Logic

In describing Formal Logic, I asserted that it is not concerned with truth. That can sound really confusing...how can an idea be logical if it is not true. Well, the "FORM" of the argument can be sound. For example:

All men are slobs.

Joe is a man. Therefore, Joe is a slob.

That, my friends, is a sound logical argument.

All men are slobs.

Rita is not a man. Therefore, Rita is not a slob.

That is NOT a sound logical argument. Non sequitur.

Regardless of the truth of the first assertion that "all men are slobs," one argument follows logically while the other does not. The job of Formal Logic is simply to recognize and point out these type of fallacies.

Material Logic, on the other hand, begins with evaluating the truth of the original assumption, and only analyzes the validity of the argument after establishing the truth of the statements involved. Can it be proven as true that all men are slobs? If so, we proceed to evaluate the form. If not, it has failed on the basis of its content.

Make sense?