The term formal logic belongs to whom. Formal logic as a science of thinking

Logic test

Introduction

The proposed test will help in the study of logic. It can be used for self-study, as well as when monitoring and consolidating the main classroom material. It can also be used by teachers to conduct tests and examinations in the logic course.

The test includes 100 tasks closed type, which speeds up much test work teacher. The tasks cover all sections of logic and allow not only to check whether students have the required amount of knowledge, but also to assess the level of their logical culture.

The proposed answer options are designed in such a way that each of them can be chosen by an unprepared student as the correct one, so the test cannot be completed formally, choosing at random suitable option answer. To successfully complete it, real knowledge and skills in the logic course are required. This construction of test tasks makes them more complex, but at the same time more interesting and greatly increases the effectiveness of monitoring students’ knowledge and skills.

When evaluating test results, you can use the following system:

1. Logic is:

The science of inference and evidence;

The science of the rules of thinking;

The science of the forms and laws of thinking;

The science of the forms and laws of knowledge.

2. Formal logic appeared:

In the Middle Ages;

In Antiquity;

In modern times;

During the Renaissance.

3. Formal logic is:

Symbolic;

Aristotelian;

Mathematical;

Modern.

4. The ancient Greek philosopher is considered the creator of logic:

Anaximenes;

Anaxagoras;

Antisthenes;

Pythagoras;

Aristotle;

Aristippus;

Arcesilaus.

5. From the point of view of formal logic, the statement: “All Snow Maidens are geometric figures”:

Represents absurdity;

Is fantastic;

Devoid of any meaning;

Expresses an example of classic absurdity;

Built in the form: “All A’s are B’s.”

6. Mathematical or symbolic logic appeared:

At the same time as traditional logic;

At the beginning of our era;

In the Middle Ages;

In the middle of the 20th century.

7. Intuitive logic is:

Complete ignorance of the laws of correct thinking, leading any reasoning to numerous errors and false conclusions;

Knowledge of the forms and principles of correct thinking spontaneously formed in the process of life experience;

Theoretical knowledge remaining with a person after studying a logic course at school or university;

A complete distortion of theoretical logic;

None of the above.

8. Ancient Greek philosophers who invented various techniques for violating logical laws in order to prove anything they wanted were:

Milesians;

Pythagoreans;

Sophists;

Epicureans;

9. Concept is

Word or phrase;

Form of thinking;

True thesis;

Some object.

10. Any concept has:

size;

11. Any concept is expressed in the form:

A simple sentence;

Complex sentence;

Words or phrases;

Connected text.

The totality of all objects that it covers;

The most important features of the object that it expresses;

The judgment in which it can be used;

The word or phrase in which it is expressed;

The object it represents.

13. The scope of a concept is the totality of:

The objects covered by this concept;

All words or phrases that can express it;

All the values ​​that can be included in it;

The most important features of the object that it denotes;

All reasoning in which it is used;

All people who know this concept.

14. " Sun" is the concept:

Single;

Physical;

Null;

Astronomical.

15. " Stupidity" is the concept:

Specific;

Abstract;

Abstract;

Negative;

Psychological.

16. " Slob" is the concept:

Positive;

Negative;

Neutral;

Collective.

17. The concept " Orion constellation» corresponds to the logical characteristic:

General, collective, specific, positive;

Singular, collective, abstract, positive;

Single, non-collective, specific, positive;

Zero, collective, abstract, positive;

Singular, collective, specific, negative;

None of the above.

18. The logical characteristic: general, collective, specific, positive, corresponds to the concept:

Russian team;

Music band;

10th grade “A”;

Bouquet of roses;

Set of colored pencils;

All of the above;

None of the above.

19. Concept " clever man " is:

Clear in content and sharp in scope;

Unclear in content and harsh in scope;

Clear in content and unsharp in volume;

Unclear in content and blurred in volume;

Having neither volume nor content.

20. A concept that is larger in scope is called:

Species;

Ancestral;

Zero;

Wide.

21. Concepts " star" And " constellation» are in a relationship:

Subordination;

Intersections;

Definitions;

Divisions;

Exceptions;

Subordination.

22. Relationships between concepts are depicted:

Euler's circular diagrams;

Boiler circular diagrams;

Pager circular diagrams;

Aristotle's circular diagrams.

23. Relationships between concepts “point”, “straight line”, “plane”, “space” are depicted by the following diagram (Fig. 42):

24. This scheme corresponds to the following group of concepts:

Famous football player, football player, black, Chinese;

Famous football player, famous hockey player, young man, old man;

Football player, basketball player, athlete, person;

Famous athlete, person, a famous person, athlete.

25. Relationships between concepts “ daughter» ( A), « granddaughter» ( IN), « woman (female person)» ( C), are depicted by the following diagram (Fig. 43):

26. The following group of concepts does not correspond to this scheme:

Fish, predator, shark;

Mammal, predator, tiger;

Representative ancient history, autocrat, Alexander the Great;

Plant, tree, pine;

Russian writer, famous person, Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy;

Higher educational institution, Moscow educational institution, Moscow State University.

27. Relationships between concepts: "equilateral triangle" (A), "isosceles triangle" (B), " right triangle"(C), "obtuse triangle" (D)– are depicted by the following diagram (Fig. 44) (You must choose one correct one from 6 pictures.):

28. Definition: “Existentialism is a philosophical movement of the twentieth century, which examines various existential questions and problems”, - is:

Ambiguous;

Circular;

Wide;

Philosophical.

29. Definition: “Entropy is a thermodynamic function that characterizes part internal energy closed system, which cannot be converted to mechanical work» , - is:

Logically and communicatively impeccable;

Wide;

Tautological;

Ambiguous;

Incomprehensible to most people.

30. The division of a concept reveals it:

Meaning;

31. In division: “People are men, women, athletes and dancers.”, – an error was made:

A jump in division;

Quadrupling terms;

Ambiguity;

Substitution of the base;

Hasty generalization.

32. The error of intersection of division results, but not substitution of the base and not a jump in division, was made in the following statement:

Transport can be land, underground, water, air, public and personal.

Fiction novels can be detective, fantasy, historical, romance and others.

Sentences are divided into simple, complex, complex and others.

Educational institutions are primary, secondary, higher, commercial and humanitarian.

Forests are divided into coniferous, deciduous, mixed, pine and spruce.

33. A possible result of generalization for the concept "car wheel" there will be a concept:

Automobile;

Vehicle;

Huge wheel;

Man's product.

34. A possible result of the restriction for the concept “ pencil" will be the concept:

Writing utensils;

Stationery;

Wooden item;

Broken pencil;

Man's product.

35. The limit of the logical chain of limitation of any concept will always be any:

Zero concept;

Specific concept;

Non-collective concept;

Single concept;

Generic concept.

36. A possible result of the limitation for the concept “ crime level"is the concept:

Crime;

Serious crime;

Burglary;

High crime rate;

Criminal community;

Crime.

37. Judgment is:

Offer;

Unfinished thought;

Generalized concept;

Form of thinking;

Law of thinking.

38. Judgment is expressed in the form:

Declarative sentence;

Interrogative sentence;

Incentive offer;

Collocations.

39. True or false can be:

Concept;

Judgment;

Quantifier.

40. The subject of judgment is called:

Essence;

Meaning;

Subject;

Syllogism;

Bunch;

Predicate.

41. Judgment: "All people are not monkeys", – is a judgment of the form:

42. Subject and predicate in a judgment: “All pines are not birches”, – are in a relationship:

Intersections;

Equivalence;

Compatibility;

Incompatibilities;

Opposites;

Contradictions.

43. Judgment: "There is no god", - is:

Relative;

Existential;

Attributive;

Conjunctive;

Religious;

Wrong.

44. The following judgment is attributive:

Moscow was founded before St. Petersburg.

There are eternal laws of the world.

Aristotle lived long before Leibniz.

There are no miracles.

Man is a rational living being.

Happiness exists, it cannot but exist.

45. The subject and the predicate are in a relation of intersection in a judgment:

All planets are not stars.

Some triangles are equilateral.

No man is omnipotent.

Antarctica is an ice continent.

Some people are famous scientists.

Some scientists are ancient Greeks.

46. ​​In judgment: “Some Russians are Olympic champions”:

Both subject and predicate are distributed;

Neither the subject nor the predicate is distributed;

The subject is distributed, but the predicate is not distributed;

The subject is undistributed, but the predicate is distributed.

47. The subject is distributed, but the predicate is undistributed in a judgment:

All squares are geometric shapes.

All squares are equilateral rectangles.

No square is a triangle.

Some isosceles triangles are right triangles.

Some isosceles triangles are equilateral.

All equilateral triangles have equal angles.

48. The term of a simple attributive judgment is undistributed if in this judgment:

We are talking about all objects included in the scope of this term;

We are not talking about any object included in the scope of this term;

We are talking about part of the objects included in the scope of this term;

We are talking about the real existence of objects included in the scope of this term;

We are talking about the non-existence of objects included in the scope of this term.

49. Contrasted with a predicate for a judgment: “All sparrows are birds”, – there will be a judgment:

Some birds are sparrows.

All non-birds are not sparrows.

All sparrows are not birds.

Some birds are not sparrows.

50. Judgments: “All predators are animals”, “Tigers are animals”, – are in relation to:

Partial match;

Intersections;

Subordination;

Unambiguity;

Equivalences.

51. If the judgment: "All people studied logic", – is false, then the proposition: "All people have not studied logic", - is:

True;

Incorrect;

Truthful;

Uncertain in truth.

52. Complex judgment: “If you sow the wind, you will reap the storm”, - is:

By implication;

Sublimation;

Conjunction;

Disjunction;

Isostension.

53. Complex judgment: “It’s almost midnight, but Herman is still not there.”, - is:

Disjunction;

Equivalence;

Abstinence;

Conjunction;

By implication.

54. Judgment: “If the Sun is a triangle, then all crocodiles are flying creatures”, – is formally:

True;

Pointless;

Uncertain;

Anti-scientific.

55. A conjunction is true only when:

At least one element of it is true;

At least one of its elements is false;

All its elements are false;

All its elements are true;

Most of its elements are true.

56. A strict disjunction is true only when:

All its elements are true;

All its elements are false;

Only one of its elements is true, and the rest are false;

Only one of its elements is false, and the rest are true;

Half of its elements are true and half are false;

At least one of its elements is neither true nor false at the same time.

57. The result of formalizing the reasoning: “If the speed of the Earth when moving in orbit was more than 42 km/s, then the Earth would leave solar system, and if its speed was less than 3 km/s, then it would fall into the Sun; however, the Earth does not leave the solar system and does not fall on the Sun, therefore, its speed is no more than 42 km/s and no less than 3 km/s.”, – is one of the formulas:

(((a > b) ? (c > d)) ? (a ? c)) > (b ? d);

(((a > b) ? (c > d)) ? (¬ b ? ¬ d)) > (¬ a ? ¬ c);

(((a > b) ? (c > d)) ? (¬ a ? ¬ c)) > (¬ b ? ¬ d);

(((a > b) ? (c > d)) ? (b ? d)) > (a ? c);

(((a > b) ? (c > d)) ? (a > c)) > (b > d);

(((a > b) ? (c > d)) ? (b > d)) > (a > c).

58. Inference is:

Law of thinking;

Complex judgment;

Form of thinking;

True conclusion;

False concept.

59. Deductive reasoning is called:

Alogisms;

Syllogisms;

Sophistry;

Paradoxes;

Logicisms.

60. Induction is:

Complex judgment;

Logical connective;

Type of inference;

Type of deduction;

Law of logic.

61. Any simple syllogism has:

62. The connection between the subject and the predicate of the conclusion in a simple syllogism fulfills:

Senior term;

Greater term;

Junior term;

Middle term;

Lesser term.

63. The figure and mode of a simple syllogism are, respectively:

A set of its premises and a set of terms included in them;

The totality of all its terms and the sum of the premises included in it;

The truth or falsity of its premises and the distribution or non-distribution of its terms;

The scope of its subject and the content of its predicate;

His general rules and errors arising from their violation;

The relative arrangement of its terms and the set of simple propositions included in it.

64. All first-graders have thinking skills.

All students are not first graders.

All students do not have thinking skills.

There is an error in this simple syllogism:

Quadrupling terms;

Hasty generalization;

Argument to Ignorance;

Substitution of the base;

Expansion of a large term;

Undistribution of the middle term.

65. Laws are the eternal principles of nature.

Universal conscription is the law.

Universal conscription is an eternal principle of nature.

There is an error in this syllogism:

Substitution of the base;

Quadrupling terms;

Hasty generalization;

Loose disjunction;

Tautology.

66. Epicheyrema is:

Type of complex judgment;

A type of inference;

Induction section;

Law of deduction;

The rule of syllogism.

Implicative and disjunctive;

Disjunctive and disjunctive;

68. Educational institutions are primary or secondary. Moscow State University is not a primary or secondary educational institution. Moscow State University is not an educational institution.

Incomplete division;

Loose disjunction;

A jump in division;

Substitution of the base;

Wide division;

Doubling of terms.

69. The ancient Romans were politicians, or orators, or writers.

Cicero was a politician.

Cicero was neither an orator nor a writer.

There is an error in this divisive-categorical syllogism:

Quadrupling terms;

Substitution of the base;

Hasty generalization;

Loose disjunction;

Conjunction violation.

70. If the runway is covered with ice, planes cannot take off. Today planes cannot take off. Today the runway is covered with ice.

Statement from reason to consequence;

Statement from consequence to reason;

Negation from reason to consequence;

Negation from consequence to reason;

Loose disjunction of reason and consequence.

71. If a triangle is equilateral, then its sum internal corners equal to 180°.

If a triangle is not equilateral, then the sum of its interior angles is 180°.

The sum of the interior angles of a triangle is 180°. This syllogism is:

Conditionally separative;

Purely conditional;

Purely separative;

Purely geometric;

72. If each angle of a triangle is 60°, then the triangle is equilateral.

In triangle ABC, each angle is 60°.

Triangle ABC is equilateral.

This syllogism is:

Conditionally separative.

73. If average density the substance of the Universe is greater than a certain critical value, then its expansion will eventually be replaced by compression; and if this density is less than a certain critical value, then the expansion of the Universe will continue forever.

The average density of matter in the Universe is either greater or less than a certain critical value.

The expansion of the Universe will eventually be replaced by its compression, or the Universe will expand forever.

This conclusion is:

Negatively separative;

Conditionally separative;

Connecting and separating.

74. If I slack off all semester, I will have to work hard during the session or I will be kicked out of the institute.

I don't want to strain myself during the session or get kicked out.

I won't be idle during the semester.

This syllogism is:

A simple design dilemma;

A difficult constructive dilemma;

A simple destructive dilemma;

A complex destructive dilemma.

75. In inductive reasoning:

Based on the similarity of two objects in some characteristics, a conclusion is drawn about their similarity in other characteristics;

From one judgment another judgment is derived by changing the location of its subject and predicate;

From the general rule a conclusion is drawn for a particular case;

From one particular case another particular case is derived;

From several special cases one general rule is derived;

From one general rule follows another general rule.

76. Vasya Sidorov is a poor student. Petya Smirnov is a poor student. Sasha Ivanov is a poor student. Vasya Sidorov, Petya Smirnov, Sasha Ivanov – students of 6 “B”. All students of 6 “B” are poor students.

There is an error in this conclusion:

Popular induction;

Incomplete induction;

Violation of induction;

Non-strict induction;

None of the above.

77. In reasoning: “Eating cucumbers is dangerous - many ailments and human misfortunes in general are associated with them. Almost all people suffering from chronic diseases ate cucumbers. 99.7% of all victims of car and plane accidents ate cucumbers in the two weeks preceding the accident. 98.1% of all juvenile criminals come from families where cucumbers are regularly consumed.", – an error was made:

Hasty generalization;

Incomplete induction;

Popular induction;

Unscientific induction;

After this, it means because of that;

He who proves a lot proves nothing;

Replacing the conditional with the unconditional.

78. In popular induction, as opposed to scientific:

Reliable conclusions are obtained;

The general rules of syllogism are used;

The causal relationship of the phenomena is unknown;

Logical laws are deliberately violated;

Logical square conclusions are used.

79. Complex judgment: “If it was raining in the morning, then by noon it cleared up”, - is:

Conjunction;

Equivalence;

A loose disjunction;

By implication;

Existence;

Strict disjunction.

80. An analogy is:

Rule of induction;

Error in syllogism;

Law of Logic;

Complex judgment;

Type of inference.

81. A weak disjunction is false when:

All its elements are true;

All its elements are false;

One of its elements is true, and the rest are false;

One of its elements is false, and the rest are true;

At least one element of it is true.

82. – Do you have color TVs?

- Then give me the yellow one.

This joke is broken:

Law of contradiction;

Law of ambiguity;

Law of anecdote;

Law of Identity;

The law of the excluded middle.

83. Two students decided to ask the teacher if it was possible to smoke during meditation. Each of them asked the teacher their question individually. The teacher answered one of them that it was impossible, and the other that it was possible. It turned out that the first student asked the teacher this way: “Is it possible to smoke during meditation?” And the second student asked the teacher the following question: “Is it possible to meditate while smoking?”

In this situation:

The teacher violated the law of contradiction;

The teacher violated the law of sufficient reason;

The teacher violated the law of double negatives;

The disciples violated the law of the excluded middle;

The disciples violated the law of deduction;

The disciples violated the law of identity.

84. Sophistry is:

Rule of induction;

Complex judgment;

Type of deduction;

Law of thinking;

None of the above.

85. Two opposing judgments about two different objects:

Must be both true;

Must be both false;

Must be: one is true, the other is false;

They can be anything in truth.

86. Two contradictory judgments about two different objects cannot be:

At the same time true;

At the same time false;

One is true, the other is false;

Neither true nor false each.

We walked along Neglinnaya,
We went to the boulevard
They bought us a blue one,
Pre-green, red ball.

(S. V. Mikhalkov)

In this comic quatrain, the logical law is deliberately violated:

1) identities;

2) contradictions;

3) sufficient grounds;

4) syllogism;

5) paradox;

6) poems.

88. The law of contradiction is violated in the following statement:

“I only know that I know nothing” (Socrates).

“As a child, I had no childhood” (A.P. Chekhov).

“History teaches only that it teaches no one anything” (G. Hegel).

“The most incomprehensible thing in the world is that it is comprehensible” (A. Einstein).

“I hear the silent sound of divine Hellenic speech” (A. S. Pushkin - regarding the translation of Homer’s “Iliad” made by N. I. Gnedich).

In all the above statements.

None of the above statements.

89. In reasoning: “Honey does not like to be poured, topped up, stirred or heated too much, as this causes it to lose its medicinal properties, as well as from adding water and sugar. Meanwhile, sometimes such honey goes on sale. It is formed as a result of feeding sugar syrup bees", – the law has been violated:

Double negative;

The excluded third;

Controversies;

Identities;

Sufficient reason.

90. In 1907, the cadet faction in State Duma on the issue of attitude towards the government, I decided: not to express either confidence or distrust in it, and if a resolution of confidence in the government is introduced, then vote against it, and if a resolution of no confidence in the government is introduced, then vote against it.

This decision violates the logical law:

The excluded third;

Sufficient reason;

Incorrect statement;

Substitution of the base;

Double opposition;

Interchangeability.

91. In the very sunshine, returning home, Nasreddin asked his wife: “Bring me a bowl of curdled milk, there is nothing healthier and more pleasant for the stomach in such heat!” The wife replied: “Yes, we don’t even have bowls, we don’t even have a spoon of curdled milk in the house!” Nasreddin said: “Well, it’s good that no, curdled milk is harmful to humans.”

The logical law is violated in Nasreddin’s words:

Non-strict disjunction;

Controversies;

Sufficient reason;

Double negative;

The main misconception;

Vicious circle.

92. In this reasoning: “German physicist Walter Nernst, author of the third law of thermodynamics (about the unattainability absolute zero temperature) proved that he managed to complete the development of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. So: the first principle had three authors (J. Mayer, D. Joule, G. Helmholtz), the second - two (N. Carnot, R. Clausius), the third - one (W. Nernst); therefore, the number of authors of the fourth principle must be zero, i.e. such a law simply cannot exist.”, – the logical law is violated:

Substitution of the thesis;

Vicious circle;

Double contradiction;

Excluded identity;

Sufficient reason;

Insufficient truth.

93. An implication is false only when:

Its reason and consequence are true;

Its reason and consequence are false;

Its reason is false, but its consequence is true;

Its reason is true, but its consequence is false.

94. Symbolic logic is a section of:

Formal logic;

Philosophy;

Mathematicians;

Grammarians.

95. There are contradictions:

Contact and remote;

Explicit and implicit;

Real and imaginary;

Any of the above;

None of the above.

96. The principle of verification is:

A common sophistic device;

Criterion of scientific knowledge;

The basis of inductive errors;

One of the rules of syllogism;

An important method of pseudoscience;

The main requirement of the analogy.

97. In reasoning: “All birds have wings, therefore all creatures with wings are birds.”, – the logical law is violated:

The excluded third;

Inductive syllogism;

Abbreviated sophistry;

Deductive analogy;

None of the above.

98. Enthymeme is:

A type of scientific induction;

An insoluble contradiction;

Type of complex judgment;

Abbreviated simple syllogism;

Analogy with reliable conclusions.

99. Reasoning: “Let us prove that three times two is not six, but four. Take a match or stick and break it in half. It's one time two. Then take one of the halves and break it in half too. This is the second time two. Then take the remaining half and break it in half too. This is the third time two. So, three times two is four, not six.", - is:

Paradox;

Aporia;

Antinomy;

Syllogism;

Sophistry;

Nonsense;

Philosophem.

100. Sorites is a variety of:

Logical paradox;

Intractable sophistry;

Incomplete induction;

Difficult judgment;

Zero concept;

A simple syllogism.

1. the science of the forms and laws of thinking

2. in antiquity

3. Aristotelian

4. Aristotle

5. built according to the form: “Everything A- This B»

7. spontaneously formed in the process of life experience knowledge of the forms and principles of correct thinking

8. Sophists

9. form of thinking

11. words or phrases

12. the most important features of the object that it expresses13. objects covered by this concept

14. single

15. abstract

16. positive

17. none of the above

18. all of the above

19. unclear in content and unclear in scope

20. generic

21. subordination

22. Euler circle diagrams

24. famous football player, football player, black, Chinese

25. A = B=C

26. plant, tree, pine.

27. B C A D

28. circular

29. incomprehensible to most people

31. substitution of the base

32. fiction novels can be detective, fantasy, historical, romance and others

33. human product

34. broken pencil

35. single concept

36. high level crime

37. form of thinking

38. declarative sentence

39. judgment

40. subject

42. incompatibilities

43. existential

44. Man is a rational living being

45. Some scientists are ancient Greeks

46. ​​neither the subject nor the predicate is distributed

47. All squares are geometric shapes

48. we are talking about part of the objects included in the scope of this term

49. all non-birds are not sparrows

50. submission

51. uncertain in truth

52. implication

53. conjunction

54. true

55. all its elements are true

56. only one of its elements is true, and the rest are false

57. (((a > b) ? (c > d)) ? (¬ b ? ¬ d)) > (¬ a ? ¬ c)

58. form of thinking

59. syllogisms

60. type of inference

61. figure

62. middle term

63. relative arrangement of its terms and a set of simple judgments included in it

64. extension of a larger term

65. quadrupling terms

66. type of inference

68. incomplete division

69. loose disjunction

70. statement from consequence to reason

71. purely conditional

73. conditionally separative

74. simple destructive dilemma

75. One general rule is derived from several particular cases76. none of the above

77. after this, it means because of that

78. the causal relationship of the phenomena is unknown

79. conjunction

80. type of inference

81. all its elements are false

82. law of identity

83. The students violated the law of identity

84. none of the above

85. can be anything in truth

86. neither true nor false each

87. contradictions

88. in none of the above statements

89. law of identity

90. excluded third

91. contradictions

92. sufficient reason

93. its reason is true, but its consequence is false

94. section of mathematics

95. any of the above

96. criterion of scientific knowledge

97. none of the above

98. abbreviated simple syllogism

99. sophistry

100. simple syllogism

Economic theory, like any other science, has not only a specific subject, but also special method research. The word "method" comes from the Greek methods, which literally means "the path to something." That's why a method can be defined in the broadest sense as an activity aimed at achieving a goal . The method of science, on the one hand, reflects the already known laws of the studied sphere of the surrounding world, and on the other hand, it acts as a means of subsequent knowledge.

Thus, the method is both the result of the research process and its prerequisite. While retaining the properties and laws of the object being studied, it at the same time bears the imprint expedient activities the subject who knows it.

The objective turns into the subjective, and vice versa. Typically, the research method is formed on the basis of a certain methodology, including a worldview approach, a study of the subject, structure and place of this science in common system knowledge and the method itself.

During the process of cognition, there is a constant interaction between subject and method. The subject presupposes a certain method of research, and the method shapes the subject.

The first method that economics used was formal logic.

Formal logic - This the study of thought from the perspective of its structure and form.

The founder of formal logic is considered Aristotle, who discovered a unique form of inference (syllogism) and formulated the basic laws of logic. Aristotle's students called this new book"organon", that is, "instrument of knowledge". The term “logic” (“word”, “reason”, “law”) appeared later among the Stoics, and only in the 17th century. in the process of creating dialectical logic, this traditional logic, following I. Kant, began to be called formal.

The simplest category of formal logic is concept- it captures a thought about an object. Usually a concept is defined through a broader concept by adding a species distinction to the generic characteristic.

Judgment -it is a thought that affirms or denies something about something. The form of interconnection of judgments is inference.

Inference is a method of thinking through which inferential knowledge is obtained from some initial knowledge.

The most famous form of inference is syllogism. He claims that if a property R belongs to each of the objects that form a given class, then this property will also belong to any individual object classified in this class.

This is called the axiom of syllogism. Formal logic has developed an extensive set of methods and techniques of cognition. The most important of them are analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, comparison, analogy, hypothesis, proof, and certain laws of thinking.

Analysis- This a method of cognition consisting in dividing the whole into its component parts,synthesis- a method of combining individual parts into a single whole. Although the simplest method of analysis is also the least satisfactory. This is the method of empiricism. An incorrectly conducted analysis can turn the concrete into the abstract and kill the living. The shortcomings of analysis in the formation of concepts are to some extent eliminated synthesis . However, neither analysis nor synthesis reveals the internal contradictions of the subject and, therefore, does not reflect the self-movement and development of the analyzed object. Therefore, this metaphysical method is not able to indicate the path to finding the beginning of the investigation. Induction and deduction have similar disadvantages.

Induction - this is a method of cognition based on inferences from the particular (special) to the general;

Deduction - a method based on inferences from the general to the particular (special). The weakness of induction is that it cannot strictly substantiate the general, since it proceeds only from consideration of a part of the totality. The disadvantage of deduction is that it cannot strictly justify the general premise.

Plays an important role in formal logic comparison - a method that determines the similarity or difference between phenomena and processes. It is widely used in the systematization and classification of concepts, as it allows you to correlate the unknown with the known, to express the new through existing concepts and categories. However, the role of comparison in cognition cannot be overestimated. It, as a rule, is superficial in nature, reflecting only the first steps of research. At the same time, comparison prepares the preconditions for analogy.

Analogy - This is a method of cognition based on the transfer of one or a number of properties from a known phenomenon to an unknown one. IN general form the inference by analogy is written as follows. If A and IN have common properties and A has property C, then B also has property C.

Analogy is a special case of induction. She plays important role in making assumptions, obtaining new knowledge. Many discoveries in political economy were made by analogy. F. Quesnay, for example, proposed a fruitful analogy between blood circulation in human body and the movement of commodity and cash flows in the social organism. This allowed him to build the first macroeconomic model reproduction. The study of mechanical equilibrium led A. Cournot to the idea of ​​economic equilibrium. Analogy thus plays an important role in generating new ideas and formulating hypotheses. It makes it much easier to understand complex processes, being the basis of scientific modeling. Often, an analogy allows you to correctly pose a problem, determining the direction of further research.

Problem -This is a clearly formulated question or a set of questions that arose in the process of cognition. Problem formulation is possible before the start of the study, during the study and during its completion. If problems are formulated before the start of the study, such problems are called explicit; if not, then implicit. Methods for solving a problem can be known in advance, or can be found in the process of work. Depending on what is known (the formulation of the problem, a method for solving it, or an answer), a simple typology can be given problem situations(See Table 1-1).

The first case is representative problems (everything is known - the problem, the method for solving it and the answer). The second case is typical school problems (everything is known except the answer). The third case is rhetorical problems - puzzles. The fourth case is classical scientific problems. The fifth case illustrates a situation where a correct understanding of the problem formulation comes only at the end of the study. The sixth case corresponds to the situation when methods of other sciences are used in economics. The seventh situation illustrates a dogmatic theory that has ready-made answers to all problems; the eighth is sophisms, paradoxes, antinomies.

A fundamentally new solution to the problem is facilitated by posing the problem in the form of an antinomy. Antinomy -it is a contradiction in which thesis and antithesis have equal force and rest equally on the same foundations. Formulating the problem in the form of an antinomy allows us to reflect the contradictory development as real object, and knowledge about it. However, from the point of view of formal logic, the antinomy is unsolvable, since it denies its basic laws.

The limitations of formal logic are also indicated by aporia - a statement that contradicts practical experience.

Statement of the problem in the form of a paradox (antinomy, aporia, or even sophistry) contributes to the birth of hypotheses. Hypothesis- This method of cognition, which consists in putting forward a scientifically based assumption about possible reasons or connections between phenomena and processes. A hypothesis arises when new factors appear that contradict the old theory. Scientific theory consists of a core and a protective belt (see Fig. 1-3).

Core - the most fundamental provisions of the theory; The protective belt is formed by auxiliary hypotheses that specify the theory, expanding the scope of its application.

Proven hypotheses merge with the core, unproven ones serve as the object of polemics with opponents, protecting the core of the theory. For example, the core of Marxism is the labor theory of value, the theory of surplus value, the general law of capitalist accumulation, and their protective belt is the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and other laws.

Under proofIn formal logic, we understand the substantiation of the truth of one thought with the help of others. Formal logic offers a universal proof structure. It consists of a thesis, evidence bases (arguments) and method of proof (demonstration).

Exist different kinds proof. Depending on its goals, evidence of truth and falsity (refutation) is distinguished; depending on the method of evidence - direct and indirect; depending on the basis of the evidence - theoretical and empirical.

Basic laws of formal logic(see Fig. 1-6):

1. Law of identity (A=A);

2. Law of contradiction (A and A, A Λ A);

3. Law of the excluded middle (A and A, A V A);

4. The law of sufficient reason.

Law of Identity means that each thought must have a strictly defined stable content. It is directed against vagueness and uncertainty in economic thinking. This law prohibits, on the one hand, tautology (when one phenomenon is called by different terms), and on the other, the substitution of some concepts for others. The law of identity focuses on the connection and subordination of categories, a clear distinction between generic and specific characteristics.

Law of contradiction means that two opposing thoughts about the same subject, taken in the same time, relation, etc., cannot be true.

Law of the excluded middle asserts that of two thoughts that deny each other about the same object, taken in the same time, relation, etc., one is certainly true.

Law of Sufficient Reason requires that every true thought be justified by other thoughts, the truth of which has been previously proven.

Logic for lawyers: Textbook. Ivlev Yuri Vasilievich

§ 2. FORMAL LOGIC AS A SCIENCE

§ 2. FORMAL LOGIC AS A SCIENCE

To define the logical form of thought and indicate ways to identify the logical forms of various thoughts, we will highlight among the expressions of natural language the terms called logical. These include conjunctions “and”, “or”, “if..., then...”, negation “it is not true that” (“not”), words characterizing the number of objects about which something is affirmed or denied: “ all” (“none”), “some”, the connective “essence” (“is”), etc. The process of identifying the logical form of a thought consists in abstracting from the meaning of non-logical terms included in the phrase expressing this thought. This can be done different ways. For example, omit non-logical terms in a phrase and replace them with dots, dashes and other lines. As a result of replacing non-logical terms with an ellipsis and a dashed line from the sentence “All lawyers are lawyers,” we get the expression “Everything ... is - - -”.

Another way of abstracting from the meaning of non-logical terms is to replace these terms with special symbols (variables). In this case, instead of different occurrences of the same non-logical term, the same variable is put, and instead of different terms - different variables. Moreover, instead of the terms various types symbols of various types are placed.

Let us identify the logical forms of the following reasoning:

(1) All first-year students of the Moscow State University College of Law. M.V. Lomonosov study logic.

Some first-year students at the Moscow State University College of Law. M.V. Lomonosov will specialize in civil law.

Consequently, some students who will major in civil law study logic.

(2) The investigator is a lawyer. Therefore, an educated investigator is an educated lawyer.

Replacing non-logical terms with symbols, we get:

(1) All M are P. Some M are S. Therefore, some S are P.

(2) S is P. Therefore, sq is pq.

These expressions represent the logical forms of the original thoughts.

Thus, logical form of thought - this is its structure, revealed as a result of abstraction from the meanings and meanings of non-logical terms.

The logical form is meaningful and informative. Thus, the expression obtained as a result of abstraction from the meanings and meanings of non-logical terms of the first argument carries the following information: “If all objects of class M are included in class P and some objects of class M are included in class S, then some objects of class S are included in class P "

Thoughts can be divided into classes depending on the types of their logical forms. The main of these classes will consist of thoughts called concepts, judgments and inferences.

Concept - This is a thought in which objects are generalized and highlighted on the basis of a system of attributes common only to these highlighted objects. An example of a concept: an action or inaction qualified by law as a criminal offense (the concept of a crime).

Judgments are thoughts that assert the presence or absence of any state of affairs. Examples: “Man received from God two blessed abilities - to speak the truth and to do good”; “ The best way to study something is to discover it for yourself.”

Conclusion - This is the process of obtaining knowledge, expressed in a judgment, from other knowledge, also expressed in judgments. Examples of inferences include the above reasoning (1), (2).

There are connections between thoughts that depend only on their logical forms. Such connections take place between concepts, and between judgments, and between inferences. Thus, between the thoughts of the logical forms “some S are P” and “some P are S” there is the following connection: if one of these thoughts is true, then the second is true, regardless of what the non-logical content of these thoughts is.

Connections between thoughts according to forms, in which the truth of some of these thoughts determines the truth of others, are called formal logical laws, or logical laws.

The connection between thoughts in reasoning (1) is a logical law. In order to establish whether the connection between some initial statements and the statement obtained as a result of reasoning is a logical law, it is necessary to substitute arbitrary terms of the same types into these statements instead of non-logical terms and, at the same time, each time find out whether the resulting statement turns out to be true if the original ones are true. If such a dependence of the truth of statements is always revealed, then the connection between them is a logical law. If a counterexample is found, then there is no natural connection, and the reasoning is not correct. So, the above reasoning “The investigator is a lawyer. Therefore, an educated investigator is an educated lawyer” is incorrect. A counterexample to this is the clearly incorrect reasoning:

A fly is an animal. Therefore, a large fly is a large animal.

In modern logic, simpler and more productive methods have been developed for identifying the natural connections between thoughts. These methods are outlined in the chapter "Inference".

Having the concepts of logical form and logical law, we can define formal logic.

Formal logic - This is the science of forms of thinking, of formal logical laws and other connections and relationships between thoughts according to their logical forms.

By exploring the necessary connections between thoughts according to logical forms - logical laws, logic formulates statements about the truth of all statements of a certain logical form. These statements are also called laws, but in contrast to logical laws (connections that exist regardless of whether we know about them or not) - laws(Sciences) logic. For example, having established that whenever thoughts of the form “All M are P” and “All M are S” are true, the thought of the form “Some S are P” is true, we can formulate a law of logic: “For any S, P and M it is true, that if all M are P and all M are S, then some S are P.” The laws of logic, once formulated, act as norms in accordance with which reasoning must be carried out. In logic, requirements of another kind are also developed, which are recommended to be fulfilled in the process of cognition. Formal logic, therefore, is a normative science about the forms, laws and techniques of intellectual cognitive activity.

Thinking carried out in accordance with the requirements of logic is called correct. Formal logic, being the science of correct thinking, also explores and systematizes typical mistakes, committed in the process of thinking, i.e. typical illogicalisms.

Attempts have been made for a long time to develop dialectical logic. The means of this logic should be used in cases where one cannot be distracted from the development of knowledge. Within the framework of dialectical logic, a number of methodological principles (concreteness, objectivity of consideration, etc.) and methods of cognition (ascent from the abstract to the concrete, etc.) have been developed.

It is assumed that in the process of cognition the methods of formal logic should be complemented by the methods of dialectical logic and vice versa.

Exercise

Using the method described above, establish whether there are formal logical laws of connection in form between the initial judgments and the resulting ones in the following reasoning (i.e., whether these reasoning is correct):

1. All criminals are subject to criminal punishment. Some Moscow residents are subject to criminal penalties. Consequently, some Moscow residents are criminals.

2. All students in our group are lawyers. All students in our group are members of the logic circle. Consequently, all members of the circle of logic are lawyers.

3. Some participants in this crime were identified by the victim. None of the Petrov family members have been identified by the victim. None of the persons who participated in the commission of this crime have been brought to criminal responsibility for its commission. Consequently, not a single member of the Petrov family has been brought to criminal responsibility for committing this crime.

4. “If Socrates died, then he died either when he lived or when he died. If he lived at some point, then he did not die, since the same person would have lived and been dead; but not when he died, for he would have been twice dead. Therefore, Socrates did not die.” (Empiricist Sextus. Op. In 2 vols. M., 1976. T. 2. P. 289).

5. All metals are heat-conducting substances. All metals are electrically conductive substances. Therefore, all electrically conductive substances are thermally conductive.

From the book System of Things by Baudrillard Jean

Formal connotation: car fender For a long time American cars were decorated with huge wings, which Packard in his “The Art of Extravagance” (p. 282) writes that they symbolize the American obsession with consumer goods; but they have

From the book Lectures on the history of philosophy. Book three author Hegel Georg Wilhelm Friedrich

5. Formal dialectics Interest in dialectics has reached its highest point, however, this interest has acquired a completely formal character, and this is the fifth point to which we must point out. This formal character is reflected above all in the unlimited invention of the termini technici,

From the book How I Understand Philosophy author Mamardashvili Merab Konstantinovich

FORMAL STRUCTURE OF CIVILIZATION To further understand the connection between consciousness and civilization, let us recall another law of thinking formulated by Descartes, which relates to all human states, including those in which the causal relationship of events in the world is formulated.

From the book Favorites. The logic of myth author Golosovker Yakov Emmanuilovich

From the book Ideas to Pure Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy. Book 1 author Husserl Edmund

§ 147. Ramifications of problems. Formal logic, axiology and practice If we take into account further structural differences that are decisive for the characters of the mind - differences in the main types of theses, differences between simple and well-founded theses, and

From the book Introduction to Logic and scientific method by Cohen Morris

Book I. Formal Logic

From the book Theory of Justice by John Rawls

§ 1. Logic as the science of types of order In previous chapters we saw that the validity of a proof does not depend on the truth or falsity of the premises, but on their form or structure. We have recognized the study of these objective relations as the fundamental task of logic.

From the book Philosophy. Book three. Metaphysics author Jaspers Karl Theodor

From the book Logic: Tutorial For law schools author Demidov I.V.

Deity as Formal Transcendence In formal transcendence beyond the categories, the deity does not become filled with thought, just as we do not acquire a relationship to it, unless existential involvement fills this thought. That the deity is

From the book Logic and Argumentation: Textbook. manual for universities. author Ruzavin Georgy Ivanovich

Chapter 1. LOGIC AS A SCIENCE Mastering the problems of formal logic requires a deep understanding, first of all, of its object and subject as a science, understanding the methodological role for specific type activities. In this case, not only theoretical problems are solved. Cognition

From the book Philosophical Dictionary author Comte-Sponville André

1.1. Logic as a science Logic is one of the most ancient sciences, the first teachings of which about the forms and methods of reasoning arose in the civilizations of the Ancient East (China, India). The principles and methods of logic entered Western culture mainly thanks to the efforts of ancient

From the book Logic: A Textbook for Students of Law Universities and Faculties author Ivanov Evgeniy Akimovich

Formal (Cause) (Formelle, Cause) One of the four causes formulated by Aristotle; a reason that answers the question “Why?” indicating the form. For example, why is this house standing? Because there are bricks (material reason), because someone likes to live in it (ultimate

From the book Logic for Lawyers: Textbook author Ivlev Yu. V.

Introductory section. Logic as a science Before directly proceeding to the problems of logic, it is necessary to have at least general idea about this science itself - to understand its subject, to get acquainted with the history of its origin and development up to the present day, to comprehend

From the book Logic: a textbook for law schools author Kirillov Vyacheslav Ivanovich

§ 2. FORMAL LOGIC AS A SCIENCE To define the logical form of thought and indicate ways to identify the logical forms of various thoughts, we will highlight among the expressions of natural language the terms called logical. These include conjunctions “and”, “or”, “if..., then...”,

From the book History of Marxism-Leninism. Book two (70s – 90s of the 19th century) author Team of authors

Chapter I LOGIC AS A SCIENCE § 1. ROLE OF THINKING IN COGNITION Logic is the science of the laws and forms, techniques and operations of thinking, with the help of which a person knows the world. This definition involves first of all clarifying the question formulated in the title

From the author's book

Subjective dialectics and formal logic To understand the essence of Marxist dialectical theory, as it was developed by Marx and Engels, the question of reflecting the objective dialectics of processes and things in subjective dialectics is fundamentally important

Logic can be defined as:

1) the science of the rules of thinking leading to truth;

2) objective patterns and relationships in the process of something (logic of events).

We are interested, of course, in the first meaning of this word: logic as a science. Now it is divided into two types: logic as such, or formal logic, and dialectical logic. This division arose relatively recently. For a long time, logic was understood only as what is now called formal logic, and was simply called logic.

It arose back in Ancient Greece and for many centuries it was considered the basis of knowledge and education. IN early XIX V. Hegel criticized this logic and pointed out its limitations and insufficiency from the point of view of reflecting the process of the movement of thought. He showed that such logic does not reflect the movement of the content of thought, but only the form of thought, only the static side of thinking. To compensate for this deficiency, Hegel created a new logic - dialectical, and called the one that existed before it formal. This name stuck because it truly reflected the nature of this science.

Formal means associated with form, studying it as something separate, isolated from content, as far as possible. In this respect, formal logic is similar to geometry, which is the science of forms physical bodies and is completely distracted, studying these forms, from what could be their content. Other mathematical sciences are also distracted from the content side of processes and phenomena. So there is a whole category formal sciences, and logic is one of them.

Question 2. Basic laws of logic.

There are four such laws:

1. The law of identity: every thought must be identical (equivalent) to itself, no matter how many times it is repeated in reasoning. When talking about something, we must constantly keep the same thing in mind.

It would seem very simple. But this law is violated most often. The most common mistake in this case is the substitution of concepts, as a result of which incorrect conclusions (quadrupling of terms) and evidence (substitution of the thesis) arise. This will be discussed further, in particular in the section on logical errors.

Symbolic expression of the law: A = A.

2. The law of contradiction (it is also called the law of non-contradiction): two contradictory judgments about the same subject, taken in the same relation and at the same time, cannot be simultaneously true.

The symbolic expression of this law is: A & A.

3. The law of the excluded middle: of two contradictory judgments, one is certainly true. A can be either b or b. There is no third. We will consider the important question of whether it is possible to convey contradictions by means of formal logic later in the course.

The law of excluded middle applies only:

To two single contradictory judgments.

To two judgments, one of which is generally affirmative, and the other is particularly negative:

To two judgments, one of which is generally negative, and the other is particular affirmative:

Symbolic expression of the law of the excluded middle: AvA.

4. The law of sufficient reason: every thought, in order to be true, must be proven, that is, there must be sufficient arguments in favor of its truth. In other words, for any statement we have the right to demand sufficient evidence, otherwise we may not take it into account. This law already goes beyond the formal-logical law, since it requires the correlation of thought with reality. On this basis, some authors do not consider it logical at all: “the law of sufficient reason is not a logical law,” wrote one author. “It is rather a relic of Wolffian metaphysics of the 18th century.”

A sufficient basis may include: obvious facts, facts verified by experience, laws and provisions of science confirmed by practice, axioms.

Symbolic expression of the law of sufficient reason: B -> A.

Formal logic- the science of laws and forms of thinking that has developed since the times of (see). Formal (or elementary) logic teaches you to think correctly, observing the unambiguity of thought, the consistency of thought, its certainty, evidence, and consistency. If thinking proceeds internally contradictory, discordant, inconsistent, then no scientific knowledge, no reasoned reasoning aimed at solving certain issues. ““Logical inconsistency” - provided, of course, correct logical thinking - should not exist either in economic or political analysis."

Formal logic puts forward four basic laws of thinking:

1) The thought must be unambiguous. The law of identity teaches that one must be able to correctly identify and distinguish between things, and that substituting one concept for another is unacceptable. In any reasoning, dispute, discussion, each concept must be used in the same sense.

2) Thought must flow consistently. The logical law of contradiction prohibits contradicting oneself in the process of reasoning and analysis of issues. It is necessary to distinguish the contradictions of incorrect reasoning from the contradictions of living life, dialectical contradictions. The contradictions of incorrect reasoning are unacceptable. It is impossible, for example, to speak of a proposition that is recognized as true at the same time as being incorrect.

3) To the same question, correctly posed and correctly understood, the law of the excluded middle says, it is unacceptable to answer vaguely - neither “yes” nor “no” - evading any definiteness of thought. After the necessary clarification of the question, a definite answer must always be given. Of two contradictory propositions, one is necessarily true, and the other is false, and there is nothing third, or, in other words, A is either B or not B.

4) Thought must flow consistently (the law of sufficient reason). Any thought is correct only when it is justified, when it follows as a consequence from another correct thought, which in this case serves as its basis. Therefore, thinking must be consistent. A is because B is, teaches the law of sufficient reason. So, for example, in a conversation with the first American labor delegation, when asked about the possibility of abolishing the monopoly foreign trade J.V. Stalin replied: “The delegation, apparently, has no objections to the fact that the proletariat of the USSR took away factories and factories, land and railways, banks and mines from the bourgeoisie and landowners.

But the delegation, it seems to me, is somewhat perplexed that the proletariat did not limit itself to this and went further, taking away political rights from the bourgeoisie. This, in my opinion, is not entirely logical, or rather, completely illogical... I think that logic obliges. Anyone who thinks about the possibility of returning the bourgeoisie to its political rights must, if he wants to be logical, go further and also raise the question of returning the factories and mills to the bourgeoisie, railways and banks." This example clearly shows what consistency and logic of thought means. As can be seen from the above four logical laws of thinking, formal logic puts forward as mandatory the most general and elementary patterns of thinking, the most general rules of consistency and logic of thought.

Having established the basic laws and rules of thinking, formal logic then moves on to consider the various forms in which the process of thinking takes place. Concept, judgment and inference - these are the forms of thinking that make up the three main sections of formal logic. In the section on concepts, formal logic establishes the types of concepts, their relationships, logical ways of forming concepts, the relationship between the volume and content of concepts, reveals methods and rules for defining and dividing concepts. In the section on judgments, formal logic examines the composition of a judgment, the main types of judgment, etc. In its most extensive section, formal logic gives the concept of inference, classifies the types and methods of inference, develops the doctrine of syllogisms, the rules of syllogism, the figures of syllogism, shows the meaning and role of deductive and inductive inferences in the process of cognition, etc. Finally, formal logic explores the methods and rules of evidence, reveals the role of evidence in the process of logical thinking.

From an examination of the content and tasks of formal logic it follows that it is, as it were, a grammar of logical thinking. Just like grammar, which establishes the rules for changing words, the rules for combining words into sentences and thus gives the language a harmonious, meaningful character, logic makes it possible to give thinking a harmonious, meaningful character. What is common in grammar and logic is that, abstracting from the particular and concrete, they define general rules and laws that make it possible to correctly combine words into sentences, change words (grammar), construct your thoughts correctly, skillfully combine concepts into judgments, judgments into inferences, etc. (logic).

The laws and rules of formal logic, being such laws and rules without which no cognitive process is possible, are universal, universal to mankind. Logical laws - objective laws sciences that reflect the phenomena of the objective world. Like language, they serve the thinking of all people, regardless of class. They cannot and therefore are not class-based, just as there is not and cannot be a class-based grammar. Otherwise, people belonging to different classes would not be able to understand each other. The laws and rules of formal logic are the laws and rules of the natural process of thinking. At the same time, various theories about these laws and rules of logical thinking can and do give a distorted interpretation of the laws of thinking.

Thus, idealists construct formal logic as a purely formalistic science, divorced from objective reality. Therefore, Lenin, speaking about the need to study formal logic, demanded that “amendments” be made to the old logic, that is, to free it from all sorts of distortions and idealistic layers. Formal logic is the “lower mathematics” of thinking, revealing the simplest connections and relationships of things, and in itself it is insufficient for scientific research. A powerful tool for scientific research is the Marxist dialectical method, which reveals the most general laws development of nature, society and human thinking. (For the relationship between dialectics and formal logic, see