

Submitted to:
Sir Perfecto Cave
RESEARCH:

A. A Holistic Perspective/The Philosopher’s Way

By:
Truth and Philosophy/Truth and Opinion
By: Velasquez, Jesse Angelo G.
Definition of Truth
Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original
or standard. Truth is also sometimes defined in modern contexts as an idea of "truth to self",
or authenticity.
Truth is usually held to be opposite to falsehood, which, correspondingly, can also suggest a
logical, factual, or ethical meaning. The concept of truth is discussed and debated in several
contexts, including philosophy, art, theology, and science. Most human activities depend
upon the concept, where its nature as a concept is assumed rather than being a subject of
discussion; these include most of the sciences, law, journalism, and everyday life. Some
philosophers view the concept of truth as basic, and unable to be explained in any terms that
are more easily understood than the concept of truth itself. To some, truth is viewed as the
correspondence of language or thought to an independent reality, in what is sometimes
called the correspondence theory of truth.
Various theories and views of truth continue to be debated among scholars, philosophers,
and theologians. Language is a means by which humans convey information to one another.
The method used to determine whether something is a truth is termed a criterion of truth.
There are varying stances on such questions as what constitutes truth: what things
are truthbearers capable of being true or false; how to define, identify, and distinguish truth;
what roles do faith and empirical knowledge play; and whether truth can be subjective or if it
is objective (in other words, relative truth versus absolute truth).
Definition of Opinion
A given opinion may deal with subjective matters in which there is no conclusive finding, or it
may deal with facts which are sought to be disputed by the logical fallacy that one is entitled
to their opinions.
Distinguishing fact from opinion is that facts are verifiable, i.e. can be agreed to by the
consensus of experts. An example is: "United States of America was involved in the Vietnam
War," versus "United States of America was right to get involved in the Vietnam War". An
opinion may be supported by facts and principles, in which case it becomes an argument.
Different people may draw opposing conclusions (opinions) even if they agree on the same
set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. It can
be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another, by analyzing the
supporting arguments.
In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding,
particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. The term may also refer to unsubstantiated
information, in contrast to knowledge and fact.
Though not hard fact, collective opinions or professional opinions are defined as meeting a
higher standard to substantiate the opinion.
We use the following Major Theories to define how to get the truth and distinguish it from
opinion.

Major theories
The question of what is a proper basis for deciding how words, symbols, ideas and beliefs may
properly be considered true, whether by a single person or an entire society, is dealt with by
the five most prevalent substantive theories of truth listed below. Each presents perspectives
that are widely shared by published scholars.
Theories other than the most prevalent substantive theories are also discussed. More
recently developed "deflationary" or "minimalist" theories of truth have emerged as possible
alternatives to the most prevalent substantive theories. Minimalist reasoning centres around
the notion that the application of a term like true to a statement does not assert anything
significant about it, for instance, anything about its nature. Minimalist reasoning
realises truth as a label utilised in general discourse to express agreement, to stress claims, or
to form general assumptions.
Substantive
Correspondence theory of truth
Correspondence theories emphasise that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the
actual state of affairs. This type of theory stresses a relationship between thoughts or
statements on one hand, and things or objects on the other. It is a traditional model tracing
its origins to ancient Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. This class of
theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined in principle
entirely by how it relates to "things" by whether it accurately describes those "things". A
classic example of correspondence theory is the statement by the thirteenth century
philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas: "Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus"
("Truth is the adequation of things and intellect"), which Aquinas attributed to the ninth
century Neoplatonist Isaac Israeli. Aquinas also restated the theory as: "A judgment is said to
be true when it conforms to the external reality".
Correspondence theory centres heavily around the assumption that truth is a matter of
accurately copying what is known as "objective reality" and then representing it in thoughts,
words and other symbols. Many modern theorists have stated that this ideal cannot be
achieved without analysing additional factors. For example, language plays a role in that all
languages have words to represent concepts that are virtually undefined in other languages.
The German word Zeitgeist is one such example: one who speaks or understands the
language may "know" what it means, but any translation of the word apparently fails to
accurately capture its full meaning.
Coherence Theory of truth
For coherence theories in general, truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole
system. Very often, though, coherence is taken to imply something more than simple logical
consistency; often there is a demand that the propositions in a coherent system lend mutual
inferential support to each other. So, for example, the completeness and comprehensiveness
of the underlying set of concepts is a critical factor in judging the validity and usefulness of a
coherent system. A pervasive tenet of coherence theories is the idea that truth is primarily a
property of whole systems of propositions, and can be ascribed to individual propositions only
according to their coherence with the whole. Among the assortment of perspectives
commonly regarded as coherence theory, theorists differ on the question of whether
coherence entails many possible true systems of thought or only a single absolute system.
Some variants of coherence theory are claimed to describe the essential and intrinsic
properties of formal systems in logic and mathematics. However, formal reasoners are
content to contemplate axiomatically independent and sometimes mutually contradictory
systems side by side, for example, the various alternative geometries. On the whole,
coherence theories have been rejected for lacking justification in their application to other
areas of truth, especially with respect to assertions about the natural world, empirical data in
general, assertions about practical matters of psychology and society, especially when used
without support from the other major theories of truth.
Constructivist epistemology or Social Constructivism
For coherence theories in general, truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole
system. Very often, though, coherence is taken to imply something more than simple logical
consistency; often there is a demand that the propositions in a coherent system lend mutual
inferential support to each other. So, for example, the completeness and comprehensiveness
of the underlying set of concepts is a critical factor in judging the validity and usefulness of a
coherent system. A pervasive tenet of coherence theories is the idea that truth is primarily a
property of whole systems of propositions, and can be ascribed to individual propositions only
according to their coherence with the whole. Among the assortment of perspectives
commonly regarded as coherence theory, theorists differ on the question of whether
coherence entails many possible true systems of thought or only a single absolute system.
Consensus Theory of Truth
Consensus theory holds that truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might
come to be agreed upon, by some specified group. Such a group might include all human
beings, or a subset thereof consisting of more than one person.
Among the current advocates of consensus theory as a useful accounting of the concept of
"truth" is the philosopher Jürgen Habermas. Habermas maintains that truth is what would be
agreed upon in an ideal speech situation.
Pragmatic Theory of Truth
The three most influential forms of the pragmatic theory of truth were introduced around the
turn of the 20th century by Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. Although
there are wide differences in viewpoint among these and other proponents of pragmatic
theory, they hold in common that truth is verified and confirmed by the results of putting
one's concepts into practice.
Peirce defines truth as follows: "Truth is that concordance of an abstract statement with the
ideal limit towards which endless investigation would tend to bring scientific belief, which
concordance the abstract statement may possess by virtue of the confession of its inaccuracy
and one-sidedness, and this confession is an essential ingredient of truth." This statement
stresses Peirce's view that ideas of approximation, incompleteness, and partiality, what he
describes elsewhere as fallibilism and "reference to the future", are essential to a proper
conception of truth. Although Peirce uses words like concordance and correspondence to
describe one aspect of the pragmatic sign relation, he is also quite explicit in saying that
definitions of truth based on mere correspondence are no more than nominal definitions,
which he accords a lower status than real definitions.
William James's version of pragmatic theory, while complex, is often summarized by his
statement that "the 'true' is only the expedient in our way of thinking, just as the 'right' is only
the expedient in our way of behaving." By this, James meant that truth is a quality, the value
of which is confirmed by its effectiveness when applying concepts to practice (thus,
"pragmatic").
John Dewey, less broadly than James but more broadly than Peirce, held that inquiry, whether
scientific, technical, sociological, philosophical or cultural, is self-corrective over
time if openly submitted for testing by a community of inquirers in order to clarify, justify,
refine and/or refute proposed truths.
Though not widely known, a new variation of the pragmatic theory was defined and wielded
successfully from the 20th century forward. Defined and named by William Ernest Hocking,
this variation is known as "negative pragmatism". Essentially, what works may or may not be
true, but what fails cannot be true because the truth always works. Richard Feynman also
ascribed to it: "We never are definitely right, we can only be sure we are wrong." This
approach incorporates many of the ideas from Peirce, James, and Dewey. For Peirce, the idea
of "... endless investigation would tend to bring about scientific belief ..." fits negative
pragmatism in that a negative pragmatist would never stop testing. As Feynman noted, an
idea or theory "... could never be proved right, because tomorrow's experiment might
succeed in proving wrong what you thought was right."
Pragmatism and negative pragmatism are also closely aligned with the coherence theory of
truth in that any testing should not be isolated but rather incorporate knowledge from all
human endeavors and experience. The universe is a whole and integrated system, and testing
should acknowledge and account for its diversity. As Feynman said, "... if it disagrees with
experiment, it is wrong."
Minimalist (deflationary)
Modern developments in the field of philosophy, starting with the relatively modern notion
that a theory being old does not necessarily imply that it is completely flawless, have resulted
in the rise of a new thesis: that the term truth does not denote a real property of sentences
or propositions. This thesis is in part a response to the common use of truth predicates (e.g.,
that some particular thing "...is true") which was particularly prevalent in philosophical
discourse on truth in the first half of the 20th century. From this point of view, to assert that
"'2 + 2 = 4' is true" is logically equivalent to asserting that "2 + 2 = 4", and the phrase "is true"
is completely dispensable in this and every other context. In common parlance, truth
predicates are not commonly heard, and it would be interpreted as an unusual occurrence
were someone to utilise a truth predicate in an everyday conversation when asserting that
something is true. Newer perspectives that take this discrepancy into account and work with
sentence structures that are actually employed in common discourse can be broadly
described:
as deflationary theories of truth, since they attempt to deflate the presumed importance of
the words "true" or truth,
as disquotational theories, to draw attention to the disappearance of the quotation marks in
cases like the above example, or
as minimalist theories of truth.
Whichever term is used, deflationary theories can be said to hold in common that "he
predicate 'true' is an expressive convenience, not the name of a property requiring deep
analysis." Once we have identified the truth predicate's formal features and utility,
deflationists argue, we have said all there is to be said about truth. Among the theoretical
concerns of these views is to explain away those special cases where it does appear that the
concept of truth has peculiar and interesting properties.
Performative
Attributed to P. F. Strawson is the performative theory of truth which holds that to say "'Snow
is white' is true" is to perform the speech act of signaling one's agreement with the claim that
snow is white (much like nodding one's head in agreement). The idea that some statements
are more actions than communicative statements is not as odd as it may seem. Consider, for
example, that when the wedding couple say "I do" at the appropriate time in a wedding, they
are performing the act of taking the other to be their lawful wedded spouse.
Redundancy Theory of truth
According to the redundancy theory of truth, asserting that a statement is true is completely
equivalent to asserting the statement itself. For example, making the assertion that " 'Snow
is white' is true" is equivalent to asserting "Snow is white". Redundancy theorists infer from
this premise that truth is a redundant concept; that is, it is merely a word that is traditionally
used in conversation or writing, generally for emphasis, but not a word that actually equates
to anything in reality. This theory is commonly attributed to Frank P. Ramsey, who held that
the use of words like fact and truth was nothing but a roundabout way of asserting a
proposition, and that treating these words as separate problems in isolation from judgment
was merely a "linguistic muddle".
Philosophical skepticism
Philosophical skepticism is generally any questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more
items of knowledge or belief which ascribe truth to their assertions and propositions. It is
often directed at domains, such as the supernatural, morality (moral skepticism), religion
(skepticism about the existence of God), or knowledge (skepticism about the possibility of
knowledge, or of certainty). Formally, skepticism as a topic occurs in the context of
philosophy, particularly epistemology, although it can be applied to any topic such as politics,
religion, and pseudoscience.
Philosophical skepticism comes in various forms. Radical forms of skepticism deny that
knowledge or rational belief is possible and urge us to suspend judgment regarding ascription
of truth on many or all controversial matters. More moderate forms of skepticism claim only
that nothing can be known with certainty, or that we can know little or nothing about the "big
questions" in life, such as whether God exists or whether there is an afterlife. Religious
skepticism is "doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence,
and revelation)". Scientific skepticism concerns testing beliefs for reliability, by subjecting
them to systematic investigation using the scientific method, to discover empirical
evidence for them.
Pluralist
Several of the major theories of truth hold that there is a particular property the having of
which makes a belief or proposition true. Pluralist theories of truth assert that there may be
more than one property that makes propositions true: ethical propositions might be true by
virtue of coherence. Propositions about the physical world might be true by corresponding to
the objects and properties they are about.
B. Methods of Philosophy/Methods of Philosophizing
By: Neri, Joseph R.

Methods of Philosophy
Philosophical method is the study of how to do philosophy. A common view among
philosophers is that philosophy is distinguished by the ways that philosophers follow in
addressing philosophical questions. There is not just one method that philosophers use to
answer philosophical questions.
Methodology Process
Some common features of the methods that philosophers follow (and discuss when
discussing philosophical method) include:
Methodic Doubt - a systematic process of being skeptical about (or doubting) the truth of
one's beliefs.
Argument - provide an argument or several arguments supporting the solution.
Dialectic - present the solution and arguments for criticism by other philosophers, and help
them judge their own.

Doubt and the sense of wonder

Plato said that “philosophy begins in wonder”. Philosophizing may begin with some simple
doubts about accepted beliefs. The initial impulse to philosophize may arise from suspicion,
for example that we do not fully understand, and have not fully justified, even our most basic
beliefs about the world.
Formulate questions and problems
Another element of philosophical method is to formulate questions to be answered or
problems to be solved. The working assumption is that the more clearly the question or
problem is stated, the easier it is to identify critical issues.
Enunciate a solution
Another approach is to enunciate a theory, or to offer a definition or analysis, which
constitutes an attempt to solve a philosophical problem. Sometimes a philosophical theory
by itself can be stated quite briefly. All the supporting philosophical text is offered by way of
hedging, explanation, and argument.
Justify the solution
An argument is a set of statements, one of which (the conclusion), it is said or implied, follows
from the others (the premises). One might think of arguments as bundles of reasons — often
not just a list, but logically interconnected statements — followed by the claim they are
reasons for. The reasons are the premises, the claim they support is the conclusion; together
they make an argument.
Philosophical criticism
In philosophy, which concerns the most fundamental aspects of the universe, the experts all
disagree. It follows that another element of philosophical method, common in the work of
nearly all philosophers, is philosophical criticism. It is this that makes much philosophizing a
social endeavor.
Philosophers offer definitions and explanations in solution to problems; they argue for those
solutions; and then other philosophers provide counter arguments, expecting to eventually
come up with better solutions. This exchange and resulting revision of views is called dialectic.
Dialectic (in one sense of this history-laden word) is simply philosophical conversation
amongst people who do not always agree with each other about everything.
One can do this sort of harsh criticism on one's own, but others can help greatly, if important
assumptions are shared with the person offering the criticisms. Others are able to think of
criticisms from another perspective.

Motivation
Method in philosophy is in some sense rooted in motivation, only by understanding why
people take up philosophy can one properly understand what philosophy is. People often find
themselves believing things that they do not understand. For example, about God,
themselves, the natural world, human society,morality and human productions. Often,
people fail to understand what it is they believe, and fail to understand the reasons they
believe in what they do. Some people have questions about the meaning of their beliefs and
questions about the justification (or rationality) of their beliefs. A lack of these things shows
a lack of understanding, and some dislike not having this understanding.
These questions about are only the tip of the philosophical iceberg. There are many other
things about this universe about which people are also fundamentally ignorant. Philosophers
are in the business of investigating all sorts of those areas of ignorance.
A bewilderingly huge number of basic concepts are poorly understood. For example:
What does it mean to say that one thing causes another?
What is rationality? What are space and time?
What is beauty, and if it is in the eye of the beholder, then what is it that is being said to be
in the eye of the beholder?
One might also consider some of the many questions about justification. Human lives are
deeply informed with many basic assumptions. Different assumptions, would lead to different
ways of living.

Methods of Philosophizing
The methods of philosophy will help to learn the process of doing philosophy in a systematic
way. On the other hand, philosophizing is to think or express oneself in a
philosophical manner. Thinking and reasoning the past and the usual right from wrong. There
are four different methods of philosophizing namely, logic, existentialism, analytic tradition,
and phenomenology.
Logic - truth is based on reasoning and critical thinking analysis and construction of
arguments. It serve as path to freedom from half truths and deception. According to my
research, logic is also   the study of reasoning, or the study of the principles and criteria of
valid inference and demonstration. It attempts to distinguish good reasoning from bad
reasoning.
2 Types of Reasoning
Inductive – moves from specific premises to a general conclusion.
Example:
Every tornado I have ever seen in the United States rotated counterclockwise, and I have seen
dozens of them.
We see a tornado in the distance, and we are in the United States.
2 conclude that the tornado we see right now must be rotating counterclockwise.
Deductive –  Deductive reasoning moves from a general premise to a more specific
conclusion.
Example:
All men is mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is  mortal.
The first premise states that all objects classified as “men” have the attribute “mortal”. The
second premise states that “Socrates” is classified as a “man” – a member of the set “men”.
The conclusion then states that “Socrates” must be “mortal” because he inherits this attribute
from his classification as a “man”.
Existentialism - it is the importance of free individual choice regardless of the power of the
people to influence and coerce our desires, beliefs, and decisions.  For example, there is a
problem that you need to make a decision but you should face what would be its
early consequences. Another example of existentialism would be when a person makes a
decision about their life, follows through or does not follow through on that decision and
begins to create their essence. It is in existentialism that existence comes first and essence
comes second.
According to my research, Existentialism has general characteristics:
Existence Before Essence: Existentialism gets its name from an insistence that life is only
understandable in terms of an individual’s existence, his particular life experience.
Reason is unable to deal with the depths of life: There are two parts to this idea: first, that
reason is relatively weak and imperfect, (people often do not do the “right” thing), and
second, that there are dark places in life which are “non-reason,” to which reason scarcely
penetrates, (meaning we often commit acts which seem to defy reason, to make no sense).
Alienation: Existentialism holds that, since the Renaissance, people have slowly been
separated from concrete earthly existence. Individuals have been forced to live at ever higher
levels of abstraction, have been collectivized out of existence, and have driven God from the
heavens, (or, what is the same thing to the existentialist), from the hearts of men. It is believed
that individuals live in a fourfold condition of alienation: from God, from nature, from other
people, and from our own “true” selves.
Fear and anxiety: The optimism of the 18th and 19th centuries gives way, after WW I, to the
Great Depression, WW II and the Holocaust, to a feeling of pessimism, fear and anxiety.
Another kind of anxiety facing individuals in the 20th C when the philosophy of existentialism
develops is “the anguish of Abraham,” the necessity which is laid upon people to make
“moral” choices on their own sense of responsibility.
The encounter with nothingless: According to the existentialists, for individuals alienated
from God, from nature, from other people and even from themselves, what is left at last but
Nothingness? This is, simply stated, how existentialists see humanity: on the brink of a
catastrophic precipice, below which yawns the absolute void, black Nothingness, asking
ourselves, “Does existence ultimately have any purpose?”
Freedom: Sooner or later, as a theme that includes all the others mentioned above,
existentialist writings bear upon freedom. All of these ideas either describe some loss of
individuals’ freedom or some threat to it, and all existentialists of whatever sort are
considered to enlarge the range of human freedom.
Analytical Tradition - one of the methods of philosophizing, is the conviction that
the some significantstructure.Any of various philosophical methodologies holding that clear 
and precise definition and argumentation are vital to productive philosophical inquiry. For
example, the definition of a concept can be determined by uncovering the underlying logical
structures, or “logical forms,” of the sentences used to express it.
According to my research analytical tradition has a characteristics paragraph by Russell:
It develop a powerful logical technique. It is thus able, in regard to certain problems, to
achieve definite answers, which have the quality of science rather than of philosophy. It has
the advantage, in comparison with the philosophies of the system-builders, of being able to
tackle its problems one at a time, instead of having to invent at one stroke a block theory of
the whole universe. Its methods, in this respect, resemble those of science.
Analytical traditions has three main foundational planks:
that there are no specifically philosophical truths and that the object of philosophy is the
logical clarification of thoughts.
that the logical clarification of thoughts can only be achieved by analysis of the logical form of
philosophical propositions, such as by using the formal grammar and symbolism of a logical
system.
a rejection of sweeping philosophical systems and grand theories in favor of
close attention to detail, as well as a defense of common sense and ordinary language against
the pretensions of traditional metaphysics and ethics.
Phenomenology - it is careful inspection and description of phenomena or appearance. it is
also a scientific study of essential structure. According to my research, phenomenology is
commonly understood in either of two ways: as a disciplinary field in philosophy, or as a
movement in the history of philosophy. An example of phenomenology is studying the green
flash that sometimes happens just after sunset or just before sunrise.
According to my research phenomenology has main characteristics.
1. In phenomenology, the objective is the direct investigation and description of phenomena
as they are consciously experienced, without theories about the causal explanations or their
objective reality.
2. Phenomenology therefore seeks to understand how people construct meaning.
3. It investigates experiences as they are lived by those experiencing them, and the meaning
that these people attach to them.
4. Critical truths about reality are grounded in peoples lived experiences.
5. Phenomenology consists mainly of in-depth conversations.
6. In phenomenology, the researcher and the informants are often considered as co-
participants.
7. A very important characteristic in phenomenology is person-centered rather than being
concerned with social processes, cultures, or traditions.
For me I learned that it is important to study the methods of philosophizing to know what we
say and spoke to others. If they continue to teach this until next  generation. It helps to extend
the knowledge of the people especially the youth like me.
C. Divisions of Logic/Classics of Arguments
By: Basila, Jade V.

DIVISION OF LOGIC/CLASSES OF ARGUMENT

Definition of Logic
Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, romanized: logikḗ) is the systematic study of the forms
of inference, the relations that lead to the acceptance of one proposition, the conclusion, on
the basis of a set of other propositions, the premises. More broadly, logic is the analysis and
appraisal of arguments. The premises may or may not support the conclusion; when they do
not, the relation is characterized as a fallacy.

In ordinary discourse, inferences may be signified by words such as therefore, thus, hence,
ergo, and so on.
Definition of Logic. Logic may be defined as the science which directs the operations of the
mind in the attainment of truth.
There is no universal agreement as to the exact definition and boundaries of logic, and this is
why the issue still remains one of the main subjects of research and debates in the field of
philosophy of logic (see § Rival conceptions, below). However, it has traditionally included the
classification of arguments, the systematic exposition of the logical forms, the validity and
soundness of deductive reasoning, the strength of inductive reasoning, the study of proof and
inference (including paradoxes and fallacies), and the study of syntax and semantics.

Divisions of Logic.

Division of Logic may be divided according to the Tree Acts of the Intellect. These are: simple
apprehension, judgment and reasoning Simple apprehension is the first act of the intellect
wherein by the acts of our senses we mentally grasp a thing without affirming or denying
anything about it.

The simplest act of the mind in which it can attain truth is the judgment -- the act by which
the mind affirms or denies something about something else. That which is affirmed (or
denied) of the other is called an attribute: that to which it is said to belong (or not to belong)
is called a subject. Hence we may define a judgment as the act by which the mind affirms or
denies an attribute of a subject.

A judgment however gives the mind a complex object: for it involves these two parts -- subject
and attribute. We must therefore take account of a more elementary act of the mind than
judgment, viz.: Simple Apprehension. Simple apprehension is the act by which the mind
without judging, forms a concept of something. Thus if I should conceive the notion of a
triangle, without however making any judgment about it, I should be said to have formed a
simple apprehension of a triangle. David Hume built much of his system on blatantly denied
this fact. He insisted that immediately the mind conceived of triangle it had an image of its
exact type and size, i.e. scalene or isosceles. Sadly nobody tried him with a myriagon!
However, the words true or false cannot be applied to simple apprehensions, just as we
cannot say that the words in a dictionary are true or false. Following Hume, some
philosophers indeed deny that the mind ever forms a simple apprehension; they hold that in
every case some judgment is made. We need not even enter into this question. We can at
least analyse the judgment into simple apprehensions: for every judgment requires two
concepts, one in which the mind expresses the subject, and the other in which it expresses
the attribute. Thus in the example given above, I must have a concept of horse, and one
of whiteness, in order to say 'The horse is white'. These are the elements which go to
constitute the complex act of judgment, and they can be considered in isolation from it. Logic
therefore must deal with the concept.

There is a third process of the mind, namely Reasoning or Inference. This is defined as the
act, by which from two given judgments, the mind passes to a third judgment distinct from
these, but implicitly contained in them. Thus if I say

All roses wither in the autumn;

This flower is a rose;
Therefore: This flower wilt wither in the autumn;

or if I argue

Whatever displays the harmonious ordering of many parts is due to an intelligent cause;
The world displays the harmonious ordering of many parts;
Therefore : The world is due to an intelligent cause;

I am said in each case to infer the third judgment. An inference of the form which we have
employed in these examples, is called a syllogism. The two judgments given are known as
the premisses. The judgment derived from them is the conclusion.

It is of these three acts of the mind that Logic treats: and the science falls correspondingly
into three main divisions, -- the Logic (1) of the Concept, (2) of the Judgment, (3) of Inference.

Since Logic deals with thought, it necessarily takes account to some extent of language -- the
verbal expression of thought. It does so however from quite a different point of view to that
of Grammar. Grammar is concerned with words as such. It is the art by which the words
employed in significant speech are combined according to the conventional rules of a
language. Hence in it each of the nine parts of speech is treated independently, and rules are
given for their respective use. On the other hand, the simplest object of which Logic takes
account is the Concept. In its consideration of words, therefore, it does not deal with any of
those parts of speech, which taken by themselves are incapable of giving us an independent
concept. It is conversant not with nine, but with two forms only of significant utterance, viz.:
the Name, the verbal expression of the Concept, and the Proposition, the verbal expression
of the Judgment [N2]. The proposition consists of three parts. These are, (1) the Subject --
that of which the assertion is made: (2) the Predicate -- that which is affirmed or denied of
the Subject: and (3) the Copula -- the verb is or are which connects the Subject and the
Predicate. The Subject and the Predicate are called the Terms (from the Latin terminus -
- a boundary) of the proposition: and the predicate is said to be predicated of the subject.
In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements (in a natural language), called
the premises or premisses (both spellings are acceptable), intended to determine the degree
of truth of another statement, the conclusion.[1][2][3][4][5] The logical form of an argument in a
natural language can be represented in a symbolic formal language, and independently of
natural language formally defined "arguments" can be made in math and computer science.
Logic is the study of the forms of reasoning in arguments and the development of standards
and criteria to evaluate arguments.[6] Deductive arguments can be valid or sound: in a valid
argument, premisses necessitate the conclusion, even if one or more of the premisses is false
and the conclusion is false; in a sound argument, true premisses necessitate a true
conclusion. Inductive arguments, by contrast, can have different degrees of logical strength:
the stronger or more cogent the argument, the greater the probability that the conclusion is
true, the weaker the argument, the lesser that probability.[7] The standards for evaluating
non-deductive arguments may rest on different or additional criteria than truth—for
example, the persuasiveness of so-called "indispensability claims" in transcendental
arguments,[8] the quality of hypotheses in retroduction, or even the disclosure of new
possibilities for thinking and acting.

Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments. The study of fallacies is an
important branch of informal logic. Since much informal argument is not strictly speaking
deductive, on some conceptions of logic, informal logic is not logic at all. See § Rival
conceptions below.
Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal content. An inference possesses a
purely formal content if it can be expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract
rule, that is, a rule that is not about any particular thing or property. Traditional syllogistic
logic, also known as term logic, and modern symbolic logic, the study of symbolic abstractions
that capture the formal features of logical inference, are examples of formal logic. Symbolic
logic is often divided into two main branches: propositional logic and predicate logic. The
works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study of the syllogism. Modern formal
logic follows and expands on Aristotle. In many definitions of logic, logical inference and
inference with purely formal content are the same. This does not render the notion of
informal logic vacuous, because no formal logic captures all of the nuances of natural
language.
Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas, in particular to the study
of model theory, proof theory, set theory, and computability theory.
However, agreement on what logic actually is has remained elusive, although the field of
universal logic has studied the common structure of logics.

There are two types of logical arguments - deductive and inductive. Examples of these are:
Deductive - This type of reasoning provides complete evidence of the truth of its conclusion.
It uses a specific and accurate premise that leads to a specific and accurate conclusion. With
correct premises, the conclusion to this type of argument is verifiable and correct.
Inductive - This type of reasoning is "bottom up," meaning that it takes specific information
and makes a broad generalization that is considered probable, allowing for the fact that the
conclusion may not be accurate. This type of reasoning usually involves a rule being
established based on a series of repeated experiences.
Validity of Logic

Deductive arguments may be either valid or invalid. If an argument is valid, it is a valid

deduction, and if its premises are true, the conclusion must be true: a valid argument cannot
have true premises and a false conclusion.
An argument is formally valid if and only if the denial of the conclusion is incompatible with
accepting all the premises.
The validity of an argument depends, however, not on the actual truth or falsity of its
premises and conclusion, but solely on whether or not the argument has a valid logical form.
The validity of an argument is not a guarantee of the truth of its conclusion. Under a given
interpretation, a valid argument may have false premises that render it inconclusive: the
conclusion of a valid argument with one or more false premises may be either true or false.
Logic seeks to discover the valid forms, the forms that make arguments valid. A form of
argument is valid if and only if the conclusion is true under all interpretations of that argument
in which the premises are true. Since the validity of an argument depends solely on its form,
an argument can be shown to be invalid by showing that its form is invalid. This can be done
by giving a counter example of the same form of argument with premises that are true under
a given interpretation, but a conclusion that is false under that interpretation. In informal
logic this is called a counter argument.