LOGIC AND RATIONAL BEHAVIOUR

LOGIC AND RATIONAL BEHAVIOUR

Paper assignment on Semantics, lectured by Drs. Suwono, Ph.D

Eka Sugeng Ariadi

Kemenag Class 2015 – NIM. 157835408

The State University of Surabaya

I.    INTRODUCTION

Semantics primary focuses on the study of word meaning and the relationship when it is applied in a sentence. Wittgenstein (2009) state that “They concern many subjects: the concepts of meaning, of understanding, of a proposition and sentence, of logic, the foundations of mathematics, states of consciousness, and other things” (p. 3). Due to the insisted topic about logic and rational behavior, the writer has to explore further about it clearly. The words logic and rational were debatable long time years ago, especially between scientists and mathematics experts. Niels Bohr ever said to Albert Einstein, “You are not thinking. You are merely being logical.” Recently, these words are not the same. 

Related to logic, Hurford, Heasley, and Smith (2007) define that logic concern with meanings and propositions. They also explain the connection between logic (even in our narrow sense) and rational action. In terms of language used by the speakers, knowing proper meaning under certain context is necessary to identify whether it is true or false (Farah, 2013).

In this paper, to extend the main topics related to logic and rational behavior, they will be divided into various subtopics; logic and logical contribution, proposition and propositional logic, logical contradiction, analytic and synthetic sentence, and rational behavior and its procedure. Brief explanation of each subtopic is being portrayed prior to the main discussion. Afterwards, the discussion finding assures the readers that that there is a significant relation between logic and rational behavior.

II.  LITERATURE REVIEW

A.   Logic and Logical Contribution

People have different ideas if they talk about logic as this word has different meaning and interpretation. For instance, ‘Logically, Andi always wear raincoat this month’, meaning that Andi has proper reasons for doing what he did. In this paper, a narrower sense is used in order to get familiar with the semanticists notion. The terms ‘logic’ and ‘logical’ do not apply directly to utterances (which are instances of behavior). (Hurford et al., 2007, p. 142)

Logical contribution means the contribution of logic to reveal some meanings on particular expressions. Stanley (2000, p. 391) states that “Alternatively, one might want to replace natural language by a notation which explicitly reveals the hidden contribution of logical expressions, such as the language of the predicate calculus.”

B.   Proposition and Propositional Logic

Proposition in Semantics has an urgent position, due to its role in constructing the meaning of an utterance or a sentence to paint some affairs. “A proposition is the abstract meaning of a declarative sentence, when that sentence is used to make an assertion” (Hurford et al., 2007, p. 24).

Additionally, proposition in logic is regarded to state the sentence whether it is true or false. In other words, “Propositional logic is the study of how simple propositions can come together to make more compound propositions. However, form compound propositions by using logical connectives (logical operators) to form propositional “molecules” (Yauri, Kadir, Azman, & Murad., 2013, p. 4496). Compound proposition itself can be stated as logical form, which assist the interpreters to get the meanings. Ogden and Richards (1923, p. 68) state that, “What are usually called the ‘logical form’ of propositions, and what we may call the forms of references, are, for the view here maintained, forms or structures of the determinative contexts of interpretations. They are at present approached by logicians mainly through the study of symbolic procedure.”

C.   Logical Contradiction

Hurford et al. (2007, p. 143) say that, “Logic, then, tells us nothing about goals, or assumptions, or actions in themselves. It simply provides rules for calculation which may be used to get a rational being from goals and assumptions to action. There is a close analogy between logic and arithmetic (which is why we have used the word calculation). All men are mortal and some men are not mortal is unthinkable in the same way. This is a logical contradiction.”

“A logical contradiction is on the other hand a linguistic absurdity, which, if it is to be made meaningful, requires a linguistic remedy, a ‘tampering with the rules of the language game’, just as the impossible maneuver described under (b) above would require a rewriting of the rules of football” (Leech, 1981, p. 7). Chierchia (2013, p. 192) give the example as follow.

a. John ever smoked                                   à a’. O_DA [John ever _[+D] smoked]

b. Everyone ever smoked   à b’. O_DA [everyone ever _[+D] smoked]

Sentence (a) is a basic one with a simple non-quantificational subject; in sentence (b) we have a universal quantifier in subject position which intervenes between O and the NPI, as in (b’). Sentence (a) comes out as contradictory, and is correctly ruled out. It says that John smokes sometimes, where a set of times ranges over some timespan D, but he doesn’t smoke over any timespan included in subdomains of D. Clearly contradictory. But sentence (b) turns out not to be contradictory. It says that for every person there is some time in D at which she smokes, but not everyone smokes in subdomains of D. This is not a logical contradiction (as we will see more analytically). So sentence (1b) should be acceptable, contrary to fact.

D.   Analytic and Synthetic Sentence

Hurford et al. (2007, p. 95) have explained that, “An analytic sentence is one that is necessarily true as a result of the words in it. An analytic sentence, therefore, reflects a tacit (unspoken) agreement by speakers of the language about the senses of the words in it. A synthetic sentence is one which is NOT analytic, but may be either true or false, depending on the way the world is.

For example: Analytic: All elephants are animals. The truth of the sentence follows from the senses of elephant and animal. Synthetic: John is from Ireland. There is nothing in the senses of John or Ireland or from which makes this necessarily true or false. Even contradiction and analyticity have difference focus, yet they have similar goal, outlook and take a great account in logic.

E.   Rational Behavior and Its Procedure

Previously, Hurford et al. (2007, p. 142) have claimed that, “There is an important connection between logic (even in our narrow sense) and rational action, but it is wrong to equate the two. Logic is just one contributing factor in rational behavior.” There are three aspects involved in rational behavior involves; (a) goals, (b) assumptions and knowledge about existing states of affairs, (c) calculations, based on these assumptions and knowledge, leading to ways of achieving the goals. For example:

a.    Goal: to alleviate my hunger

b.    Assumptions and knowledge: Hunger is alleviated by eating food/Cheese is food/There is a piece of cheese in front of me/I am able to eat this piece of cheese.

c.    Calculations: If hunger is alleviated by eating food and cheese is food, then hunger is alleviated by eating cheese/If hunger is alleviated by eating cheese, then my own hunger would be alleviated by eating this piece of cheese in front of me, and eating this piece of cheese would alleviate my hunger, and my goal is to alleviate my hunger, so therefore eating this piece of cheese would achieve my goal.

d.    (Rational) action: eating the cheese

III.           DISCUSSION

Based on the literature review above, in this section will answer briefly the paper’s question about the significant relationship between logic and rational behaviour. In particular case, both of them could be not only differentiated but also blended. Rational means having its source in or being guided by the intellect (distinguished from experience or emotion), for example: a rational analysis or consistent with or based on or using reason. While logical means capable of or reflecting the capability for correct and valid reasoning, for example: a logical mind or based on known statements or events or conditions.

Rationality is related to more to the idea of reason in the sense if one is rational one is able to infer or extrapolate in an ordered matter. Yet rationality is not certain i.e. it is based on probability and expectation. However, logic is based more on facts that can be proved. It is very precise and cannot be argued with. Working out a maths sum is the perfect example of logical thinking because there is no other way of going about the sum. There is no reason involved in the sense that one is not going to think twice before writing 2+2=4, in our brain it is a fact.

Science is a mixture of logical and rational thinking. Proofs for formulas would be more logical however explanations and understanding is based on rational thinking. One would perceive as science being 100% right but because the explanations are rational, they are more hypothetical. For example, science works around the phenomena of an ideal gas where the gas particles do not exert any force on each other however in reality no such phenomena exist unless induced by humans and even there it is not completely proper. Also many things have been taken for granted where science is concerned for example there is actually no proof that the direction of magnetic field lines is from the north to the south. It has just been taken for convenience’s sake. These hypothesises is science are rational but not logical as there are no facts.

Thus in conclusion rational behaviour is occupied by someone using their own personal experiences, perception and thus knowledge to infer something. However, logic is an aspect to construct rational thinking if the logic used is valid, certain or rather factual, even though rational thinking itself is ‘uncertain but sensible’. Taken together the two propositions lead to the conclusion that rational beliefs and rational behavior are inseparable from each other, such that a specific belief cannot be used as an explanation of subsequent related behavior. Equally, social representations do not explain, but describe related behavior (Wagner, 1993).

IV.          CONCLUSION

Overall the main topic and subtopics has been explained briefly above. The significant relation between logic and rational behavior. The extended explanation concludes that there is significant connection between logic and rational action, as Hurford et al. (2007) assure that, “Logic is just one contributing factor in rational behavior” (p. 142).

The progress of this connection produces various semantic representation forms which have been developed by computational linguists. It demonstrated several semantic abilities, such as being able to interpret questions, draw inferences, learn new words, and even explain its own actions. More recently question-answering systems such as Wolfram Alpha for computers, and Siri, a personal assistant app for the iPhone operating system, use logic, structured data (e.g., semantic features), and other advanced techniques to form semantic representations of queries and of natural language responses to those queries (Fromkin, Rodman, & Hyams, 2014). For advanced writer, probably, this progress is a novelty topic in Semantics to develop for future discussion.

REFERENCES

Chierchia, G. (2013). Logic in Grammar, Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention. UK: Oxford University Press.

Farah. (2013). Systematicities in Semantic Change of Arabic in Urdu. Language in India, 13. Retrieved from www.languageinindia.com

Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2014). An Introduction to Language (10 ed.). USA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Hurford, J. R., Heasley, B., & Smith, M. B. (2007). Semantics, A Coursebook (2 ed.). NY: CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

Leech, G. (1981). Semantics, The Study of Meaning (2 ed.). England: Penguin Books Ltd.

Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A. (1923). The Meaning of Meaning, A Study  of The  Influence  of Language Upon  Thought and of The Science of  Symbolism. New York: A  Harvest  Book Harcourt,  Brace  & World,  Inc. .

Stanley, J. (2000). Context and Logical Form, Linguistics and Philosophy (Vol. 23). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Wagner, W. (1993). Can Representations Explain Social Behaviour? A Discussion of Social Representations as Rational Systems. Paper presented at the Social Representatios.

Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Philosophical Investigations. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Yauri, A. R., Kadir, R. A., Azman, A., & Murad., M. A. A. (2013). Quranic Verse Extraction Based on Concepts Using OWL-DL Ontology. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 6(23), 4492-4498.