User:Phlsph7/Rule of inference - Basic concepts

Basic concepts

Rules of inference describe the structure of arguments, which consist of premises that support a conclusion. Premises and conclusions are statements or propositions about what is true. For instance, the assertion "The door is open." is a statement that is either true or false, while the question "Is the door open?" and the command "Open the door!" are not statements and have no truth value. An inference is a step of reasoning from premises to a conclusion while an argument is the outward expression of an inference.

Logic is the study of correct reasoning and examines how to distinguish good from bad arguments. Deductive logic is the branch of logic that investigates the strongest arguments, called deductively valid arguments, for which the conclusion cannot be false if all the premises are true. This is expressed by saying that the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises. Rules of inference belong to deductive logic and describe argument forms that fulfill this requirement. In order to precisely assess whether an argument follows a rule of inference, logicians use formal languages to express statements in a rigorous manner, similar to mathematical formulas. They combine formal languages with rules of inference to construct formal systems—frameworks for formulating propositions and drawing conclusions. Different formal systems may employ different formal languages or different rules of inference. The basic rules of inference within a formal system can often be expanded by introducing new rules of inference, known as admissible rules. Admissible rules do not change which arguments in a formal system are valid but can simplify proofs. If an admissible rule can be expressed through a combination of the system's basic rules, it is called a derived or derivable rule. Widely-used systems of logic include propositional logic, first-order logic, and modal logic.

Rules of inference only ensure that the conclusion is true if the premises are true. An argument with false premises can still be valid, but its conclusion could be false. For example, the argument "If pigs can fly, then the sky is purple. Pigs can fly. Therefore, the sky is purple." is valid because it follows modus ponens, even though it contains false premises. A valid argument is called sound argument if all premises are true.

Rules of inference are closely related to tautologies. A tautology is a statement that is true only because of the logical vocabulary it uses, independent of the meanings of its non-logical vocabulary. For example, the statement "if the tree is green and the sky is blue then the tree is green" is true independent of the meanings of terms like tree and green, making it a tautology. Every argument following a rule of inference can be transformed into a tautology. This is achieved by forming a conjunction (and) of all premises and connecting it through implication (if ... then ...) to the conclusion, thereby combining all the individual statements of the argument into a single statement. For example, the valid argument "The tree is green and the sky is blue. Therefore, the tree is green." can be transformed into the tautology "if the tree is green and the sky is blue then the tree is green".

References

Sources

• Fitting, M.; Mendelsohn, Richard L. (2012). First-Order Modal Logic. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-94-011-5292-1.
• Boyer, Robert S.; Moore, J. Strother (2014). A Computational Logic Handbook: Formerly Notes and Reports in Computer Science and Applied Mathematics. Academic Press. ISBN 978-1-4832-7778-3.
• Gossett, Eric (2009). Discrete Mathematics with Proof. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-45793-1.
• Asprino, L. (2020). Engineering Background Knowledge for Social Robots. IOS Press. ISBN 978-1-64368-109-2.
• Jacquette, Dale (2006). "Introduction: Philosophy of Logic Today". In Jacquette, Dale (ed.). Philosophy of Logic. North Holland. pp. 1–12. ISBN 978-0-444-51541-4.
• Audi, Robert (1999). "Philosophy of Logic". The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107643796.
• Lowe, E. J. (2005). "Philosophical Logic". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 699–701. ISBN 9780199264797.
• Tully, Robert (2005). "Logic, Informal". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 532–533. ISBN 9780199264797.
• Hodges, Wilfrid (2005). "Logic, Modern". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 533–536. ISBN 9780199264797.
• Dowden, Bradley H. (2020). Logical Reasoning (PDF). (for an earlier version, see: Dowden, Bradley Harris (1993). Logical Reasoning. Wadsworth Publishing Company. ISBN 9780534176884.)
• Hintikka, Jaakko J. (2019). "Philosophy of logic". Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on 28 April 2015. Retrieved 21 November 2021.
• Haack, Susan (1978). "1. 'Philosophy of Logics'". Philosophy of Logics. Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–10. ISBN 978-0-521-29329-7.
• Schlesinger, I. M.; Keren-Portnoy, Tamar; Parush, Tamar (1 January 2001). The Structure of Arguments. John Benjamins Publishing. ISBN 978-90-272-2359-3.
• Walton, Douglas (1996). "Formal and Informal Logic". In Craig, Edward (ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-X014-1. ISBN 9780415073103.
• Hodel, Richard E. (2013). An Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Dover Publications. ISBN 978-0-486-49785-3.
• Cannon, Douglas (2002). Deductive Logic in Natural Language. Broadview Press. ISBN 978-1-77048-113-8.
• Johnson, Ralph H. (1999). "The Relation Between Formal and Informal Logic". Argumentation. 13 (3): 265–274. doi:10.1023/A:1007789101256. S2CID 141283158.