Abstract This paper discusses the importance of a missionary employing logic and meaning. The paper begins by defining meaning and logic. It then looks specifically at inductive and deductivelogic and Eastern and Western logic. The paper discusses how each of these can be applied to daily life and how they should be employed by a missionary in the course of his work.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Meaning
DeductiveLogic Inductive Logic Western Logic Eastern Logic Life Application
Conclusion
From the Paper "Inductive preaching is the reverse of deductive preaching. With this method, the preacher moves from context to text. They lead into the truth after interacting with the people. It is most effective with people towards the middle of the Engel Scale - those all the way at the negative end don't respond well to this, but those heading towards salvation and shortly after it seem to benefit most from these sorts of sermons. Done properly, it should expose the text of the Bible in the world of the listeners. Windsor compares it to watching a Polaroid develop. It generally feels less like a sermon. A Biblical example of this can be found in Acts 17 (Paul at Athens)."
Abstract This paper deals with the application of macroeconomic principals to real-world problems, by detailing and analyzing instances in which the fictional protagonist makes deductions about criminal behavior patterns by using economic concepts.
From the Paper "Economics is not something the average person thinks of as being practical in an everyday sense. Most people"excepting those who are economists"are only exposed to economic thinking when they"re filing their tax returns, or when they"re trying to figure out why Alan Greenspan can announce that he doesn"t feel so well today and suddenly the stock market crashes (why is that, anyway"). Fortunately, Professor Henry Spearman is not an everyday person. In fact, the protagonist of Marshall Jevons? "A Deadly Indifference" proves that economic thinking can not only be practical, but can actually solve crimes. This came as no surprise to me, of course, because I am a regular viewer of ?The X-Files,? where such extraordinary things happen every week."
This essay deals with the issue of how relevance is established for an inductive argument, and how this process can be encouraged and supported based on an argument given by Patrick Hurley in his paper, "A Concise Introduction to Logic".
Abstract The author of this paper presents an analysis of inductive reasoning based on Patrick Hurley's text on the terms "necessary" and "sufficient". The author states that it should be somewhat easier to demonstrate relevance for an inductive argument, as the association to be established is not as strong as in deductive reasoning. Also, based on criteria established in this paper,the author asserts that, in order to establish relevance in an inductive argument, one must establish that the criterion being argued for is a necessary condition. However, the author asserts that in order to support establishing relevance for an inductive argument, one should insist that each premise be rigorously examined to ascertain whether it is in fact necessary.
From the Paper "In Hurley's terms, we might say that what we need to establish relevance for an inductive argument would be to show that the stipulated criterion was a necessary condition. However, because we are only trying to show a probable connection, we do not need to show that the criteria was a sufficient condition, nor do we need to establish that it is relevant by showing that it is a sufficient and necessary condition. In Hurley's terms, what is necessary to evaluate the strength of an argument is to know 'whether the probability of the conclusion rests upon the evidence given in the premises' (Hurley 379). What Hurley is really saying here is that the strength of an inductive argument rests partly on the relevance of its conditions."
Abstract An argument that for a justified true belief theory of knowledge to work, the justification component must be such that an acceptable justification logically implies the truth of the content of the belief. The paper first shows how weaker views of justification will always be susceptible to counterexamples like Gettier's and Feldman's. The paper then shows how the notion of justification defined above makes it impossible to have counterexamples and then make a case for why the strong view is appropriate, even given that it probably leads to skepticism. The nature of justification within a viable theory of knowledge needs to have the strength of logical implication, and as such may have to lead to skeptical considerations.
From the Paper "The characterization of knowledge as justified true belief is a very powerful concept, and despite the assorted difficulties that arise in definitions that equate knowledge with justified true belief, such definitions still seem the most intuitively plausible starting points for a theory of knowledge. It is fairly obvious that one cannot know that p if one does not believe that p, and it is equally indisputable that p has to be true for one to be able to know it. It is that whole "justified" bit that is the tricky part and that tends to mess things up for justified true belief (JTB) theories of knowledge. In this paper I hope to offer a characterization of justification within the framework of a JTB theory of knowledge that leads to a cohesive theory of what is required for one to have knowledge, one that is not subject to the loopholes and weaknesses that lead other JTB theories to incorrectly admit certain beliefs as knowledge. Specifically, I will claim that for one's belief that p to constitute knowledge that p, one's justification j for believing that p must be such that (i) j logically implies p, and (ii) every statement within the justification is true. I will argue that such a strong notion of justification is needed for a JTB theory to avoid being susceptible to counterexamples like those offered in Edmund Gettier's famous paper and elsewhere. Further, I will contend that for a JTB theory to work, the concept of justification must be such that in considerations of "justified beliefs," "justified" works, in the words of Peter Unger, as an absolute term. I will then use this later point to allay concerns, which are certainly valid, that the strong notion of justification I am presenting in this paper directly leads to skepticism."
Abstract This paper explores the significance of the fourth figure in respect to its application within logic and logic theory, where the fourth figure is typically ignored because of its inherent confusion due to a general lack of clarity in formulation. A discussion of Aristotle's intentional exclusion of this fourth figure in the study of logic is examined in addition to the general discussion, where this paper shall argue that Aristotle disliked the use of the fourth figure because it was less clear than the other three major forms.
Abstract This paper looks at the nature of logic and perception, and the relationship between logic, critical thinking, and perception. It looks at principles of logical reasoning, perceptual inference, rationality, and perceptual blocks.
From the Paper "Science is based on logic, yet it is also based on perception and observations. Logic is often seen as a form of deception - a way to trick the mind into believing something without proof, whereas observations appear to be more reliable because people tend to agree that seeing is believing. However, perception is a preliminary acquisition of data without testing or evaluation applied, whereas logic is the application of reason and critical thinking to the observation. Logic is the test of accuracy and is therefore the..."
Abstract This paper examines how logic is, quite simply, one of the most important elements of the critical thinking process and how it is the opposite extreme from empiricism and permits the agile mind to balance the often-irrational beliefs created through empirical observation with more intellectual rigor. It looks at how logic becomes a lens through which we can filter the sometimes irrational and contradictory beliefs that our perceptions generate and which our brains entrench and how logic has the great potential to temper the passions of perception in the mind.
Abstract This paper examines President Bush's use of logical fallacies in his presidential debates with Democratic candidate John Kerry. It defines and describes the three logical fallacies used by Bush namely, the Appeal to Pity, the Bandwagon Argument and the Red Herring. The author provides examples from these debates.
From the Paper "Logical Fallacies are most basically defined as flaws in reasoning typically used in an argumentative chain of statements. Analyzing the set of assumptions that underlie a chain of argumentative statements is the bedrock of critical thinking. Fallacies are of ..."
Abstract This paper reviews relationships between logical fallacies, critical thinking, and decision-making. The paper also identifies three logical fallacies and looks at how critical thinking is applied to the decision-making process with regard to each fallacy.
From the Paper "In this paper three logical fallacies are defined. The significance of each logical fallacy to the process of critical thinking is explained and the general application of critical thinking to decision-making with respect to each logical fallacy is discussed. A logical fallacy is an argument that is defective because of faulty reasoning. Essentially, a logical fallacy occurs when one draws a conclusion from statements that do not in fact support the conclusion. The presence of a logical fallacy does not necessarily..."
Abstract Alfred D. Chandler's article entitled ?The Enduring Logic of Industrial Success" states that the pioneers in a market will dominate their industries and continue to do so for decades. The writer examines in detail why these companies are identified as first movers and how they take advantage of being first movers to capture markets and become successful.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Findings & Discussion
L'Oreal
Toyota
P&G
Conclusion
From the Paper "L"Oreal is one of the first companies who sought to compete internationally beyond local or regional markets. When it enters a new market, the most significant strategy is to buy and repackage the local brands and make them world-famous. The most famous examples are Maybelline, Soft Sheen and Carson in the United States and Shu Uemura in Japan. L"Oreal was not satisfied with the profit-guaranteed market of Maybelline in Middle America. Aggressively, it promotes its products worldwide. When Carson found a market in South Africa, the Savannah firm, in debt, was unable to do the investment, L?Oreal made it because Owen Jones, the chairman of the company realized that "people of African origin, where they were in the world, were a huge future potential business" (Tomlinson, 2002). In addition to economics of scale to exert its cost advantage, L"Oreal also expands via economics of scope tremendously in years. The company started out in hair dyes. Now they have products in hair color, permanents, hairstyling aids, body and skin care, skin cleansers, and fragrances. Since they market over 500 brands and more than 2000 products, this provides them with a very strong presence in the beauty market. L"Oreal products are found in all distribution channels: hair salons, hypermarkets, supermarkets, health and beauty outlets, and direct mail. This gives them an advantage over competitors with limited distribution outlets."
Abstract In this article, the writer looks at the philosophical theory of logical behaviorism. The writer explains that this theory claims that a mental state does not actually exist and there there are just observed behaviors. Further, the writer points out that there are those that claim that for a theory to be believable, common sense should be applied.
From the Paper It is argued that in order for a philosophical theory to be acceptable, it should be reasonably consistent with common sense. Logical behaviorism is a philosophical theory that posits that there is not really any such thing as a mental state. Using terms such as "angry" therefore make no sense. All such words describe not mental states but simply observed behaviors. Logical positivism reduces people from beings with complicated inner states to simple collections of observed behavior. It thereby negates the existence of inner consciousness.
Abstract This paper compares the mental logic theory and the mental model theory, in terms of the way that human beings reason. The paper presents an experiment that asks three similar questions of the participants with a slight word change in each of the three questions. The paper attempts to discern from the participant's answers to these three questions if the results favor the mental logic theory or the mental model theory in regards to human beings and the way they reason.
From the Paper "Our studies show however, that the inferences the participants drew followed a logical sequence. If, as we purport, they do follow a logical sequence then that would lend more credence to the findings that the Mental Logic theory espouses as compared to the Mental Model theory.
"Schroyens purports that his study shows that both theories adhere to the same processing scheme, and that both theories are equivocal. If his study presents the truth, then we must search out the theory's differences, dissect these differences and discern whether the differences are so great that one of the two theories is more palatable than the other."
Abstract This paper examines psychological theory on the development of inferential reasoning skills. The pragmatic view and the natural logic view are discussed. The work of Shaw-Jing and Cheng as well as the work of Braine are presented.
From the Paper "The Development of deductive reasoning skills has been of interest to psychologists since the 1960s. There are two contrasting views on the development of reasoning skills. The first is the pragmatic view, which proposes that pragmatic rules develop first and that these then generalize and develop into formal rules. The natural logic view is that a set of formal rules develops first and that pragmatic rules follow. Many studies prior to the one conducted by Shaw-Jing and Cheng attempted to explain the development of logic using one of these two models."
Abstract This paper takes a look back at classical philosophy to determine the origins of the deductive-nomonological model. The paper looks at the evolutionary nature of the model, which proceeds from the skepticism predominant in the Middle Ages towards the universals of Aristotle. The paper goes on to discuss subsequent philosophies that questioned whether universal laws can be described successfully. The paper concludes with a look at the views of the deductive nomological model held by scientific realists, nominalists and defendants of the model.
From the Paper "The Deductive-Nomological model of explanation is a logical process that was developed after World War II by Carl Hempel to derive working scientific explanations from laws that are created from the regular observation of phenomena, which can then be used to successfully predict the subsequent re-application of these laws. These laws are, in effect, explanations of phenomena or theories, and by using such explanations to predict new events we can successfully prove their validity. This theory relies heavily on the empiricism of Locke and others, but seeks to modify it in order to facilitate its application in the statistical methodologies commonly employed in the social scientists by logical positivists. Its history can be traced back to classical philosophy, where we find the question of ?universals,? where it was questioned whether universal laws described events successfully."
A short critique of the current form of Deontic Logic, focusing on the work of Ernst Mally, followed by an argument for the integration of some central aspects of Paraconsistent Logic to the already existing systems of Deontic Logic.
Abstract This paper briefly introduces the reader to the history and current state of Deontic Logic, a formal system that attempts to formalize moral judgment by exploiting the apparent similarity between the modal operators of alethic logic, necessity and possibility and two basic concepts of morality, obligation and permissibility. The paper lays out the basic structure of Deontic Logic and critiques it through examples that show that certain conclusions reached by applications of the logic are contradictory. It then shows that integration of paraconsistency into the logic will lessen the currently catastrophic effect of these contradictions.
From the Paper "Most non-classical logics, supplemental or rival, have been proposed as improvements on classical logic, or are based on systems which were created to this end. Even those which claim completely different universes of discourse than classical logic, such as the epistemic, deontic, or tense systems, are generally founded on principles of a system which is in some way rival (in the informal sense) to classical logic (in their case, alethic modal logic). But, rarely, a proposed system (and its manner of departure from classical logic) seems more intuitively applicable as a correction to another proposed non-classical system than to classical logic itself. Such is the situation present in the relationship between Deontic logic, the system of formalized ethical judgement, and Paraconsistent logic, the system of turbulent belief-sets."
