⇒ Download Gratis Logic deductive and inductive Carveth Read 9781177685696 Books

Logic deductive and inductive Carveth Read 9781177685696 Books

Download As PDF : Logic deductive and inductive Carveth Read 9781177685696 Books

This is a reproduction of a book published before 1923. This book may have occasional imperfections such as missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. that were either part of the original artifact, or were introduced by the scanning process. We believe this work is culturally important, and despite the imperfections, have elected to bring it back into print as part of our continuing commitment to the preservation of printed works worldwide. We appreciate your understanding of the imperfections in the preservation process, and hope you enjoy this valuable book.

Logic deductive and inductive Carveth Read 9781177685696 Books

This book was first published in 1898, this eBook is the fourth edition which was first published in 1920. This book is in the public domain and can be downloaded for free from several websites.

This Kindle-edition has 6440 locations (this is app. 404 pages), and has an active tabel of contents at the beginning of the book.

You don't need any previous knowledge of Philosophy or Logic to be able to read this book, but that doesn't mean that this is an easy read: I found this book to be quite challenging, but worth the effort. If you want to know more about Logic, reasoning or philosophy, you'll find this to be a great book. Also if you do have previous knowledge of the subject, you'll probably will find this book to be informative. This book describes the subject of logic in depth and in detail.

Contents:

PREFACE
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY
CHAPTER II GENERAL ANALYSIS OF PROPOSITIONS
CHAPTER III OF TERMS AND THEIR DENOTATION
CHAPTER IV THE CONNOTATION OF TERMS
CHAPTER V CLASSIFICATION OF PROPOSITIONS
CHAPTER VI CONDITIONS OF IMMEDIATE INFERENCE
CHAPTER VII IMMEDIATE INFERENCES
CHAPTER VIII RDER OF TERMS, EULER'S DIAGRAMS, LOGICAL EQUATIONS,
EXISTENTIAL IMPORT OF PROPOSITIONS
CHAPTER IX FORMAL CONDITIONS OF MEDIATE INFERENCE
CHAPTER X CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS
CHAPTER XI ABBREVIATED AND COMPOUND ARGUMENTS
CHAPTER XII CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISMS
CHAPTER XIII TRANSITION TO INDUCTION
CHAPTER XIV CAUSATION
CHAPTER XV NDUCTIVE METHOD
CHAPTER XVI THE CANONS OF DIRECT INDUCTION
CHAPTER XVII COMBINATION OF INDUCTION WITH DEDUCTION
CHAPTER XVIII HYPOTHESES
CHAPTER XIX LAWS CLASSIFIED; EXPLANATION; CO-EXISTENCE; ANALOGY
CHAPTER XX PROBABILITY
CHAPTER XXI DIVISION AND CLASSIFICATION
CHAPTER XXII NOMENCLATURE, DEFINITION, PREDICABLES
CHAPTER XXIII DEFINITION OF COMMON TERMS
CHAPTER XXIV FALLACIES
QUESTIONS

As a sample I copy the first bit of the first chapter below:

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTORY

§ 1. Logic is the science that explains what conditions must be
fulfilled in order that a proposition may be proved, if it admits of
proof. Not, indeed, every such proposition; for as to those that declare
the equality or inequality of numbers or other magnitudes, to explain
the conditions of their proof belongs to Mathematics: they are said to
be _quantitative_. But as to all other propositions, called
_qualitative_, like most of those that we meet with in conversation, in
literature, in politics, and even in sciences so far as they are not
treated mathematically (say, Botany and Psychology); propositions that
merely tell us that something happens (as that _salt dissolves in
water_), or that something has a certain property (as that _ice is
cold_): as to these, it belongs to Logic to show how we may judge
whether they are true, or false, or doubtful. When propositions are
expressed with the universality and definiteness that belong to
scientific statements, they are called laws; and laws, so far as they
are not laws of quantity, are tested by the principles of Logic, if they
at all admit of proof.
[...]

Product details Paperback 412 pages Publisher Nabu Press (August 24, 2010) Language English ISBN-10 1177685698

Tags : Logic, deductive and inductive [Carveth Read] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. This is a reproduction of a book published before 1923. This book may have occasional imperfections such as missing or blurred pages,Carveth Read,Logic, deductive and inductive,Nabu Press,1177685698,General,HISTORY General,History,History - General History,History of Ideas & Popular Philosophy,Philosophy,Philosophy General
People also read other books :

• Bloodbreeders The Revenge eBook Robin Renee Ray Rebel Angel Designs Jeanette Ratajczyk
• My Name is Ayla Phetra H Novak 9781546420682 Books
• The Erotic Education of Ceri The Diamara Sapphire Saga Level One edition by Ashera Alba Literature Fiction eBooks
• Confessions of a PUA Advanced Techniques and Analysis Vol 1 Andre 'Demise' Hines 9780615349596 Books
• Running From the Past eBook Alan Orloff

Logic deductive and inductive Carveth Read 9781177685696 Books Reviews

This will teach you how to avoid bad arguments and make strong ones. Too many people havent a clue what inductive and deductive mean.
Interesting read and it's available for free. You just can't go wrong.
Logic Deductive and Inductive" by Carveth Read
Book review by William Springer

"Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy
("a priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises)

" ' How is the dictionary getting on?' Said Winston, raising his voice to overcome the noise.
'Slowly,' said Syme. "I'm on the adjectives. It's fascinating.'
He had brightened up immediately at the mention of Newspeak ...
'The Eleventh Edition is the definitive edition,' he said. ' We're getting the language into its final shape -- the shape it's going to have when nobody speaks anything else. When we've finished with it, people like you will have to learn it all over again. You think, I dare say, that our chief job is inventing new words. But not a bit of it! We're destroying words -- scores of them, hundreds of them, every day. We're cutting the language down to the bone. The Eleventh Edition won't contain a singe word that will become obsolete before the year 2050 ...
'It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words' ...
'Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.' "
- George Orwell, 1984

This book, "Logic Deductive and Inductive" by Carveth Read, comes up #1 on an search under the subject of "logic" because it is perfect for confusing and discouraging the reader. It's ambiguous, painfully pedantic, and deceptively incomplete. You simply will not get a straight answer from this book on how to use formal logic to understand the real world. That's not what it is designed to do. You see, formal logic hasn't been taught in State controlled public schools in the U.S. for more than a century for a reason ("The Underground History of American Education" by John Gatto).

The first law of formal logic is that sound or cogent (logical) arguments must only be inferred from premises which are sufficiently supported by verifiable evidence to prove that they are true.

The second law is that sound or cogent arguments must properly consider all of the known relevant evidence (i.e., the logical fallacy of suppressed evidence).

You will not find these a priori laws coherently or honestly explained in this book. (I didn't find the logical fallacy of suppressed evidence at all in this book.)

Here's a particularly misleading passage from the book that demonstrates this

"(1) Evidence consists of (1) observation; (2) reasoning checked by observation and by logical principles; (3) memory—often inaccurate; (4) testimony—often untrustworthy, but indispensable, since all we learn from books or from other men is taken on testimony; (5) the agreement all our results." -"Logic Deductive and Inductive" by Carveth Read, Loc 149

Could this passage possubly be more ambiguous and confusing? Does this passage explain evidence in a way that anyone can understand? This is pretty important stuff. (The best definition of evidence that I have ever found is this "anything that proves a fact.") The author advises us that human testimony as evidence is "indispensable, since all we learn from books or from other men is taken on testimony", and yet he never explains that authority figures are obliged to present sound or cogent arguments (and sufficient verifiable evidence) just like everyone else. But then again, he never properly defines what a sound or cogent argument is.

Here's how Aristotle explained it in the fourth century B.C.

"We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is".
-Aristotle, Posterior Analytics

"We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts."
-Aristotle, Rhetoric

"The truth or falsity of a statement depends on facts, not on any power on the part of the statement itself of admitting contrary qualities". - Aristotle, Categories

"Similarly with any other art or science. Consequently, if the attributes of the thing are apprehended, our business will then be to exhibit readily the demonstration. For if none of the true attributes of things had been omitted in the historical survey, we should be able to discover the proof and demonstrate everything which admitted of proof, and to make that clear , whose nature does not admit of proof".
- Aristotle, Prior Analytics

Here are a few quotes from some noted logicians on the subjects of supporting evidence and appealing to authority that directly support and are very relevant to my argument

"Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently."
-Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 1976, second edition

"The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation ttho which the argument pertains."
-Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 1985

"Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy

"The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded."
-John Stuart Mill, A System of LogIc

"This is the argumentum ad verecundiam. It consists in making an appeal to authority rather than reason, and in using such an authority as may suit the degree of knowledge possessed by your opponent.
Every man prefers belief to the exercise of judgment, says Seneca; and it is therefore an easy matter if you have an authority on your side which your opponent respects. The more limited his capacity and knowledge, the greater is the number of authorities who weigh with him. But if his capacity and knowledge are of a high order, there are very few; indeed, hardly any at all. He may, perhaps, admit the authority of professional men versed in science or an art or a handicraft of which he knows little or nothing; but even so he will regard it with suspicion. Contrarily, ordinary folk have a deep respect for professional men of every kind. They are unaware that a man who makes a profession of a thing loves it not for the thing itself, but for the money he makes by it; or that it is rare for a man who teaches to know his subject thoroughly; for if he studies it as he ought, he has in most cases no time left in which to teach it...
There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted. Example effects their thought just as it affects their action. They are like sheep following the bell-wether just as he leads them. They will sooner die than think. It is very curious that the universality of an opinion should have so much weight with people, as their own experience might tell them that it's acceptance is an entirely thoughtless and merely imitative process. But it tells them nothing of the kind, because they possess no self-knowledge whatever...
When we come to look into the matter, so-called universal opinion is the opinion of two or three persons; and we should be persuaded of this if we could see the way in which it really arises.
We should find that it is two or three persons who, in the first instance, accepted it, or advanced and maintained it; and of whom people were so good as to believe that they had thoroughly tested it. Then a few other persons, persuaded beforehand that the first were men of the requisite capacity, also accepted the opinion. These, again, were trusted by many others, whose laziness suggested to them that it was better to believe at once, than to go through the troublesome task of testing the matter for themselves. Thus the number of these lazy and credulous adherents grew from day to day; for the opinion had no sooner obtained a fair measure of support than its further supporters attributed this to the fact that the opinion could only have obtained it by the cogency of its arguments. The remainder were then compelled to grant what was universally granted, so as not to pass for unruly persons who resisted opinions which everyone accepted, or pert fellows who thought themselves cleverer than any one else.
When opinion reaches this stage, adhesion becomes a duty; and henceforward the few who are capable of forming a judgment hold their peace. Those who venture to speak are such as are entirely incapable of forming any opinion or any judgment of their own being merely the echo of others' opinions; and, nevertheless, they defend them with all the greater zeal and intolerance. For what they hate in people who think differently is not so much the different opinions which they profess, as the presumption of wanting to form their own judgment; a presumption of which they themselves are never guilty, as they are very well aware. In short, there are very few who can think, but every man wants to have an opinion; and what remains but to take it ready-made from others, instead of forming opinions for himself?
Since this is what happens, where is the value of the opinion even of a hundred millions? It is no more established than an historical fact reported by a hundred chroniclers who can be proved to have plagiarized it from one another; the opinion in the end being traceable to a single individual."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy
I had to take a philosophy class and learn how to deductive and inductively reason. This is a free book and very easy to read. Packed with a lot of information.
The book is written in such a manner that it does not flow for the reader. It reads like a technical manual for concepts of the mind. In my opinion, that is a bad combination. Very difficult to synergize with anything the author attempts to express. Made each page flip feel like your fingers were snapping under a ton of word weight.
Very useful, accurate, and universally applicable discussion of the architecture of a logical argument. It discusses the inductive or bottom-up (evidence to conclusion) approach and the deductive or top-down (concept testing based on supporting argument) as well as many relevant logical topics. Useful if you are writing a term paper, thesis, dissertation, etc. or just daily philosophical discussion or exercise.
I enjoyed reading this book, the author spoke very concisely which is very hard in a book on things that are naturally very hard to grasp. I would not recommend this book to people who have not read a dictionary for fun ), that's my only complaint, that the author uses a very large vocabulary. Which is not bad for everyone and is an advantage for some, but overall I enjoyed this book and would recommend it if you are looking to rethink how you think deductively and inductively.
This book was first published in 1898, this eBook is the fourth edition which was first published in 1920. This book is in the public domain and can be downloaded for free from several websites.

This -edition has 6440 locations (this is app. 404 pages), and has an active tabel of contents at the beginning of the book.

You don't need any previous knowledge of Philosophy or Logic to be able to read this book, but that doesn't mean that this is an easy read I found this book to be quite challenging, but worth the effort. If you want to know more about Logic, reasoning or philosophy, you'll find this to be a great book. Also if you do have previous knowledge of the subject, you'll probably will find this book to be informative. This book describes the subject of logic in depth and in detail.

Contents

PREFACE
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY
CHAPTER II GENERAL ANALYSIS OF PROPOSITIONS
CHAPTER III OF TERMS AND THEIR DENOTATION
CHAPTER IV THE CONNOTATION OF TERMS
CHAPTER V CLASSIFICATION OF PROPOSITIONS
CHAPTER VI CONDITIONS OF IMMEDIATE INFERENCE
CHAPTER VII IMMEDIATE INFERENCES
CHAPTER VIII RDER OF TERMS, EULER'S DIAGRAMS, LOGICAL EQUATIONS,
EXISTENTIAL IMPORT OF PROPOSITIONS
CHAPTER IX FORMAL CONDITIONS OF MEDIATE INFERENCE
CHAPTER X CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS
CHAPTER XI ABBREVIATED AND COMPOUND ARGUMENTS
CHAPTER XII CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISMS
CHAPTER XIII TRANSITION TO INDUCTION
CHAPTER XIV CAUSATION
CHAPTER XV NDUCTIVE METHOD
CHAPTER XVI THE CANONS OF DIRECT INDUCTION
CHAPTER XVII COMBINATION OF INDUCTION WITH DEDUCTION
CHAPTER XVIII HYPOTHESES
CHAPTER XIX LAWS CLASSIFIED; EXPLANATION; CO-EXISTENCE; ANALOGY
CHAPTER XX PROBABILITY
CHAPTER XXI DIVISION AND CLASSIFICATION
CHAPTER XXII NOMENCLATURE, DEFINITION, PREDICABLES
CHAPTER XXIII DEFINITION OF COMMON TERMS
CHAPTER XXIV FALLACIES
QUESTIONS

As a sample I copy the first bit of the first chapter below

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTORY

§ 1. Logic is the science that explains what conditions must be
fulfilled in order that a proposition may be proved, if it admits of
proof. Not, indeed, every such proposition; for as to those that declare
the equality or inequality of numbers or other magnitudes, to explain
the conditions of their proof belongs to Mathematics they are said to
be _quantitative_. But as to all other propositions, called
_qualitative_, like most of those that we meet with in conversation, in
literature, in politics, and even in sciences so far as they are not
treated mathematically (say, Botany and Psychology); propositions that
merely tell us that something happens (as that _salt dissolves in
water_), or that something has a certain property (as that _ice is
cold_) as to these, it belongs to Logic to show how we may judge
whether they are true, or false, or doubtful. When propositions are
expressed with the universality and definiteness that belong to
scientific statements, they are called laws; and laws, so far as they
are not laws of quantity, are tested by the principles of Logic, if they
at all admit of proof.
[...]