Symbolic Logic and Logical Positivism

A Tract Book Essay

By

Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Logical Positivism has been defined as that discipline or philosophy which starts

with sense experience and then only makes moves consistent with fairly rigid logical

inferences. Previously, I have argued that Logical Positivism is flawed because sense

experience is not a reliable indicator or reality. Here, however, I am arguing that Logical

Positivism is flawed because, at present, there does not seem to be a uniform logic that is

acceptable to all philosophers. Consider the following.

A commonly held and know logical syllogism is the syllogism:

A v B

Now, when I was taught Symbolic Logic in college a long time ago, it was clear

that the “ v “ sign meant that A and B were held in the disjunctive. In other words, the

meaning of “A v B” is “A or B.” Now, when we consider this syllogism it is

apparent that A may be true, or, B may be true, but not both A and B together can be

true. In fact there is a different syllogism for that case, and it is as follows:

“A &v B” That is, “A and/or B”. Now, “A and/or B” is both a conjunction

and a disjunction simultaneously. “A or B” is simply a disjunction. Treating the two

syllogisms as the same creates a problem because they do not mean the same thing.

Take the following hypothetical. A and B. are running in a race. The racing

committee has decided that the race should be adjudicated by the syllogism, “A or B.”
That is, either A wins or B wins. On this approach, only one person can win the race.

However, if the other interpretation of “A v B” is used, then an illogical result occurs. If

“A v B” really means “A and/or B”, then it is clear that not only could A or B win the

race, but also it is clear there could be a tie with A and B both winning. I have never seen

this result either in a horse race or a track and field competition. There is supposed to be

just one winner. To the extent that policy makers and politicians are using the “and/or”

interpretation of “A v B,” then illogical results will take place. Moreover, to the extent

that the “A v B” interpretation is seen as legitimate rather than illogical, then it is clear

that there is no basis for an objective logical positivism. For logical positivism to be

correct, there must be only one correct symbolic logic, not two or more.