MCQs and Answers

Science is described as a systematic body of classified knowledge obtained bv thi inductive procedure. Its characteristics are –

i) Scientific knowledge is empirical

ii) Its theories are not infallible

iii) Scientific knowledge is obtained through a dependable procedure

iv) It always remains faithful to facts.

Order in science:

Science does not explain facts at random. It systematizes the facts and formulates: theories,

Different branches of science make coherent systems and follow some order. The order that is used in science reveals its stage of development.

Four orders have been discussed in philosophy of science. They are

i) Classificatory order

ii) Causal order

iii) Mathematical order

iv) Theoretical order

A system is the result of the orderly arrangement of the laws. The constituent’s of a system are mutually compatible. Within a system some laws might have higher generality than others.

Unlike formal science, in physical science a generalisaions or theory is never f logical corollary. The process of system building in science is open-ended and is not final

Scientific method:

All branches of “science deal with different subject matter. But they aim an I systematization of facts, classification of data, generalization, discovery of exceptional regularities or laws, construction of theories etc. The scientific method is usually the same in all branches of physical science.

Scientific explanation:

Scientific explanation is systematic, methodical, objective and unified; it is different from teleological or purposive explanation.

A scientific explanation is in accordance with the scientific procedure which includes some well defined steps.

Nagel brings out four kinds of explanations. They are-

i) Deductive-model explanation

ii) Probabilistic explanation

iii) Functional explanation

iv) Genetic explanation

Scientific explanation has some limitations. Where scientific explanation is not possible, there is no other explanation to be followed.

Literally colligation means to bind together. Colligation of facts means the binding together or the mental union of a set of observed facts by means of a suitable notion.

It is the application of a suitable idea or notion to a number of actually observed phenomena.

According to Mill’s definition colligation of facts is the mental operation, which enables us to bring a number of actually observed phenomena under a description, or which enables us to sum up a number of details in a single proposition.

A passer-by accidentally comes to a building without knowing whether it is an academic institution, an administrative building or a private house. He enters into the building and finds class rooms, laboratories, library, Principal’s chamber, teacher’s common room etc.

He colligates these facts and brings them under the Idea College or educational institute. For the word college is suitably applicable to his observed phenomena. This can be presented by the following symbolic example-

S has the properties P., P₂, Pi and P₄

Whatever has the properties Pi, P₂, P3 and P₄ is P.

S is p

So far the characteristics of colligation of facts are concerned we find that it is the process of forming a concept. It establishes a notion but not a proposition. It can also be taken as an illustration of classification. For just as in classification there is mental grouping of facts so also in colligation of facts there is mental grouping of facts under some suitable idea.

Of course the observed phenomena may be expressed by a singular proposition; the building runs an educational institution in the above example. But in spite of that here the mental grouping is concerned only with one notion i.e. educational institution. Colligation of facts is based on observation of facts. Without observing facts, these cannot be brought under any idea.

There is no question of inductive leap here. We do not pass from certain observed facts to unobserved facts. Further from the symbolic example stated above, it appears that colligation of facts is more deductive than inductive in nature. The logic form of reasoning in colligation of facts is-

Whatever has the properties P,, P₂, Pi and P₄ is P

S has the properties P|, P₂, P3 and P₄

S is P

The above example shows that it is a kind of deduction. But the argument’ not purely formalistic in nature because the minor premise is based on observation of facts.

Unless something is empirically observed it cannot be classified under a suit able notion. So colligation of facts may be expressed in form of a deductive argument, but it cannot do away with observation unlike that of deduction where there is no appeal to facts.

The question of the law of causation or the law of uniformity of nature does not arise in case of colligation of facts. As different facts are observed and brought under a notion this process has nothing to do with the law of causation or the law of uniformity of nature.

It is a mental union of facts. But it does not explain facts unlike that of scientific induction. It simply brings a set of observed phenomena under some notion. It is like a process of classification but not an explanation of facts.

There is a good deal of controversy over the issue whether colligation of facts be considered as induction or not. William Whewell holds that colligation is the same as induction.

According to him induction makes a discovery and in colligation we also proceed in that direction of innovating phenomena. Further in induction there is also binding together of facts under a general concept. We observe instances of whales and find them to be mammals.

Then we bring the observed phenomena under the complex idea of mammalianness of whales. Because of these important resemblances between induction and colligation Whewell treats colligation of facts as the same as induction.

But J. S. Mill presents altogether a different view. He does not accept colligation of facts as an induction. According to Mill colligation should not be treated as induction. For there is no inference or establishment of a proposition in the conclusion.

Further simply binding together of facts under a suitable notion or describing those by help of an idea do not explain the facts. But in induction facts are explained scientifically for generalization. Hence Mill treats colligation as something subsidiary to induction but not proper induction.

The difference between Whewell and Mill over the issue is due to their difference with regard to the nature of induction. While Whewell regards induction as a matter of discovery Mill considers induction as a matter of proof. Further while Whewell gives more stress on the importance of hypothesis in induction Mill adds more stress on the importance of causal explanation in induction.

Because of these differences they treat colligation of facts from different angles. But it should be mentioned that all processes which colligate facts are not necessarily induction. For there are different areas like classification, description, definition etc. where facts are colligated, but they are not considered as induction.

So Whewell’s contention is not correct. Similarly though Mill does not consider colligation of facts as an induction he does it because of his overemphasis on proof of the conclusion and ascertainment of a causal relation. Mill’s contention that a causal connection is proved by the experimental methods is not correct.

All inductions do not aim at causal connection, nor is a causal connection proved in induction. So Mill’s denial of inductive status to colligation of facts is not on proper ground.

Thus colligation of facts is not induction for it does not possess the essential characteristics of induction. But non-the-less it has great importance so far formation of concepts is concerned. For forming an appropriate concept is a great exercise in intellectual discourse.

Fallacy means error in reasoning. Every inference involves some reasoning whether good or bad. Logic distinguishes good reasoning from bad reasoning. Logic also analyses the processes and principles governing all inferences. It lays bare the principles of valid inference.

Some logicians use the term fallacy in a wide sense to cover all errors that arise in logical discourses. Sometimes the term fallacy is used in a restricted sense to stand for erroneous inferences only.

It is not possible to classify and name all fallacies in an exhaustive way. Truth and validity may have their criteria but error and fallacy will have no limit. Fallacy has been discussed to guard against the logical errors either in inference or in other areas of logical discourse. Some fallacies are of very common occurrences and some are technical and fall under distinct types.

It has been customary to classify fallacies into two broad areas like deductive fallacy and inductive fallacy. Deductive fallacies are the logical errors, ambiguities or confusions which occur in respect of the subject matter of Deductive Logic about which we shall not be concerned here. But we shall discuss some important types of inductive fallacies that occur in respect of Inductive Logic. Further inductive fallacies, like the deductive ones, are classed as inferential, non-inferential and extra-logical.

The important types of non- inferential fallacies arise due to the violation of the rules or procedures connected with observation, hypothesis, explanation, classification etc. Such fallacies have been dealt with in their concerned sections and we shall not repeat them here.

Inferential fallacies arise when the rules of inductive inference are violated. They occur in the areas of causation, generalization and analogy. Extra-logical fallacies occur due to undue assumption of the premises, erroneous apprehension of the relation between the premises and conclusion etc. Petitio principii, ignoratio elenchi, fallacy of undue assumption is very common extra-logical fallacies. We shall discuss these fallacies and omit those which have already been discussed in different sections.

Inferential inductive fallacies arise when the rules of induction are violated. We have discussed three important types of induction like scientific induction, induction per simple enumeration and analogy.

Each of them is governed by certain rules. If any rule is violated there will arise some fallacy. Corresponding to these forms of induction there are fallacies of causation, illicit generalization and bad analogy.

A. Fallacies of Causation:

Cause, we have discussed, is the sum total of all conditions, positive and negative, taken together. Scientifically cause is also the invariable, unconditional and immediate antecedent from the qualitative point of view. When an unscientific view of cause is taken there arises the fallacy of causation. There are various kinds of causal fallacies. We shall discuss some important kinds.

i. Post hoc ergo propter hoc:

Cause is an invariable antecedent but to take any antecedent of a phenomenon as the cause will give rise to the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. It literally means, ‘after this, therefore because of this’. B occurred after A, therefore B must have occurred because of A.

To think in this way is to commit this fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Any antecedent is not the cause of a phenomenon for it does not confirm to the condition of invariability or unconditionally. This fallacy is the source of many suppositions because here no distinction is mode between variable and invariable antecedents.

Someone saw a dead body while going to his business establishment. On that day he incurred some loss in business. If he thinks that his loss is due to his coming across a dead body he commits this fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Or suppose a comet appeared and after two days a national leader died. If the appearance of the comet is considered to be the cause of death of the leader there will arise this fallacy.

ii. Fallacy of mistaking a condition to be the whole cause:

The cause is the sum total of positive and negative conditions. If one condition is exclusively taken as the whole cause of the phenomenon, this fallacy will arise.

For example, a student failed in the examination. If stiff valuation is considered to be the cause of his failure the reasoning will be fallacious. Because other conditions like his negligence in studies, insincerity in attending his classes, lack of intelligence etc. are omitted.

Similarly if we say that tribals are poor because they live in villages we commit this fallacy. Here we concentrate on one condition and ignore other conditions like lack of opportunity, exposure, education, social awareness etc. This fallacy is a very common one in practical life.

iii. Fallacy of non-causa pro-causa:

It means taking any circumstance to be the cause, which is not really the cause. It is like taking a false cause to be the cause. Aristotle illustrated this fallacy in the form of reduction and impossible. Here the conclusion is something absurd and such absurdity lies in the very assumption of the premise itself.

Aristotle’s introduction of this fallacy was not considered to be an inductive fallacy. But in modern logic this fallacy is used in a generic sense to connote any causal fallacy. Any fallacy arising in the sphere of causal inquiry is termed as non-causa pro-causa.

iv. Fallacy of ignoring the negative condition:

A cause is constituted by positive and negative conditions. The effect follows when the positive conditions are present and negative conditions are absent. But sometimes negative conditions are ignored and full emphasis is given upon a positive condition. Hard working is meaningless as many hard working people are deprived of the basic requirements of life. Here we are ignoring the negative conditions like exploitation, unfavorable social situation, lack of scope etc.

v. Fallacy of mistaking a remote condition to be the cause

The cause is the unconditional and immediate antecedent. If a remote cause is considered as the cause of the phenomenon under consideration, there arises this fallacy. An antecedent that happened in the remote past cannot be the cause of the effect that takes place at present.

For example, a person’s committing a crime at young age is attributed to his uncared childhood. A person might have been uncared in his childhood, but there are other intervening conditions without which he would not have committed a crime at the young age.

vi. Fallacy of supposing the co-effects of a cause as cause and effect.

Different effects might follow from a single cause. If we regard one of the co-effects as the cause of the other effect, we commit this fallacy

Day and night are so related that one follows the other. When we find them to be occurring successively the preceding co-effect is considered to be the cause of the succeeding co-effect. That means day is regarded to be the cause of night and night is regarded as the cause of the day. But day and night are not causally related, i.e. one is not the cause of the other.

On the contrary they are the co-effects of a common cause such as rotation of the earth round the sun and its own axis. Similarly suppose a person suffers from high temperature and vomiting. May be they are the co-effects of some other cause and one is not the cause of the other. But to take one symptom to be the cause of the other symptom is to commit this fallacy.

vii. Fallacy of supposing the effect to be the cause and the cause to be the effect

If we take a cause to be the effect and the effect to be the cause, we commit this fallacy

Sometimes a person’s recognition is considered to be the cause of his achievement. But his achievement is the cause of his recognition. When cause and effect are confused and reversed this fallacy is committed.

B. Fallacy of illicit Generalization

This fallacy is committed when we wrongly generalize only observing a few instances. Induction per simple enumeration is based on uncontradictoriness of our experience.

The probability of the conclusion depends on the number of positive in­stances. But hasty generalization on observation of a few instances or some stray cases leads to this fallacy of illicit generalization. That means when generalization is made by observing a few cases in a very limited sphere there is the possibility of committing the fallacy of illicit generalization.

A person has seen cows in his village to be white. If he generalizes that all cows are white, there is illicit generalization. Or suppose a man comes in contact with a few persons who are otherdox and put on saffron dresses. So he generalizes that all otherdox people wear saffron dresses. This is another example of illicit generalization.

C. Fallacy of False Analogy

Analogy is a kind of probable inference based on similarity. It is an inference from one particular to another based on their resemblance. In a false or bad analogy the points of difference and dissimilarity are more in number and importance.

In a bad analogy there is no relevant link between the data of comparison and the point that is inferred. For example, two persons come from the same village and belong to the same age group. One of them is an engineer. If we infer that the other person is also an engineer, it will be a case of false analogy.

Fallacy of false analogy, otherwise called bad analogy, has been discussed in the contexts of bad analogy and uniformity of nature.

Fallacy of petitio principii, undue assumption and ignoratio elenchi are included under extra-logical fallacies. Petitio principii means assuming the very point that is required to be proved.

It is like arguing in a circle, so it is also called begging the question. What is intended to be proved is introduced into the premise. Suppose one argues that the earth revolves around the sun, because all known planets revolve around the sun.

Here the conclusion is assumed in the very premise “all known planets move around the sun” which is an enumerative universal. Thus when the conclusion is assumed in the premise, there arises the fallacy of petitio principii. This concept has been discussed in the context of uniformity of nature in little detail.

The fallacy of undue assumption arises when the premises are wrongly assumed. If the premise is false, then it’s very assumption will lead to a wrong conclusion.

Fallacy of petitio principii also comes under this fallacy. Fallacy of undue assumption admits different forms. Its very common form is the assumption of a wrong premise. Most of the . Metaphysical speculations are based on this fallacy.

Matter is unreal, the world does not exist, motion is impossible are metaphysical assertions. These metaphysical assertions are drawn from undue assumptions of the metaphysicians. A wrong assumption or premise gives rise to a bizarre conclusion.

Various advantages of the gold standard are discussed as under:

1. Simplicity:

Gold standard is considered to be a very simple monetary standard. It avoids the com­plicacies of other standards and can be easily understood by the general public.

2. Public Confidence:

Gold standard promotes public confidence because (a) gold is universely desired because of its intrinsic value, (b) all kinds of no-gold money (paper money, token coins, etc.) are convertible into gold, and (c) total volume of currency in the country is directly related to the volume of gold and there is no danger of over-issue currency.

3. Automatic Working:

Under gold standard, the monetary system functions automatically and requires no interference of the government. Given the relationship between gold and quantity of money, changes in gold reserves automatically lead to corresponding changes in the supply of money.

Thus, the disequilibrium conditions of adverse or favourable balance of payment on the international level or of inflation or deflation on the domestic level are automatically corrected.

4. Price Stability:

Gold standard ensures internal price stability. Under this monetary system, gold forms the currency base and the prices of gold do not fluctuate much because of the stability in the monetary gold stock of the world and also because the annual production of gold is only a small fraction of world’s total existing stock of monetary gold.

Thus, the price system which is founded on relatively stable gold base will be more or less stable than under any other monetary standard.

5. Exchange Stability:

Gold standard ensures stability in the rate of exchange between countries. Stability of exchange rate is necessary for the development of international trade and the smooth flow of capital movements among countries. Fluctuations in the exchange rate adversely affect the foreign trade.