Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ideas are the raw materials of knowledge but ideas are not in themselves true or false.
There is no truth or falsity until we take two or more ideas, compare them, and
express an agreement or disagreement between them. Only then can we speak of truth
or error.
Truth and error lie in the judgment, not the idea. A judgment is an act of the mind
pronouncing the agreement or disagreement of ideas among themselves. It is an act in
which the intellect affirms or denys one idea of another.
The Nature of the Judgment
There are three things necessary for making a judgment. First, the mind must
understand the two ideas about which it intends to make a judgment. Second, the mind
must compare the two ideas under consideration. Third, the mind must express
mentally the agreement or disagreement between two ideas. This latter act constitutes
the essence of the judgment.
Put in the simplest terms, we take one idea, let's call it the subject, and we say
something about it (with another idea), let's call this part the predicate, and we
compare the two ideas. We then pronounce agreement or disagreement between the
two ideas.
But how do we determine if a judgment is true or false? The discussion of this
question does not, strictly speaking, belong to the science of logic. It belongs to a
branch of philosophy called epistemology, which is the philosophic study of
knowledge in its most general sense. Logic deals with the validity of an argument, not
specifically with the truth of an argument.
Nevertheless, a brief discussion of truth and falsehood may be appropriate. We have
said that an idea is fundamentally a representation of a thing as it is in itself,
independent of the mind. Since judgments are constituted of ideas, the judgment is
also a representation of things as they are in themselves, independent of the mind.
When our minds compare two ideas with each other and pronounces an agreement or
disagreement between them, it actually compares two things with each other and
judges about their agreement or disagreement among themselves as they are in reality.
If a judgment coincides with reality, it is true and, if not, it is false.
The "test" of truth is, therefore, agreement of the judgment with reality. We verify a
judgment by comparing it with the reality it is supposed to represent. We refer to this
as objective evidence and this is the criterion of truth for us.
The Nature of the Proposition
Ideas are expressed in words which we call "terms." Judgments, the agreement or
disagreement between ideas, are expressed in sentences we call "propositions." All
propositions are sentences but not all sentences are propositions.
There are different kinds of sentences in our language. We ask questions and these are
expressed in interrogative sentences. We issue a command or make a request and this
is expressed in an imperative sentence. We express joy, surprise, or some other
emotion, and these may be expressed in exclamatory sentences. These types of
sentences are of no concern to logic.
The Structure of the Proposition
Propositions are a special kind of sentence for they must contain a judgment. A
proposition may be defined as a judgment expressed in a sentence. And three elements
enter into the construction of a proposition: the subject, the predicate, and the copula.
The subject is the term designating the idea about which the pronouncement is made.
The predicate is the term designating the idea which is affirmed or denied of the
subject. The copula is the term expressing the mental act which pronounces the
agreement or disagreement between subject and predicate. The copula is usually
expressed with a term such as "is" or "is not."
It should be noted that the copula always expresses the present act of the mind and
will always be represented by the present tense of the verb "to be." Every proposition
can be reduced to this present tense even though the proposition may refer to some
past or future event. Example: "The Republicans did not win the last election" can be
restated as "The Republican party is not the party which won the last election." The
meaning of the proposition has not changed, merely the form has changed.
Sometimes the verb "to be" is hidden in a sentence. A sentence like "The cat bites,"
which appears not to contain a form of "to be," should be restated as "The cat is
biting," which does contain a form of "to be." The meaning has not changed, merely
the form has changed.
Many times in ordinary language, a judgment will be expressed in a form that is
unsuitable for logic. We have the right to change the wording of a proposition to meet
the needs of logic as long as the original meaning of the judgment remains the same.
Sometimes the form of a proposition may appear clumsy or unusual when converted
to a proposition useful in logic, but we are not concerned here with beautiful prose but
with the substance of the thought expressed.
We are so use to excess verbiage and pompous speech, particularly in the political
arena, that it may appear impossible to deal logically with complex judgments and
complicated arguments. It doesn't matter, however, how complex a sentence is; if it
expresses a judgment it can be reduced to a simple proposition including a subject, a
predicate, and a copula. Complicated arguments may have to be reduced to set of
simple propositions in order to make sense of them logically. But it can done.
THREE ELEMENTS OF A PROPOSITION
Subject
Copula
Predicate
The boy
is
a student.
Mary
is not
angry.
A dog is a mammal.
Politicians are verbose.
Both of these propositions are affirmative. The copula affirms the predicate of the
subject.
Both of these propositions are negative. The copula denies the predicate of the subject.
Sometimes a sentence will have two copulas, one in the main proposition and the
other in a qualifying clause. Here are two examples: [the clause is within brackets]
In both these sentences, the clause affects the subject "man." Are these propositions
affirmative or negative? If the copula of the main proposition is negative, it is a
negative proposition. If the copula of the main proposition is affirmative, it is an
affirmative proposition. It is clear that the first sentence is negative because of the
copula "is not," which is negative. The predicate "healthy" is being denied of the
subject "man." The second sentence is affirmative because of the copula "is," which is
affirmative. The predicate "healthy" is being affirmed of the subject "man."
When we run across sentences such as the above, which contain qualifying clauses,
we must look to the meaning of the sentence. The meaning can usually be discovered
by some slight change of the words (but be careful not to destroy the original
meaning).
For example, the first sentence could be restated, "A sick man is not healthy," and the
second could be restated, "A not-sick man is healthy." This clears up the proposition
without changing its meaning.
Since the predicate affirms or denies something of the subject, how does this affect the
comprehension and extension of the predicate? Does the comprehension and
extension remain the same or are they changed in any way?
This is an important question and has a vital bearing on the validity of an argument.
The relation of predicate to subject from this viewpoint needs to be well understood.
Here are the rules to follow:
Affirmative Proposition
In an affirmative proposition the predicate is always affirmed of the subject according
to the whole of its comprehension and according to a part of its extension.
If we affirm, for example, that "Dogs are mammals," what do we mean to assert by
applying the predicate "mammals" to the subject "dogs"? Of course, we assert an
identity between the two ideas of "mammal" and "dog." Therefore, the comprehension
of the idea "mammal" must be found in the idea "dog." And that, in fact, is the case.
We are applying the whole of the comprehension of "mammal" to the subject "dog,"
because the definition of "mammal" is contained in the definition of "dog."
It's different now when we consider the extension. We don't mean to assert by the
proposition that the whole of the extension of "mammal" applies to "dog," since that
would mean that "dog" would fill out the whole extension of "mammal." There
wouldn't be any other things contained in the class of "mammal" except "dogs." But
we know this isn't true since human beings are mammals, as are cats, mice, and
raccoons.
In an affirmative proposition we intend to assert merely that the subject forms a part
of the extension of the predicate. In an affirmative sentence the predicate is taken only
as a particular term (a universal term taken partly and indeterminately with regard to
its extension). Another way of saying this is: the predicate in an affirmative
proposition is not distributed and therefore not used as a universal. Note the words
"not distributed," as these will become very important later.
Negative Proposition
In a negative proposition the predicate is always denied of its subject according to
only a part of its comprehension and according to the whole of its extension.
If we state, for example, that "Dogs are not reptiles," we deny the identity between the
predicate "reptiles" and the subject "dogs." The comprehension of "reptiles" contains
something which is not found in the comprehension of "dogs." By denying that the
whole of the comprehension of "reptiles" is found in "dogs," we realize that part of the
comprehension may be found in the subject. For instance, the ideas "animal" and
"vertebrate" are found in the comprehension of "reptile" and also of "dog." In a
negative sentence, therefore, the whole of the comprehension of the predicate never
applies to the subject, but a part of the comprehension does.
Also, in a negative proposition, the predicate is always taken according to the whole
of its extension and denied of the subject. When we state that "Dogs are not reptiles,"
we intend to assert that "dogs" do not belong at all to the class of "reptiles." They
stand completely outside the class, because every one of them (all dogs) do not have
all the characteristics that "reptiles" have.
In a negative sentence, therefore, the predicate is always taken according to its whole
extension as a universal and then denied of the subject. Both subject and predicate
belong to totally different classes and neither one belongs to the class of the other.
The Quantity of Propositions
The quantity of a proposition affects the whole judgment as a judgment and it
expresses the number of individuals to whom the judgment or proposition applies.
Since the predicate is referred to the subject, the proposition will be true of all the
individuals contained in the extension of the subject. From the viewpoint of quantity,
propositions will be universal, particular, singular, or collective, depending on the way
the subject is taken.
Universal Propositions
A proposition is universal if the subject is a universal term applied distributively to
each and all of the class. The quantifiers "all" or "every" coming before the subject
indicate the universality of the proposition. Consider the following propositions:
There can be no doubt about the term "every." But the term "all" may be ambiguous.
Does "all" mean "all taken collectively," and apply to each and every member of the
class?
If we say "All members of the club were present at the meeting," we are using the
term "all" distributively. We mean that "Every member was present." But if we say
"All members of the club filled the room," we are using the term "all" collectively. We
don't mean that "Every member filled the room." We have to look to the meaning.
The universal negative proposition is expressed by putting "no" in front of the subject,
as in:
A proposition is particular when the subject is a universal term used partly and
indeterminately. It is indicated by the term "some" or "not all."
The following examples are particular propositions:
Be cautious, however, about some sentences. Words can be deceiving. The sentence
"All men are not drunkards" seems at first to be universal (because of the term "all" in
front of the subject). But if such a sentence was universal, it would mean "No men are
drunkards" and this is clearly not intended. What is meant is probably "Not all men
are drunkards," which is the same as saying "Some men are not drunkards," and which
makes this a particular (not a universal) proposition.
Singular Propositions
A proposition is singular when the subject applies to a single individual only.
Consider the following propositions:
Singular propositions have the same value as universal propositions and are treated
the same way. The subject is taken according to the whole of the extension, which in
this case is one.
Collective Propositions
A proposition is collective when the subject is a collective term, applying to all taken
together as a class, but not to the individuals composing the class.
Consider the following propositions:
In these propositions we mean the Germans as a nation, the flock as a group, and all
his books as a set of books. A collective term represents many considered as one. It is
taken according to the whole of its extension and it, too, is treated as a universal.
Indefinite Propositions
There is one more type of proposition we need to watch out for. This is the indefinite
proposition. An indefinite proposition has no definite sign of quantity attached to the
subject.
Consider the following propositions:
These propositions indicate no definite quantity. They evidently mean "some" or "all"
and are either particular or universal propositions. To determine the exact quantity, the
propositions must be evaluated from the sense of the statement or the context in which
they appear.
Since singular and collective propositions are equivalent to universal propositions, all
judgments have the value of either universal or particular propositions. And as all
propositions will be either affirmative or negative, we arrive at the following results:
TYPE
EXAMPLE
The subject and predicate of every proposition have the relation of agreement or
disagreement among themselves. This relation, however, may be either necessary or
contingent. This means that the connection between the subject and predicate is either
absolutely necessary and unchangeable or it is contingent and changeable.
Necessary Propositions
Consider these propositions:
We can tell just by looking at these propositions that the connection between the
subject and the predicate is absolutely necessary and unchangeable.
The subject "whole" is related to the predicate "greater than any of its parts" by a
necessary and unchangeable relation. We cannot say that the "whole" is "equal to" or
"smaller than" any of the parts which makes up the "whole." We know this simply by
analyzing the meanings involved. The predicate must belong to the subject. The same
holds true for "man is an animal" and "a square is a quadrangle."
On the other hand, it is possible for the subject-predicate relation of propositions to be
contingent and changeable.
Contingent Propositions
Consider these propositions:
We can tell that the predicate "inexpensive mineral" is related to the subject "salt," but
it is not necessarily related to it. Under certain circumstances, salt could be or become
expensive. We only know the truth of the proposition from experience. A mere
analysis of the subject and predicate terms is not sufficient.
The same is true of the other two propositions. There is no absolutely necessary
relation between "Alaska" and "largest state." Another state may be admitted to the
United States and be larger in area. "Cats" are not absolutely necessarily playful all
their life.