9 – Types of Logic

Why Should I Care?

Your understanding of the problem depends on the type of logic you are using. The earthy – got your feet on the ground – scientists prefer an inductive approach. The distant – rather be in an office – scientists usually prefer a deductive approach. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

Definitions

Rational Thought / Logic
The ability to argue a point in a very strict manner.

Inductive Logic
From observable parts you build an unknown whole. Based on observations and leads to probable conclusions.

Deductive Logic
From the observable whole you deduct unknown parts. Based on assumptions, and deductions and leads to guaranteed conclusions.

Logical Fallacies
Conclusions which are not supported by rigorous logic. Statements are false, and may appear to be logical, but don't withstand the test of rational thought. In french: Sophisme.

The Process of Inductive Logic

Inductive Reasoning starts with an unknown whole. Then observations of particulars are recorded, and we try to build a sense of the whole, by drawing a probable conclusion. Conclusions are likely, but not guaranteed. Researchers then go to empirical work to confirm the insights.

Observations: if A + B + C + D

First prediction: then the whole must probably be E

Second prediction: if E, then probably F.

Example: This girl is slim, tall, has blonde hair, and her teeth are straight.
                She is probably pretty, and probably going to marry an attractive male.

                 (The girl could also be unattractive, or not straight, or prefer unattractive men)

Advantages:  Rooted in truthful real-life observations. Allows for a very descriptive approach. Depth, and holism.

Disadvantages: The observations make the conclusion likely, but not guaranteed. Not usable in courts of law (Walks like a thief: not enough to be jailed). Difficult to use in mathematics, and formal models.

Disciplines of choice:  Sociology, Psychology, History, Anthropology

The Process of Deductive Logic

Deductive Reasoning starts with a known whole, may add assumptions, and deducts a single outcome. Researcher must then do more empirical work to see if this logic holds in a real-life setting. 

Observations: if X is the whole, and is known

Assumptions: and assuming that A and B are known and constant

Deduction: then C must be missing part of X

Example: The soccer game is on either Thursday or Friday.
                 Assuming it won’t be on Friday because it’s a holiday.
                 The game must be on Thursday.

Advantages: Rooted in hard logic. When it works, it allows for a single conclusion. Used in courts. Used in simulations, and models. Clarity, and Strength.

Disadvantages: Strong assumptions are often needed to single out a conclusion. Conclusions may be completely opposed to real-life observations.

Disciplines of choice: Mathematics, Economics

Logical Fallacies

Conclusions which are not supported by rigorous logic. Statements are false, and may appear to be logical, but don't withstand the test of rational thought. In french: Sophisme, Effet de toge.

There are many types of logical fallacies. The most commonly used are often found in everyday politics and advertising.

Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it.
For example: Justin Trudeau is a good communicator because he speaks effectively.

Guilt by Association: This denigrates an argument by associating its author to a "bad" group or person.
For example: Driving a Volkswagen is wrong because the company was created by Hitler's Nazi regime.

Slippery Slope: This denigrates a possible action by predicting an outcome based on a long series of domino effects, which may or may not be shown to be valid.
For example: marijuana is a gateway drug that leads to dying of an overdose of cocaine.

More examples and sources:
Purdue University. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/logic_in_argumentative_writing/fallacies.html
Excelsior University. https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/

Exercise – Archetypes and Stereotypes

Most of our heated political debates have to do with discrimination. The core of this issue has to do with Archetypes, and Stereotypes. We will first define both.

Archetype: In philosophy, this is a general model representative of a group. In psychology, Jung defined it as a universal symbol of a type, or as a person that serves as a model for the group. For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger my be seen as the archetype of a strong man.

Stereotype: In sociology, this is a belief that someone holds about the characteristics of the members of another group. Can be positive or negative. Can be resistant to new information and be generalized excessively.

Categorize the following statements as being archetypes/stereotypes, based on inductive/deductive logic, and being moral/immoral.

Statement	Archetype/ Stereotype	Inductive/ Deductive	Moral/ Immoral
Michael Jordan is the GOAT	Archetype	Inductive	Moral
Scottish Men are Notoriously Cheap	Stereotype	Inductive	Immoral
All the Irish I know from the Pointe are Tough	Stereotype	Inductive	Immoral
Qc average income is below Can average	Neither	Deductive	Moral
Uneducated men with gangster neck tattoos should not be trusted as babysitters	Stereotype	Inductive	Moral
Queen Elizabeth is a model for British women	Archetype	Inductive	Moral

Stereotypes and Archetypes are used by almost everyone in society. We use them to evaluate our peers, our neighbours and the risk that they pose to our well-being, our communities, our institutions, and our workplaces.

Stereotypes quickly become toxic social constructions when people use them to discriminate on the basis of a social grouping and its perceived characteristic. It is up to society to determine when a stereotype becomes immoral, and this determination may change over time. For example, tattoos have become widely accepted in society, when in the past they were indicative of untrustworthy individuals. However, neck and face tattoos still provoke stigma and discrimination.