Logical foundations of argumentation

SHARE WITH FRIENDS:

Logical foundations of argumentation

Plan:
1. Argumentation (proving) and the formation of trust-belief.
2. Proof and its structure, types of proof.
3. Refusal, methods of refusal.
4. Rules of proof and refutation, logical errors that arise when they are violated.

Prosperity, stability and strength of our country-Uzbekistan depend to a certain extent on young people becoming conscious, well-educated people. In this regard, President I. A. Karimov said: "The perfect person means first of all, people who have a high level of consciousness, who can think independently, who can be an example to others with their behavior, educated and enlightened people." Conscious, educated people cannot be deceived by nonsense. He weighs everything with reason and logic. A person who builds his thoughts and conclusions on the basis of logic will be a mature person."
A one-sided opinion that is not based on deep analysis and logic scares people. Only correct conclusions based on discussion and analysis open the way to knowing the truth.
In fact, there are specific legal rules for arguing, being able to prove true opinions, and rejecting false opinions. Knowing these rules allows everyone, including students, to be able to distinguish true thoughts from false thoughts, to form a culture of correct thinking.

1. Argumentation (argument) and the formation of confidence.

In the science of logic, the concepts of proof and proof are mutually different. Argument means justifying an idea, judgment or system of judgments by direct reference to reality (on the basis of observation, experience-experiment, etc.) or with the help of other judgments that have already been proven to be true. Evidence can be direct or indirect. Direct evidence is based on sensory knowledge, that is, seeing, experience-experiment. Indirect evidence, on the other hand, is based on other considerations that have already been proven true and appears in the form of inference. The first method of proof is empirical, and the second method is based on theoretical knowledge. As the limit of theoretical and empirical knowledge is relative, the division of proof into the above two methods is also relative.
A special form of proof is logical proof. Logical proof refers to justifying the truth of an idea or reasoning through other arguments whose truth has already been proven. The purpose of proof is to determine the truth of an idea, and the purpose of argumentation is to determine the truth of an idea, to justify its importance and the possibility of applying it to a certain activity. If the true considerations (grounds) used in the process of proof serve to confirm the truth of the given opinion, the proof, in addition, serves to justify that the reason being argued is preferable to other similar opinions. Arguments (grounds) presented for proof are diverse compared to arguments presented for proof. Forms of evidence and forms of proof do not exactly correspond to each other.
The proof is done in the form of deduction. Argument is more in the form of conversation (dialogue), and each of its participants tries to prove the truth of his opinion, to reject the opinion of his opponent, and to convince the listeners to agree with him.
In the process of proof, the receivers (lot - receiver) - listeners are given reasons for the correctness or error of an opinion, and they form a sense of confidence in this opinion. The degree to which the speaker has mastered the art of speech, that is, the skill of speaking, plays an important role in the formation of trust in the audience.
An opinion based on facts and other evidence has a high persuasive power and builds trust in people. The purpose of knowledge is to create a belief that has a scientific basis. Argument and proof is a means of building trust.
Beliefs are views and ideas that determine people's behavior and actions.

2. Proof and its structure, types of proof.

People's success in practical activities depends on the extent to which the knowledge they use is true, that is, how accurately this knowledge reflects reality. Erroneous thoughts distort the real connections and relationships of objects, causing a lot of confusion in cognition. Therefore, in the process of learning, it is important to be able to correctly construct any idea, to be able to prove its truth with evidence, and to be able to reject erroneous ideas.
To confirm the truth of the idea, it can be compared with the event (fact) itself. But in many cases, the truth of the results of the cognitive process is determined by connecting them with previously acquired knowledge. A logical way to do this is through proof.
Proof is a logical operation that consists in justifying the truth of a statement by means of other true statements connected with it. Its structure consists of three elements: thesis, arguments (grounds), method of proof-demonstration.
The judgment on which the truth of the thesis must be based is considered the central figure of the proof; the whole focus is on showing its authenticity. A thesis consists of an argument itself, or a system of arguments, or theorems, or the results of a generalization of concrete facts, or arguments indicating the cause of phenomena, and so on.
Arguments are statements made to justify the truth of the thesis. Judgments, definitions, axioms, theorems, laws and other empirical and theoretical generalizations serve as arguments. The facts presented as an argument must be interconnected and related to the essence of the thesis.
Definitions are also true sentences that can be used as arguments. For example, "motion is any kind of change" is a definition-true statement.
Axioms are self-evident truths that do not require proof. It is not necessary to prove them because they have been repeated many times in human experience.
Theorems and laws are proved to be true and can be taken as arguments without hesitation.
The method of proof-demonstration consists of a logical connection between the thesis and the arguments. It is in the form of inference, that is, the thesis is logically derived as a conclusion from the arguments.
There are two types of proof: direct proof and indirect proof. In direct proof, the truth of the thesis is supported by direct arguments, in which sentences that contradict the thesis are not used. A thesis often expresses a single event and uses some general knowledge, such as a law, as an argument to support its truth. For example, the truth of the sentence (thesis) that "Uzbekistan is an independent state" is proved by means of such grounds as "declaration of Uzbekistan as an independent state, its international recognition".
In indirect proof, the truth of the thesis is justified by showing the falsity of the statement (antithesis) that contradicts it. Apagogic proof and subtractive proof are distinguished depending on how the antithesis is expressed. Apogogical proof is based on the relationship between thesis (a) and antithesis ( ). For example, in order to justify the truth of the sentence "Matter does not exist without motion", the opposite sentence "Matter exists without motion" is taken.
In apogogic proof, an antithesis is found (step 1), temporarily accepted as true, and certain results are drawn from it (step 2), then these results are shown to be false (step 3), and thus the thesis is proved to be true. For example, if the sentence "Matter exists without motion" is true, then the thought "Material objects exist without structure" (result from antithesis) is also true. We know that material objects do not exist without structure (elements that make it up and their interaction). therefore, the opinion "Matter exists without motion" is a mistake, thus the truth of the opinion "Matter does not exist without motion" is established.
In disjunctive proof, the thesis is one member of a purely deductive sentence (strong disjunction), the truth of which is established by demonstrating the falsity of the other members (antithesis). For example, the opinion that "the crime was committed by either A, B, or C" is checked, and it is determined that "the crime was committed neither by V nor by C", and thus the truth of the sentence "Crime was committed by A" is established. In this example, the deductive argument is constructed according to the negative-affirmative mode of the deductive-assertive syllogism:

The conclusion is true only when all the alternatives are completely taken, that is, the thesis is proved.

3. Refusal, methods of refusal.

Refutation is a logical action aimed at breaking the proof.
Refutation can be considered a special form of proof, since the refutation of the truth of an opinion consists in showing the falsity of the opinion that contradicts it. A refutation, like a proof, consists of a thesis (a statement to be rejected), arguments (sentences refuting the thesis), and a demonstration (method of refutation). Refusal occurs in the process of discussing an issue, i.e. discussion. If one of the participants of Bachs puts forward a certain thesis and defends it (proponent), the other opposes it (opponent). debates on unresolved, controversial issues are considered polemics, in which not only opposing theses are based, but also critical analysis is carried out.
Refusal is done in three different ways:
1) rejection of the thesis;
2) rejection of arguments;
3) refusal of demonstration.
I. Rejection of the thesis
There are the following ways to reject a thesis:
1. Refusal by facts. This is the most reliable and effective method. In this case, the thesis is rejected based on the events and statistical data. For example: to reject the thesis that "Uzbekistan was an independent republic during the Soviet period", that is, to prove that it is wrong, we will rely on historical facts. We reject the thesis by citing evidence that the leadership of the Republic could not solve any important issue without Moscow's permission at that time.
2. Refuting the results from the thesis by showing that they are wrong (or contradictory). In this case, the falsity of the results from the thesis is justified. This method is called "making sense". The rejected thesis is temporarily recognized as true, the results arising from it are determined, and these results are proven to be contrary to the truth and incorrect. A true premise cannot produce a false result, otherwise it would be nonsense. The formula for the "Bring to Absurdity" method is as follows:

3. Refuting the thesis by proving the antithesis. A new thesis (antithesis) contradicting the rejected thesis is obtained and proved. Third, according to the law of exclusion, from the truth of the antithesis, the falsity of the thesis is derived. For example, President IA Karimov in his article "There is no future without historical memory" rejects the thesis that "Amir Temur was a great leader and made records" as follows: "A person cannot be both creative and evil at the same time. . A person who has built madrasas and mosques, high palaces, patted the heads of scholars, and memorized the Holy Qur'an will not be evil. Can a bloodthirsty man say, 'In justice'?'
Indeed, under the auspices of Sakhibgiron Amir Temur, the gardens and buildings built under his instructions clearly prove that he is a creative person.

II. Refusal of arguments.
Arguments presented by the opponent to prove the thesis are criticized, and it is determined that they are wrong or insufficient to prove the thesis.
The fallacy of the arguments does not prove that the thesis is false, it is possible for the thesis to be true:

By rejecting the arguments, it is justified that the thesis is not proven.

III. Refutation by criticism of the method of proof.
In this method of refutation, mistakes made in the proof are identified. In this case, it is justified that the truth of the rejected thesis does not directly follow from the arguments presented for its justification. If an error in the proof method is detected, the thesis is not rejected, it is required to be re-proved.
The above methods of rejection are often used together, complementing each other.

4. Rules of proof and rebuttal, when they are violated
resulting logical errors.

Rules related to the thesis;
1. The thesis should be clear and logical. If this rule is violated, the proof or disproof will not have its specific object, and the attempt to implement it will be considered futile.
2. The thesis must not be changed from the beginning to the end of proof or disproof. If this rule is violated, the error "substitution of thesis" will appear.
Rules for Arguments;
1. Arguments presented to justify the thesis must be true judgments and not contradict each other.
2. Arguments should be sufficient to justify the thesis.
3. Arguments should be sentences that are proven to be true independently of the thesis.
The rule of the method of proof:
1. The thesis should be a logical conclusion from the arguments. For this, it is necessary to follow the rules of inference when proving or disproving.
Violations of the rules of proof and refutation lead to logical fallacies. These errors are divided into three types:
I. Errors related to the thesis being proved
1. Substitution of thesis. Violation of the rule that the thesis must not change during proof or refutation will cause the thesis to be replaced. A thesis is intentionally or unintentionally replaced by another thesis, and this new thesis is either proved or disproved. Narrowing or expanding the content of the thesis leads to changes in the thesis during the discussion. For example, while proving the thesis about the importance of national ideology and national idea for the development of our republic, if an attempt is made to prove the issue of whether society as a whole needs ideology or not, then the content of the thesis will expand and the thesis will change.
2. Replacing the thesis using the personal quality of a person as an excuse. In the course of argument, deviating from the topic, thinking about the opponent's personal, social life, good qualities or shortcomings, and asserting the thesis as proven or rejected on this basis, causes the exchange of the thesis. This mistake is made on purpose. Attempting to get an unproven thesis to be accepted as true by influencing the emotions of the listeners is considered a substitution of the thesis.
3. Changing the thesis as a result of trying to prove more or less. If the idea is over-proved, instead of the given thesis, an attempt is made to prove a stronger thesis. If event A leads to B, but event V does not lead to A, then the thesis representing the event A is stronger than the thesis representing the event B. For example, instead of the thesis (V) that "Person A did not start the fight first," one tries to prove the thesis (A) that "Person A was not at the place where the fight happened at all." The second thesis cannot be proven because there are witnesses who saw that person A was involved in the fight.

II. Argument errors.
1. Error of foundations. When proving or disproving a thesis, a logical fallacy is committed intentionally or unintentionally as a result of assuming the wrong arguments to be true. For example, the ancient Greek philosopher Thales based his theory on the idea that everything came from water.
2. An error in the form of providing the basics in advance. If the thesis is based on unproven arguments, such arguments do not prove the truth of the thesis, but only assume the truth of the thesis.
3. Error known as "circular proof". If the truth of the thesis is proved by arguments, and the truth of the arguments is proved by the thesis, then a logical fallacy is committed. For example, if we prove the thesis that "The power of the word is measured by the thought" as "The power of the thought is measured by the word", the above-mentioned error will be made.

III. Errors related to the method of proof (demonstration).
1. "False (fake) proof." A logical fallacy is committed if a thesis does not follow directly from the arguments presented to prove it. It is based on arguments that are not related to the thesis. For example, if the thesis that "person A is a bad person" is supported by arguments such as "only bad people walk on the street at night", "person A is walking on the street at night", then the opinion is superficially (falsely) proven.
2. Transition from conditioned thought to unconditioned thought. A logical fallacy is committed as a result of accepting a (conditional) thought that is true within a certain time, relationship, as a constant, unchanging true thought.
3. Errors associated with violation of the rules of inference:
a) logical errors that can be encountered in making deductive conclusions. Detailed information about this is given in the topic of making a deductive conclusion.
b) Logical errors that can be encountered in making inductive conclusions. These are the so-called "hasty generalization" and "after that, therefore therefore" errors. For example, it is a mistake to generalize that one or two students are irresponsible to the lesson and to say that "all students are irresponsible".
c) Logical errors that can be encountered in analogy. These are "false analogy" errors. In it, confusion arises as a result of taking an accidental sign as necessary, basing it on only one similar sign, or comparing completely incommensurable phenomena.
Logical errors occur as a result of violating the laws of thinking, not following the rules of inference. In the history of logic, those who deliberately make mistakes in the process of proof are called sophists, and their teaching is called sophism (Greek-deceit). When a logical error is made without knowing it in the process of thinking, it is called a paralogism. Ideas that can be proven to be both true and false at the same time are called paradoxes.
The art of speaking (eristics) requires following specific rules.
These mainly include:
- not to argue unnecessarily;
- not to discuss without a topic and not to deviate from the topic or change the topic during the discussion;
- stop the dispute if there are no conflicting or conflicting opinions on the subject of the dispute;
- discuss only with intelligent people who know the subject well;
- to follow logical rules in arguing, to be able to draw conclusions from one's own and one's opponent's opinions, to identify and eliminate logical contradictions, if the grounds are correct, to recognize the correctness of the proof, etc.
- not to mix the methods of arguing within one argument.
Knowing the logical foundations of argumentation and following the rules of argumentation allows you to raise the culture of thinking to a higher level.

Books

1. Islam Karimov. Uzbekistan towards a great future. — T.: "Uzbekistan", 1998.
2. Islam Karimov. There is no future without historical memory. "Discussion", 1998, No. 5.
3. Islam Karimov. A perfect generation is the foundation of Uzbekistan's development. /Islam Karimov. On the way to security and sustainable development: T.6-T.: "Uzbekistan", 1998.
4. Islam Karimov. Uzbekistan is striving for the 1999st century. — T.: "Uzbekistan", XNUMX.
5. IA Karimov. The ideology of national independence is the faith of the people and faith in a great future: answers to the questions of the reporter of "Fidokor" newspaper. T., Uzbekistan 2000.
6. M. Khairullayev, M. Khagberdiyev. Logic. Chapter 11.
7. Yu.V. Ivlev. Logic. Chapter 8.
8. I. Rakhimov. Practical exercises and methodical recommendations from logic. Chapter 6.
9. NI Kondakov. Logical dictionary. Articles on the topic.
10. IA Karimov. I believe in the strong will of our wise people. President Islam Karimov's answers to the questions of the reporter of "Fidokor" newspaper. "Fidokor", June 2000, 8.
11. AA Ivin. Art is correct. M., 1990.
12. VI Kurbatov. Social-political argumentation: logical-methodological analysis. Rostov-on-Don, 1991.
13. KG Pavlova. Art sport: logical-psychological aspect. M. 1988.
14. P. Sergeych. Iskusstvo rechi na sude. M., 1988.