Logical form in the context of "Deductive reasoning"

Reason is the capacity of consciously applying logic by drawing valid conclusions from new or existing information, with the aim of seeking truth. It is associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, religion, science, language, and mathematics, and is normally considered to be a distinguishing ability possessed by humans. Reason is sometimes referred to as rationality, although the latter is more about its application.

Reasoning involves using more-or-less rational processes of thinking and cognition to extrapolate from one's existing knowledge to generate new knowledge, and involves the use of one's intellect. The field of logic studies the ways in which humans can use formal reasoning to produce logically valid arguments and true conclusions. Reasoning may be subdivided into forms of logical reasoning, such as deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and abductive reasoning.

In logic, specifically in deductive reasoning, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. It is not required for a valid argument to have premises that are actually true, but to have premises that, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the argument's conclusion. Valid arguments must be clearly expressed by means of sentences called well-formed formulas (also called wffs or simply formulas).

The validity of an argument can be tested, proved or disproved, and depends on its logical form.

Rules of inference are ways of deriving conclusions from premises. They are integral parts of formal logic, serving as norms of the logical structure of valid arguments. If an argument with true premises follows a rule of inference then the conclusion cannot be false. Modus ponens, an influential rule of inference, connects two premises of the form "if ${\displaystyle P}$ then ${\displaystyle Q}$" and "${\displaystyle P}$" to the conclusion "${\displaystyle Q}$", as in the argument "If it rains, then the ground is wet. It rains. Therefore, the ground is wet." There are many other rules of inference for different patterns of valid arguments, such as modus tollens, disjunctive syllogism, constructive dilemma, and existential generalization.

Rules of inference include rules of implication, which operate only in one direction from premises to conclusions, and rules of replacement, which state that two expressions are equivalent and can be freely swapped. Rules of inference contrast with formal fallacies—invalid argument forms involving logical errors.

In propositional logic, modus tollens (/ˈmoʊdəs ˈtɒlɛnz/) (MT), also known as modus tollendo tollens (Latin for "mode that by denying denies") and denying the consequent, is a deductive argument form and a rule of inference. Modus tollens is a mixed hypothetical syllogism that takes the form of "If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P." It is an application of the general truth that if a statement is true, then so is its contrapositive. The form shows that inference from P implies Q to the negation of Q implies the negation of P is a valid argument.

The history of the inference rule modus tollens goes back to antiquity. The first to explicitly describe the argument form modus tollens was Theophrastus.

In logic and philosophy, a formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning with a flaw in its logical structure (the logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion). In other words:

• It is a pattern of reasoning in which the conclusion may not be true even if all the premises are true.
• It is a pattern of reasoning in which the premises do not entail the conclusion.
• It is a pattern of reasoning that is invalid.
• It is a fallacy in which deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process.

A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy which may have a valid logical form and yet be unsound because one or more premises are false. A formal fallacy, however, may have a true premise, but a false conclusion. The term 'logical fallacy' is sometimes used in everyday conversation, and refers to a formal fallacy.

Verificationism, also known as the verification principle or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is a doctrine in philosophy and the philosophy of language which holds that a declarative sentence is cognitively meaningful only if it is either analytic or tautological (true or false in virtue of its logical form and definitions) or at least in principle verifiable by experience. On this view, many traditional statements of metaphysics, theology, and some of ethics and aesthetics are said to lack truth value or factual content, even though they may still function as expressions of emotions or attitudes rather than as genuine assertions. Verificationism was typically formulated as an empiricist criterion of cognitive significance: a proposed test for distinguishing meaningful, truth-apt sentences from "nonsense".

As a self-conscious movement, verificationism was a central thesis of logical positivism (or logical empiricism), developed in the 1920s and 1930s by members of the Vienna Circle and their allies in early analytic philosophy. Drawing on earlier empiricism and positivism (especially David Hume, Auguste Comte and Ernst Mach), on pragmatism (notably C. S. Peirce and William James), and on the logical and semantic innovations of Gottlob Frege and the early Wittgenstein, these philosophers sought a "scientific" conception of philosophy in which meaningful discourse would either consist in empirical claims ultimately testable by observation or in analytic truths of logic and mathematics. The verification principle was intended to explain why many traditional metaphysical disputes seemed irresolvable, to demarcate science from pseudo-science and speculative metaphysics, and to vindicate the special status of the natural sciences by taking empirical testability as the paradigm of serious inquiry.

Formal semantics is the scientific study of linguistic meaning through formal tools from logic and mathematics. It is an interdisciplinary field, sometimes regarded as a subfield of both linguistics and philosophy of language. Formal semanticists rely on diverse methods to analyze natural language. Many examine the meaning of a sentence by studying the circumstances in which it would be true. They describe these circumstances using abstract mathematical models to represent entities and their features. The principle of compositionality helps them link the meaning of expressions to abstract objects in these models. This principle asserts that the meaning of a compound expression is determined by the meanings of its parts.

Propositional and predicate logic are formal systems used to analyze the semantic structure of sentences. They introduce concepts like singular terms, predicates, quantifiers, and logical connectives to represent the logical form of natural language expressions. Type theory is another approach utilized to describe sentences as nested functions with precisely defined input and output types. Various theoretical frameworks build on these systems. Possible world semantics and situation semantics evaluate truth across different hypothetical scenarios. Dynamic semantics analyzes the meaning of a sentence as the information contribution it makes.