Logic Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.Anti-spam check. Do not fill this in! ===Premises, conclusions, and truth=== ====Premises and conclusions==== {{Main|Premise|Logical consequence}} ''Premises'' and ''conclusions'' are the basic parts of inferences or arguments and therefore play a central role in logic. In the case of a valid inference or a correct argument, the conclusion follows from the premises, or in other words, the premises support the conclusion.{{sfnm|1a1=Audi|1loc=Philosophy of logic|1y=1999b|2a1=Honderich|2y=2005|2loc=philosophical logic}} For instance, the premises "Mars is red" and "Mars is a planet" support the conclusion "Mars is a red planet". For most types of logic, it is accepted that premises and conclusions have to be [[truth-bearer]]s.{{sfnm|1a1=Audi|1loc=Philosophy of logic|1y=1999b|2a1=Honderich|2y=2005|2loc=philosophical logic}}{{efn|However, there are some forms of logic, like [[imperative logic]], where this may not be the case.{{sfn |Haack |1974 |p=51}}}} This means that they have a [[truth value]]: they are either true or false. Contemporary philosophy generally sees them either as ''[[proposition]]s'' or as ''[[Sentence (linguistics)|sentences]]''.{{sfn |Audi |loc=Philosophy of logic |1999b}} Propositions are the [[denotation]]s of sentences and are usually seen as [[abstract object]]s.{{sfnm|1a1=Falguera|1a2=Martínez-Vidal|1a3=Rosen|1y=2021|2a1=Tondl|2y=2012|2p=111}} For example, the English sentence "the tree is green" is different from the German sentence "der Baum ist grün" but both express the same proposition.{{sfn|Olkowski|Pirovolakis|2019|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=FhaGDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT65 65–66]}} Propositional theories of premises and conclusions are often criticized because they rely on abstract objects. For instance, [[Naturalism (philosophy)|philosophical naturalists]] usually reject the existence of abstract objects. Other arguments concern the challenges involved in specifying the identity criteria of propositions.{{sfn |Audi |loc=Philosophy of logic |1999b}} These objections are avoided by seeing premises and conclusions not as propositions but as sentences, i.e. as concrete linguistic objects like the symbols displayed on a page of a book. But this approach comes with new problems of its own: sentences are often context-dependent and ambiguous, meaning an argument's validity would not only depend on its parts but also on its context and on how it is interpreted.{{sfnm|1a1=Audi|1loc=Philosophy of logic|1y=1999b|2a1=Pietroski|2y=2021}} Another approach is to understand premises and conclusions in psychological terms as thoughts or judgments. This position is known as [[psychologism]]. It was discussed at length around the turn of the 20th century but it is not widely accepted today.{{sfnm|1a1=Audi|1loc=Philosophy of logic|1y=1999b|2a1=Kusch|2y=2020|3a1=Rush|3y=2014|3pp=1–10, 189–190}} ====Internal structure==== Premises and conclusions have an internal structure. As propositions or sentences, they can be either simple or complex.{{sfnm|1a1=King|1y=2019|2a1=Pickel|2y=2020|2pp=2991–3006}} A complex proposition has other propositions as its constituents, which are linked to each other through [[Logical connective|propositional connectives]] like "and" or "if...then". Simple propositions, on the other hand, do not have propositional parts. But they can also be conceived as having an internal structure: they are made up of subpropositional parts, like [[singular term]]s and [[Predicate (grammar)|predicates]].{{sfn |Honderich |2005 |loc=philosophical logic}}{{sfnm|1a1=King|1y=2019|2a1=Pickel|2y=2020|2pp=2991–3006}} For example, the simple proposition "Mars is red" can be formed by applying the predicate "red" to the singular term "Mars". In contrast, the complex proposition "Mars is red and Venus is white" is made up of two simple propositions connected by the propositional connective "and".{{sfn |Honderich |2005 |loc=philosophical logic}} Whether a proposition is true depends, at least in part, on its constituents. For complex propositions formed using [[Truth function|truth-functional]] propositional connectives, their truth only depends on the truth values of their parts.{{sfn |Honderich |2005 |loc=philosophical logic}}{{sfn |Pickel |2020 |pp=2991–3006}} But this relation is more complicated in the case of simple propositions and their subpropositional parts. These subpropositional parts have meanings of their own, like referring to objects or classes of objects.{{sfnm|1a1=Honderich|1y=2005|1loc=philosophical logic|2a1=Craig|2y=1996|2loc=Philosophy of logic|3a1=Michaelson|3a2=Reimer|3y=2019}} Whether the simple proposition they form is true depends on their relation to reality, i.e. what the objects they refer to are like. This topic is studied by [[theories of reference]].{{sfn |Michaelson |Reimer |2019}} ====Logical truth==== {{Main|Logical truth}} Some complex propositions are true independently of the substantive meanings of their parts.{{sfnm|1a1=Hintikka|1y=2019|1loc=§Nature and varieties of logic|2a1=MacFarlane|2y=2017}} In classical logic, for example, the complex proposition "either Mars is red or Mars is not red" is true independent of whether its parts, like the simple proposition "Mars is red", are true or false. In such cases, the truth is called a logical truth: a proposition is logically true if its truth depends only on the logical vocabulary used in it.{{sfnm|1a1=Gómez-Torrente|1y=2019|2a1=MacFarlane|2y=2017|3a1=Honderich|3y=2005|3loc=philosophical logic}} This means that it is true under all interpretations of its non-logical terms. In some [[modal logic]]s, this means that the proposition is true in all possible worlds.{{sfnm|1a1=Gómez-Torrente|1y=2019|2a1=Jago|2y=2014|2p=41}} Some theorists define logic as the study of logical truths.{{sfn|Hintikka|Sandu|2006|p=16}} ====Truth tables==== [[Truth table]]s can be used to show how logical connectives work or how the truth values of complex propositions depends on their parts. They have a column for each input variable. Each row corresponds to one possible combination of the truth values these variables can take; for truth tables presented in the English literature, the symbols "T" and "F" or "1" and "0" are commonly used as abbreviations for the truth values "true" and "false".{{sfnm|1a1=Magnus|1y=2005|1loc=3. Truth tables|1pp=35–38|2a1=Angell|2y=1964|2p=164|3a1=Hall|3a2=O'Donnell|3y=2000|3p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=yP4MJ36C4ZgC&pg=PA48 48]}} The first columns present all the possible truth-value combinations for the input variables. Entries in the other columns present the truth values of the corresponding expressions as determined by the input values. For example, the expression {{nowrap|"<math>p \land q</math>"}} uses the logical connective <math>\land</math> ([[Logical conjunction|and]]). It could be used to express a sentence like "yesterday was Sunday and the weather was good". It is only true if both of its input variables, <math>p</math> ("yesterday was Sunday") and <math>q</math> ("the weather was good"), are true. In all other cases, the expression as a whole is false. Other important logical connectives are <math>\lnot</math> ([[Negation|not]]), <math>\lor</math> ([[Logical disjunction|or]]), <math>\to</math> ([[Material conditional|if...then]]), and <math>\uparrow</math> ([[Sheffer stroke]]).{{sfnm|1a1=Magnus|1y=2005|1loc=3. Truth tables|1pp=35–45|2a1=Angell|2y=1964|2p=164}} Given the conditional proposition {{nowrap|<math>p \to q</math>}}, one can form truth tables of its [[Converse (logic)|converse]] {{nowrap|<math>q \to p</math>}}, its [[Inverse (logic)|inverse]] {{nowrap|(<math>\lnot p \to \lnot q</math>)}}, and its [[contrapositive (logic)|contrapositive]] {{nowrap|(<math>\lnot q \to \lnot p</math>)}}. Truth tables can also be defined for more complex expressions that use several propositional connectives.{{sfn |Tarski |1994 |p=40}} {| class="wikitable" style="margin:1em; text-align:center;" |+ Truth table of various expressions |- ! style="width:15%" | ''p'' ! style="width:15%" | ''q'' ! style="width:15%" | ''p'' ∧ ''q'' ! style="width:15%" | ''p'' ∨ ''q'' ! style="width:15%" | ''p'' → ''q'' ! style="width:15%" | ''¬p'' → ''¬q'' ! style="width:15%" | ''p'' <math>\uparrow</math> ''q'' |- | T || T || T || T || T || T || style="background:papayawhip" | F |- | T || style="background:papayawhip" | F || style="background:papayawhip" | F || T || style="background:papayawhip" | F || T || T |- | style="background:papayawhip" | F || T || style="background:papayawhip" | F || T || T || style="background:papayawhip" | F || T |- | style="background:papayawhip" | F || style="background:papayawhip" | F || style="background:papayawhip" | F || style="background:papayawhip" | F || T || T || T |} Summary: Please note that all contributions to Christianpedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Christianpedia:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! Cancel Editing help (opens in new window) Discuss this page