Logic and Role in Getting Knowledge

Name:

Tutor:

Course:

Date:

Logic and Role in Getting Knowledge

Logic refers to the variety of thought, argument, idea, an account or reasoning as per the study principles that offer valid reference, criteria, and appropriate demonstration. The central depiction behind logic is the ability to distinguish between right or wrong reasoning. In its deliberation as per philosophy, it identifies the truth, existence, modality, and necessity concerned with quantification of an idea or argument. According to Aristotle, it is a new reasoning dimension that allows us to find out or learn what we do not know at the time. In the same vein, it helps detect any form of fallacy when called upon the reasoning process. Logic is sure to investigate the structures of statements as well as arguments in all formal systems when denounced in natural language. The probability involved then brings out consistency without any form of contradiction under the premise of completeness.

Logic contributes to various ways or dimensions used in acquiring knowledge. The latter plays a part in the ordinary setup of activities, education, information acquisition, reasoning, and practical thinking. It then translates to the ability to make decisions, choice, or taking options as per the individual’s level of logic analysis. Since reason is the purpose of logic, we can state that it is necessary for knowledge application. From the basis of evaluation, one uses the point of logic to acquire consistency in any idea, thought, and ability to distinguish what is right or wrong, good and bad. Logic influences the capability of justifying the application of knowledge in real life situations, and the roles determined to have satisfactory results as required. Without logic, the same choices cannot be expected if proper and consistent protocols are not achieved.

Inductive and deductive reasons, as well as the process of reasoning, are attributed to logic. Since logic deals with affirming of arguments and attains the consistency to back them up, it is ideal to analyze the two approaches used in the process. Deductive reasoning refers to the top- down method of reaching the final decision as per an area of interests. For example, the theory surrounding the issue is identified. Its hypothesis is then checked, and observations made for analysis. Once this stage is arrived at, the confirmation is done to achieve the original basis of the theory. On the other hand, deductive reasoning follows the different form. Observation is first carried out, the marked patterns identified. The tentative hypothesis is affirmed before the appropriate confirmation of the theory can be stated. Both measures above only serve to test the logic behind the argument and its stance.

When dealing with the concepts of logic, syllogisms are used. They are the core formulas employed in a case to reach a conclusion when two or more premises are involved in the process. They use the probability basis in three ways. Probability is first determined as a factor that is present within natural forces. It is also not a determining element when the premises are identified as well as having the within and without measure in them. When checking the basis for syllogisms’ use, one group is followed up by the other and the characteristics that support are in three ways namely, inclusion, exclusion, and overlap. It is the duty of the individual using logic to determine the necessary and appropriate concept to acquire a steadfast result at the end.

In the case of mutual exclusion, it shows that the syllogism of any logic has an occurrence within a single group. The member components in the group are said to have the exclusion factor when one misses from the other. For example, in the case of cats and dogs, mutual exclusion shows that they both belong to the same animal kingdom, but characteristics of one differ from the other. On the other hand, inclusion is the complete opposite of the two. It suggests that members of either or each group share some common traits or characteristics. The basis for confirmation, in this case, can be explained by comparing of furniture and tables. Tables are set out apart despite the fact that they form an integral part of the furniture. Both of them can be seen from the material origin or even their purpose.

In the case where the overlap is checked among the characteristics, there is a possibility that some of the traits are shared between different groups and their members, before realizing that there is no association among them. One can use the example of fish and humans. Both require oxygen to survive. It is despite the fact that there is no similarity or any inclusion whatsoever. On the other hand, we can use the example of fish and humans when adding a third dimension of exclusion in the argument. Both have backbones while insects do not. Similarly, in a class of students, there are geniuses. However, the geniuses do not share any commonality with the regular students despite being in the same class or setting. Thus, overlapping is observed through the classroom setting.