» » Logic Inductive and Deductive

Logic Inductive and Deductive epub

by William Minto


Logic Inductive and Deductive epub

ISBN: 0836969979

ISBN13: 978-0836969979

Author: William Minto

Category: Other

Subcategory: Humanities

Language: English

Publisher: Ayer Co Pub (June 1, 1978)

ePUB book: 1769 kb

FB2 book: 1421 kb

Rating: 4.1

Votes: 542

Other Formats: lrf docx txt azw





Logic, Inductive and Deductive book.

Logic, Inductive and Deductive book.

Inductive and deductive. PUBLISHED MAY, 1893 Reprinted December, 1893 " November, 1894 " January, 1899 " August, 1904 " June, 1909 " September, 1912 " July, 1913 " January, 1915. Inductive and deductive. By william minto, . Since these sentences were written, the author of this book has died; and Professor Minto's Logic is his last contribution to the literature of his country. It embodies a large part of his teaching in the philosophical class room of his University, and doubtless reflects the spirit of the whole of it.

Logic, Inductive and Deductive - William Minto. Since these sentences were written, the author of this book has died; and Professor Minto's Logic is his last contribution to the literature of his country

Logic, Inductive and Deductive - William Minto. Project Gutenberg's Logic, Inductive and Deductive, by William Minto. This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with. almost no restrictions whatsoever. It embodies a large part of his teaching in the philosophical class-room of his University, and doubtless reflects the spirit of the whole of it. Fallacies in deductive argument. petitio principii and ignoratio elenchi. Chapter IX. Formal or aristotelian induction. London john murray, albemarle street, w. 1915. Book II. Inductive logic, or the logic of science.

The other aim, which might at first appear inconsistent with this, is to increase the power of Logic as a practical discipline.

You can also read the full text online using our ereader. In this little treatise two things are attempted that at first might appear incompatible. One of them is to put the study of logical formulæ on a historical basis. The other aim, which might at first appear inconsistent with this, is to increase the power of Logic as a practical discipline.

William Minto (10 October 1845 – 1 March 1893) was a Scottish man of letters. He was born at Auchintoul, Aberdeenshire. He was educated at the University of Aberdeen, and spent a year at Merton College, Oxford. William Minto (10 October 1845 – 1 March 1893) was a Scottish man of letters.

Books related to Logic, Inductive and Deductive by William Minto. Drag & drop your files (not more than 5 at once).

Download books for free. Logic, Inductive and Deductive.

'Logic: Inductive and Deductive' by William Minto
Book review by William Springer

"Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy
("a priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises)

" ' How is the dictionary getting on?' Said Winston, raising his voice to overcome the noise.
'Slowly,' said Syme. "I'm on the adjectives. It's fascinating.'
He had brightened up immediately at the mention of Newspeak ...
'The Eleventh Edition is the definitive edition,' he said. ' We're getting the language into its final shape -- the shape it's going to have when nobody speaks anything else. When we've finished with it, people like you will have to learn it all over again. You think, I dare say, that our chief job is inventing new words. But not a bit of it! We're destroying words -- scores of them, hundreds of them, every day. We're cutting " language down to the bone. The Eleventh Edition won't contain a single word that will become obsolete before the year 2050 ...
'It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words' ...
'Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.' "
- George Orwell, 1984

A good working understanding of formal/Aristotelian logic is an excellent systematic proof against believing lies. That's why formal logic hasn't been taught in State controlled public schools in the U.S. for more than 100 years ('The Underground History of American Education' by John Taylor Gatto). That's also why I knew this #1 amazon listed kindle book on the subject of logic would suppress and subvert key/essential elements necessary for its effective understanding.

Here's what this book very cleverly never explains/defines for the reader: (1) Logical arguments must only be inferred from premises which are sufficiently supported by verifiable evidence to prove that they are true, regardless which or how many authority figures advise you to the contrary; and, (2) the central importance of the logical fallacy of suppressed evidence (i.e., the suppression of known key relevant evidence renders an argument unsound or uncogent/illogical). You see, these two points of knowledge are essential to properly reasoning through deceptive arguments, because in the real world authority figures like politicians, scientists, reporters, professors, etc., tell us lies, which of course can't be properly supported by verifiable evidence. And then they suppress relevant evidence so that we will believe their lies. That's really the essence of what good lying is all about. Our natural tendency to blindly follow authority figures, and allow ourselves to be emotionally manipulated does the rest.

A government like ours, which shamelessly manipulates its people with lies, can't afford a population that has been well schooled in the science of formal/Aristotelian logic.

Here's a quote that I found interesting, taken from the book 'Logic: Inductive and Deductive' by William Minto; Kindle location 2178:

"Note 1: I purposely chose disputable propositions to emphasise the fact that Formal Logic has no concern with the truth, only with the interdependence of its propositions."

Here are some quotes that directly support my argument from some noted logicians, including the man who invented formal logic during the fourth century B.C., Aristotle, regarding the logical necessity of insuring that premises are sufficiently complete, and supported by verifiable evidence, to prove that they are true.

"We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts."
-Aristotle, Rhetoric

"The truth or falsity of a statement depends on facts, not on any power on the part of the statement itself of admitting contrary qualities". - Aristotle, Categories

"Similarly with any other art or science. Consequently, if the attributes of the thing are apprehended, our business will then be to exhibit readily the demonstration. For if none of the true attributes of things had been omitted in the historical survey, we should be able to discover the proof and demonstrate everything which admitted of proof, and to make that clear , whose nature does not admit of proof".
- Aristotle, Prior Analytics

"We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is".
-Aristotle, Posterior Analytics

"Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently."
-Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 1976, second edition

"The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains."
-Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 1985

"Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy

"The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded."
-John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic

"ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM
Argumentum ad ignorantiam is the use of an argument that sounds convincing to others because they are ignorant of the weaknesses of the argument and of the facts that stand against it."
-Sister Miriam Joseph, PhD, The Trivium

"ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM
Argumentum ad verecundiam is an appeal to the prestige or respect in which a proponent of an argument is held as a guarantee of the truth of the argument. This is unwarranted when reasoning about an issue is required and only the authority of its upholders or opponents is given consideration. It is perfectly legitimate to supplement reasoning with authority (Argumentum ad auctoritatem ), but it is fallacious to substitute authority for reasoning in matters capable of being understood by reason."
-Sister Miriam Joseph PhD, The Trivium

"This is the argumentum ad verecundiam. It consists in making an appeal to authority rather than reason, and in using such an authority as may suit the degree of knowledge possessed by your opponent.
Every man prefers belief to the exercise of judgment, says Seneca; and it is therefore an easy matter if you have an authority on your side which your opponent respects. The more limited his capacity and knowledge, the greater is the number of authorities who weigh with him. But if his capacity and knowledge are of a high order, there are very few; indeed, hardly any at all. He may, perhaps, admit the authority of professional men versed in science or an art or a handicraft of which he knows little or nothing; but even so he will regard it with suspicion. Contrarily, ordinary folk have a deep respect for professional men of every kind. They are unaware that a man who makes a profession of a thing loves it not for the thing itself, but for the money he makes by it; or that it is rare for a man who teaches to know his subject thoroughly; for if he studies it as he ought, he has in most cases no time left in which to teach it...
There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted. Example effects their thought just as it affects their action. They are like sheep following the bell-wether just as he leads them. They will sooner die than think. It is very curious that the universality of an opinion should have so much weight with people, as their own experience might tell them that it's acceptance is an entirely thoughtless and merely imitative process. But it tells them nothing of the kind, because they possess no self-knowledge whatever...
When we come to look into the matter, so-called universal opinion is the opinion of two or three persons; and we should be persuaded of this if we could see the way in which it really arises.
We should find that it is two or three persons who, in the first instance, accepted it, or advanced and maintained it; and of whom people were so good as to believe that they had thoroughly tested it. Then a few other persons, persuaded beforehand that the first were men of the requisite capacity, also accepted the opinion. These, again, were trusted by many others, whose laziness suggested to them that it was better to believe at once, than to go through the troublesome task of testing the matter for themselves. Thus the number of these lazy and credulous adherents grew from day to day; for the opinion had no sooner obtained a fair measure of support than its further supporters attributed this to the fact that the opinion could only have obtained it by the cogency of its arguments. The remainder were then compelled to grant what was universally granted, so as not to pass for unruly persons who resisted opinions which everyone accepted, or pert fellows who thought themselves cleverer than any one else.
When opinion reaches this stage, adhesion becomes a duty; and henceforward the few who are capable of forming a judgment hold their peace. Those who venture to speak are such as are entirely incapable of forming any opinion or any judgment of their own being merely the echo of others' opinions; and, nevertheless, they defend them with all the greater zeal and intolerance. For what they hate in people who think differently is not so much the different opinions which they profess, as the presumption of wanting to form their own judgment; a presumption of which they themselves are never guilty, as they are very well aware. In short, there are very few who can think, but every man wants to have an opinion; and what remains but to take it ready-made from others, instead of forming opinions for himself?
Since this is what happens, where is the value of the opinion even of a hundred millions? It is no more established than an historical fact reported by a hundred chroniclers who can be proved to have plagiarised it from one another; the opinion in the end being traceable to a single individual."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy
Interesting
a hard read, difficult to navigate this content but well rewarding. Wouldnt reccomend to most
Slogging my way through, heavy going but worthwhile. I have to read slowly and understand before reading more. Clear thinking is very important to everyone right now, with so much deception everywhere.
It's written in kind of an old fashioned style. First it was a little hard to understand but then it got easier and easier. The explanations are the best! Be prepared to take notes and constantly review.
brings up good points about how to look at facts and problems. the book is like a short course in logic.
Recommend for any student, regardless of age, who is thinking about taking a logic course in class or on line.
The book was exactly what I was looking for.