What Is Logic?

The Code of Science [The Code of Science] requires operational definitions of terms and phrases which are used within a discipline.

In philosophy, the term logic requires an operational definition.

Operational Definitions

Operational definitions
are definitions which provide descriptions of the observations and measurements of the objects/events relevant to the term being defined.

Operational definitions can be created using structured sentences such as the following:

1. _____ [Term/Phrase being defined operationally] IS _____ [Description of the objects/events relevant to the term/phrase being defined].

Example: The mind [term being defined operationally] IS an individual’s personal system of desires/fears/priorities as evidenced by his observable actions and reactions, in particular, as evidenced by his approach behavior to  people/objects/events he desires and his avoidance behavior from people/objects/events he fears [descriptions of the observable/measurable people/objects/events--in this case the events of approach/avoidance--relevant to the term being defined].

2. _____ [Term/Phrase being defined operationally] IS WHEN _____ [Description of the objects/events relevant to the term/phrase being defined].

Example: Love [term being defined operationally] IS WHEN someone says they like you and they do nice things for you and with you [description of the objects/events relevant to the term being defined].

3. IF _____ [Description of the objects/events relevant to the term/phrase being defined],
THEN _____ [Term being defined operationally].

Example: IF someone says they like you and do nice things for you and with you [Description of the objects/events relevant to the term being defined],
THEN that is love [Term being defined operationally].

4. WHEN _____ [Description of the objects/events relevant to the term/phrase being defined],
THEN _____ [Term/Phrase being defined operationally].

Example: WHEN someone says they like you and do nice things for you and with you [description of the objects/events relevant to the term being defined],
THEN that is love [term being defined operationally].

Most Famous Example of an Operational Definition: Happiness is a warm puppy.

By operational definitions, abstract concepts/principles can be defined by the descriptions of real-world objects/events/techniques; thus, by operational definitions, abstract concepts/principles/techniques can be made concrete/made into concrete concepts/principles/techniques.

If a person cannot provide a description by means of the observation(s)/measurement(s) of the people/objects/events related to a term he wishes to define/use in a discussion, then there is an excellent chance that (A) the people/objects/events he is trying to define/discuss do not exist or (B) he does not know what he is talking about.

Quite often the requirement that a term be defined by real-world observations of people/objects/events will eliminate the use of confusing terms by either (A) clarifying their definitions or by (B) showing that the terms are useless because they do not/cannot describe reality.

Here is an operational definition of the ‘I’:

The ‘I’ [term being defined] IS a person’s mind, which is his personal system of desires/fears/priorities which causes his behavior as his actions/reactions including his feelings as his reactions to his realizations of his desires/fears/priorities, his personality as his mind-in -action, as his behavior as caused by his desires/fears/priorities, his mental problems as his unrealistic [unachievable or/and inappropriate] desires, and his mental health as his realistic [achievable and appropriate] desires [description of the objects/events relevant to the term being defined].

For dealing with physical or psychological phenomena a basic philosophy is needed.

Physical Phenomena = Space, Time and Physics (Matter and Energy; People/Objects/Events Comprised of Matter/Energy)

Psychological Phenomena = The Desires, Fears and Priorities Which Motivate People; The Desires/Fears/Priorities Which Cause People To Do What They Do

Basic Philosophy

Operational Philosophy [See Operational Philosophy]

All Reality = Objects and Events

Object = A unity comprised of matter and/or energy (matter/energy, or m/e); an object/unity retains its identity for a longer duration in time than relevant events.

Examples: A woman named Jane, a ball, a man named Dick.

Event = Relationship between or among objects, especially a causal relationship wherein people/objects who/which are causes and who/which cause/create people/objects who/which are effects; an event has a shorter duration in time than the relevant objects.

Example: Jane throws the ball to Dick.

Causality = People/objects/events who/which are causes cause people/objects/events who/which are effects; a sequence, or chain, of people/objects/events who/which are causes of people/objects/events who/which are effects.

Explanation = Description of a relationship between/among people/objects/events.

Causal Explanation = Description of the people/objects/events who/which are causes of people/objects/events who/which are effects.

Example: Jane is the cause of the effect of the event during which the ball travels through time and space to Dick.

Concept = Mental representation or idea of a object.

Principle = Mental representation/idea of an event.

Technique = Application of a concept and its related principle.

True Concept = Concept (mental representation/idea) which accurately describes a real/actual object.

False Concept = Concept which inaacurately describes a person/object.

True Principle = Principle (mental representation/idea) which accurately describes a real/actual event (a relationship between/among people/objects, a causal relationship between/among people/objects).

False Principle = Principle which inaccurately describes a relationship betwee/among people/objects.

Practical Technique = Effective application of a concept and its relevant principle.

Impractical Technique = Ineffective application of a concept and its relevant principle.

Knowledge = Collection, or system, or set, of concepts, principles and techniques.

True Knowledge = Collection/system/set of accurate concepts and principles and practical techniques.

False Knowledge = Collection/system/set of inaccurate concepts and principles and impractical techniques.

Philosophy = Collection/system/set of concepts, principles and techniques.

Religion = Philosophy which includes a belief in the existence of supernatural beings.

For dealing with developing true concepts and principles and practical techniques, an operational definition of proof is needed.

Proof consists of (A) physical evidence, (B) eyewitness reports, or/and (C) valid and true logical arguments.

A. Physical evidence consists of people/objects/events who/which are comprised of matter/energy and who/which are observable by the perceptual senses of sight/hearing/touch/smell/taste directly or indirectly by their observable effects upon people/objects/events who/which can be observed directly.

B. Eyewitness reports consist of verbal or written descriptions of physical evidence.

Eyewitness reports must be given by individuals who are reliable/credible, who have no records of lying or of criminal activity, the reports must describe the physical evidence, and the reports must be corroborated by individuals who are also reliable/credible.

C. Valid and true logical arguments consist of premises which are verifiable/falsifiable/verified descriptions of physical evidence and which lead to relevant conclusions which are true if the premises are true.

A logical argument is valid if the premises lead to relevant conclusions, if the premises are relevant to the conclusions, if the conclusions are relevant to the premises: a logical argument is true if the premises have been verified by physical evidence.

For any logical argument to be both valid and true, the premises must be verifiable/falsifiable/verified true and lead to a relevant conclusion.

To be acceptable as proof, a logical argument must be both valid (the premises are relevant to the conclusion and the conclusion is therefore relevant to the premises) and true (the premises have been verified by physical evidence).

For dealing with people, who are comprised of matter/energy which creates their physiology which in turn creates their psychology, a basic psychology is needed.

Basic Psychology

Operational Psychology [See Operational Psychology]

I. Mind = An individual’s collection/system/set of desires, fears and priorities.

Desire = Wanting a person/object/event.

Example: Sam = Desire for a woman.

Physical Evidence of a Desire = Individual approaches a desirable person/object/event.

Example: Sam approaches Suzy.

Fear = Not-wanting a person/object/event.

Physical Evidence of a Fear = Individual avoids a feared person/object/event.

Example: Sam avoids Sally.

Desires and fears are interrelated by being opposites.

Example: The opposite of the desire to live is the fear of dying.
Example: Sam’s desire for a woman is the opposite of his fear of not finding a woman.

Priority =The importance of each desire/fear compared to all other desires and fears.

Example: For Sam, the priority for finding a woman is higher than the priority for flying his airplane.

Problem = Learning/Deciding how to achieve a desire and/or avoid a fear.

Example: Sam: Problem = Learning/deciding how to achieve a woman.

Solution = Knowing how to achieve a desire and/or avoid a fear.

Example: Sam: Solution = Knowing how to achieve a woman/avoid not achieving a woman.

Mind = Desires/Fears/Priorities = Cause of Behavior, Personality, Mental Problems, and Mental Solutions.

Behavior = Individual’s actions and reactions caused by his desires/fears/priorities (by his mind).

Personality = Consistent behavior in similar circumstances or situations.

Mental Problem = Unrealistic Desire (or Fear) = Unachievable/Inappropriate Desire.

Unrealistic = Unachievable and/or inappropriate.

Achievable = Can be gotten.

Unachievable = Cannot be gotten.

Example: Sam = Desires a woman.

Suzy = Desires Sam.

Sophia = Does not desire Sam.

For Sam, Suzy is achievable but Sophia is unachievable.

Appropriate = Achieves many if not most if not all relevant dedsires.

Inappropriate = May achieve some desire(s) but not another (other) relevant desire(s).

Example: Sam = Desires for a woman, (A) who is achievable--who desires Sam; (B) for a good-looking woman; (C) for a woman who is loyal.

Suzy = (A) desires Sam; (B) good-looking; (C) loyal.

Shirley = (A) desires Sam; (B) good-looking; (C) not loyal.

For Sam, Suzy is thus appropriate because she achieves Sam’s A/B/C desires; Shirley is inappropriate because she achieves Sam’s A/B desires but she does not achieve his C desire.

Mental Solution = Realistic Desire = Achievable/Appropriate Desire.

II. Feelings = Reactions to Realizations of Desires.

Realization = Achievement/Non-Achievement of a Desire or Avoidance/Non-Avoidance of a Fear.

Positive Realization = Achievement of a Desire/Avoidance of a Fear.

Negative Realization = Non-Achievement of a Desire/Non-Avoidance of a Fear.

Feelings = Sensations or Emotions.

Sensations = Reactions to Realizations of Physiological/Unlearned Desires and Fears.

Physiological Desire/Fear = Unlearned, inherent in genetics, in the body; include desires for survival, food, water, shelter, companionship, sex, reproduction, protection of children, etc.

Emotions = Reactions to Realizations of Psychological/Learned Desires and Fears.

Psychological Desire/Fear = Learned Desire/Fear, not inherent in genetics, not in the body.

The Hierarchy of Desires

Specific Psychological/Learned Desire:
General/Generic Psychological/Learned Desire:

Animals (Dogs/Cats)
Men (Charley/Larry)
Women (Suzy/Shirley)
Physiological/Unlearned Desire:
For Companionship

Example: Sam has a Desire for Companionship.

Problem: Learning how to achieve Companionship.

Sam’s Choices for Companionship:

Animals = Dogs/Cats.
Men = Charley/Larry.
Women = Suzy/Shirley.

Sam experiments with animals/men/women and decides he likes the companionship of women.

Sam develops a general/generic psychological/learned desire for women as a solution to the problem of achieving companionship.

Solution = Women = General/Generic Psychological/Learned Desire.

Sam experiments with Suzy and Shirley and decides he likes Suzy more than he likes Shirley.

Sam thus develops a specific psychological/learned desire for Suzy.

Solution = Suzy = Specific Psychological/Learned Desire.

III. Feelings Develop in a Sequence of (1) Desire->(2) Realization->(3) Feeling (The D/R/F Sequence):

1. Desire: _____ (?) [Wanting a person/object/event]
2. Realization: _____ (?) [Person/object/event achieved/not achieved]
3. Feeling: _____ (?) [Reaction to  the Realization of the Desire]

Desire: _____ (?)
Wanting a person/object/event
Realization: _____ (?)
Person/Object/Event Achieved/Not Achieved
Feeling: _____ (?)
Reaction to the Realization of the Desire

Emotions = Happiness v. Unhappiness as Sadness, Anger, and/or Fear.

Emotion = (A) Perception, (B) Emotional Reaction and (C) Impulsive Reaction

Emotion: Happiness = General Reaction to the Achievement of a Desire/Avoidance of a Fear:

(A) Perception: The Achievement of a Desire/Avoidance of a Fear.
(B) Emotional Reaction: Happiness.
(C) Impulsive Reaction: To celebrate!

Emotion: Unhappiness = General Reaction to the Non-Achievement of a Desire/Non-Avoidance of a Fear including Specific Reaction(s) of Sadness, Anger or Fear:

Emotion: Sadness:
(A) Perception: An actual loss of life/limb/liberty/property, accident, injury, illness, genetic defect, verbal and/or physical attack.
(B) Emotional Reaction: Sadness
(C) Impulsive Reaction: Give up hope of achieving Desire/avoiding Fear; become depressed.

Emotion: Anger:
(A) Perception: A violation of an expectancy, promise, contract, law, or ethic; also, an actual or threatened loss of life/limb/liberty/property.
(B) Emotional Reaction: Anger.
(C) Impulsive Reaction: Attack oneself or someone or something else.

Emotion: Fear:
(A) Perception: A threat of a loss of life/limb/liberty/property, accident, injury, illness, genetic defect, or a verbal/physical attack.
(B) Emotional Reaction: Fear.
(C) Impulsive Reaction: Run away from oneself or someone or something else.

What Is Logic?

Simon Blackburn, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy.

Inference: The process of moving from an (possibly provisional) acceptance of some propositions to acceptance of others. The goal of logic and of classical epistemology is to codify kinds of inference, and to provide principles for separating good from bad inferences.

Modus Ponens: Common shorthand for 'modus ponendo ponens,' the rule of inference entitling us to pass from p, and p —> q, to q.

Modus Tollendo Ponens: An argument of the form p or q, not-p, so q.

Modus Tollens: Common shorthand for 'modus tollendo tollens,' the principle of inference entitling us to pass from not-q, and p —> q, to not-p.

Logic: The general science of inference. Deductive logic, in which a conclusion follows from a set of premises, is distinguished from inductive logic, which studies the way in which premises may uspport a conclusion without entialing it. In deductive logic a conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true. The aim of logic is to make explicit the rules by which inferences may be drawn, rather than to study the actual reasoning processe people actuall use, which may or may not conform to those rules. In the case of deductive logic, if we ask why we need to obey the rules, the most general form of anser is that if we do not we contradict ourselves (or, strictly speaking, we stand ready to contradict ourselves, Someone failing to draw a conclusion that follows from a set of premises need not be contradicting [himself] or herself, but only failing to notice something. However, he or she is not defended against adding the contradictory conclusion to his or her set of beliefs.) There is no equally simple answer in the case of inductive logic, which is in general a less robust subject, but the aim will be to find reasoning such that anyone failing to conform to it ill have improbable beliefs.

Logical Form: The logical form of a sentence is the structure, sharreable with other sentences, responsible for its powers in inferences. That is, its logical form determines the way in which it can be validly deduced from other senntences, and the way other sentences can validly be deduced from sets of premises that include it. Obviously, there is something common to the argument, 'All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, so Socrates is mortal,' and 'All horses bite, Eclipse is a horse, so Eclipse bites.' This common form may be revealed by abstracting away from the different subject-matter and seeing each argument as of the form 'All Fs are g; a is F; so a is G.'  The 'symbols' of symbolic logic simply represent such common forms and the methods of combining elements to make up sentences. It is frequently controversial to what extent reduction to such simple forms is possible, and how much hidden structure is fruitful to look for, in order to reveal similar logical forms under the surface diversities of ordinary language.

Peter Angeles, The Harper-Collins Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition.

Inference: (From Latin in, in, + ferre, bring) 1. The logical or conceptual process of deriving a statement from one or more statements. 2. A conclusion reached. 3. Deduction; deriving a conclusion from premises that are accepted as true. 4. Induction; deriving a conclusions from factual statements taken as evidence for the conclusion.

Inference (Deductive Logic): 1. The procedure by which a statement is affirmed or denied on the basis of other statements that are accepted as true or false. This aspect of deductive logic is concerned (a) with the possible true/false relatiuonships of statements for which a true or flase claim can be made.: (b) in the context of the truth values for the logical connectives by which they are related. The interest is not in whether statements are in fact true or false, but whether, if they are claimed as true (or false), then how their true-false combinations can be related to other statements in true-false combinations. 2. The procedure of establishing the validity of a conclusion from the premises accepted as true by the use of principles of inference.

Justification: 1. Defense: that which is offered as sufficient grounds for an assertion (claim, statement, conclusion) or for one's conduct. 2. Logical proof; in logic, the procedures applied to the premises of an argument that show the proof for the conclusion.

Explanation: (From Latin, explanare, flatten, make level or plane, explain) In general, making something intelligible, rational, or familiar. An Explanation of phenomena differs from a proof of phenomena in that if one requests an explanation, this assumes the existence of the phenomena to be explained, whereas if one request a proof, this assumes that the phenomena may not have occurred and some evidence of their occurrence must be presented.

Explanation, Functional:

Explanation, Mechanistic:

Explanation, Scientific:

Explanation, Teleological:

Method, (Bacon):

Method, (Descartes):

Method (Newton):

Method, Scientific:

Methods, Mill's Inductive:

Proof: 1. Demonstration; a process that establishes (provides firm evidence or complete justification for) a truth or fact. 2. In logic, the series of arguments based on the rules of inference of that logic which are used to derive that conclusion from the premises.

Logic: (From the Greek, logikê, or logikos, that which belongs to intelligent speech or to a well-functioining reason, ordered, systematized, intelligible) 1. The study of the ruyles of exact reasoning, of the forms of sound or valid thought patterns. 2. The study and the application of the rules of inference to arguments or to systesm of thought.

Logic (Aristotle): Logic is the science of making correct inferences, regarded by Aristotle as the indepensable foundation for all types of knowledge. Logic is the instrument, or tool, for unlocking the intelligible connections found in concepts and in things ... for obtaining philosophical and scientific knowledge. For Aristotle, the main part of logic was the categorical syllogism. His syllogistic methods remained the basis for the development of formal logic through the medieval period, when it was studied intensively and considerably enlarged in a systematic way, all the way to the beginning of the twentieth century, when new symbolic techniques and principles for logic were invented.

Logic, Deductive: The systematic attempt (a) t formulate rules of inference that are consistent and complete, (b) to apply them to formally presented arguments, and (c) to determine whether or not their conclusions cane validly inferred from the premises.

Logic, Inductive: The attempt (a) to formulate rules ... by which statements can be established as empirically confirmed or probable, (b) to formulate systematic procedures for presenting nondeductive inferences or arguments, and (c) to determine a degree of confirmation or probability for the conclusion based upon the degree of confirmation or probability that it is possible to establish for the premises.

Deduction: (From Latin, deducere, lead from; from de, from, away, down, + ducere, lead draw) 1. Reasoning from a general truth to a particular intance of that truth. Example: All dogs are mortal. Charlie is a dog. Therefore Charlie is mortal. 2. The process of making explicit the logical implications of statements or premises. 3. The process of inference from statements (premises) in which a necessarily true conclusions is arrived at by rules of logic.

Induction: (From Latin, in, into, + ducere, lead) Sometimes called inductive reasoning, inductive generalization, empirical generalization, or enumerative induction. 1. Reasoning from a part to a whole, from particular instances of something to a general statement about them, from individuals to universals. 2. Reaching a conclusion about all (or many) members of a class from statements describing only some of them. For example: "All observed X's have the characteristic Y; therefore, all X's are Y's." It is often believed that in this procedure the probability of the truth of the generalization is increased by each instance that verifies it. 3. A form of nondeductive inference in which the conclusion expresses something that goes beyond what is said in the premises; the conclusion does not follow with logical necessity from the premises.

Induction, Ampliative: Reasoning from a limited number of observed instances to a general causal relationship.

Induction, Eliminative: The process of supporting or confirming a statement or hypothesis by falsifying those competing with it. An indirect method of confirmation.

Induction, Intuitive: The view that we can experience necessary truths about the world, that something is essentially of a certain and necessary pattern and existence. Experience can show us what physically must happen. All necessity is not logical necessity.

Induction, Perfect: Also called formal induction or induction by complete enumeration, stating a truth about all members of a class on the basis of having observed that truth in every member of that class. (In Aristotle, perfect induction is the process of arriving at a genus from examination of all its species.)

Induction, Principle Of (Metaphysics): The belief that things that have happened regularly in the past will continue to happen in the future. The future will resemble the past.

Induction, The Problem Of: The problem of inferring a true statement about all members of a class on the basis of observing only some members of that class. Example: The truth of the statement "All crows are black" is based (a) on our seeing a great number of black crows, and (b) also on our not having seen any crows of another color. How is one logically justified in proceeding from some to all, since not all crows have been observed?

The Laws of Logic

The laws of logic are causal descriptions of the causes of the effect of logical thinking. The laws of logic “are prerequisites for consistency and intelligibility.” [1] When a person follows the laws of logic his thinking is guided towards accurate descriptions of objects and events of reality. When a man is said to be logical he is said to follow the laws of logic. Any system of logic must follow the laws of logic or it cannot be a system of logic. [2]

The Law of Identity

For propositions (p):    If p is true, then p is true.
    If p is false, then p is false.

    If a proposition is true, it is true;
    if it is false, it is false.

For things (A):    If a thing A is A, then it is A.
    A = A.

Everything is what it is (and cannot, at the same time it is what it is, be something else).

[Kroepel: A thing can only itself be.]

The Law of Noncontradiction (The Law of Contradiction)

For propositions:    p cannot be both true and false
    (at the same time and in the same respect).

For things:    A thing A cannot be both A and not A
    (at the time it is A).

The Law of the Excluded Middle

For propositions: Either p is true or p is false; one or the other but not both at the same time and in the same respect.

For things: A thing A is either A or it is not A. A = A or AB.

The laws of logic are also known as the three laws of thought. These were formulated in the times of Plato and Aristotle. According to philosopher Peter Angeles,

[The three laws of thought] have been regarded as ontologically real (describing the ultimate features of reality); as cognitively necessary (no consistent thinking is possible without their use; all coherent thought, and all logical systems, rely upon them for justification; their denial presupposes their use in denying them); as uninferred knowledge (the immediate and direct result of a rational examination of the relations of timeless universals). In modern times, they have been regarded as only three among many principles, or rules of inference that can be invented and used in logic; or as definitionally true (tautologous) and hence irrefutable. [Italics in original] [3]

The fact is that while the three laws of logic appear to be self-evident and therefore true no one has been able to observe any cases in which they were not found to be true, therefore, from a practical standpoint created by the common experience of mankind of the use of inductive logic wherein cases of propositions have been studied/observed and found to consistently not violate the laws of logic, those laws of logic are acceptable as true until further notice. And we expect that we will never find any exceptions, therefore, we expect that they will always be true.

The Law of Consistency

Consistency: If two or more stories/reports of the same phenomena contain identical details, then one of these situations holds:

A. Both stories are true.
B. Both stories are false.

A consistency proves that two stories are either true or false at the same time and in the same way; if one story is true the other is also true; if one story is false then the other is also false.

The Law of Consistency is based upon the Law of Identity.

The Law of Inconsistency

Inconsistency: If two or more stories/reports of the same phenomena contain conflicting details, then one of these situations holds:

A. One story is true and the other false.
B. Both stories are false.

An inconsistency proves that two stories cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way. Yet one story may be true while the other is false, or they both may be false.

The Law of Inconsistency is based upon the Law of Noncontradiction.

The Law of Sequence

A sequence is a series of events related to time. In a sequence events occur at specific points of time, or timepoints.

A sequence can only have one series of events or one order of events occurring at specific time points. Any additional or deleted events or any change in the order of events would destroy the original sequence.

Sequence #1:


Sequence #2:


We can see that  Sequence #1: A-B-C-D-E ≠ (is not equal to) Sequence #2: A-C-B-D-E.

This law is based upon the Laws of Identity, Contradiction, and the Excluded Middle.


[1] George H. Smith.
Atheism: The Case Against God.
Prometheus Books, 1208 Kensington Ave., Buffalo, NY 1979.
pp. 143-145.

[2] Brand Blanshard.
The Nature of Thought.
George Allen and Unwin, London, 1939, Vol. II,
pp. 413-414,
in George H. Smith.
Atheism: The Case Against God.
p. 144.

[3] Peter Angeles, editor.
Dictionary of Philosophy.
Barnes and Noble Books, Harper and Row, Publishers,
10 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022, 1981.
p. 153.

If (P) an operational definition is a description of the people/objects/events relevant to a term/phrase, then (Q) to create an operational definition of a term/phrase a description of the people/objects/events relevant to the term/phrase has to be provided.

Inre logic, what people/objects/events are relevant to logic?

Restated: Inre logic, what do people do when they do logic?

People have desires, fears and priorities.

People want to achieve desires and avoid fears according to their priorities inre those desires/fears.

To achieve desires/avoid fears according to their priorities, people need to develop knowledge, a set of verified/operational/functional concepts/principles/techniques, particularly concepts/principles inre causality which can be used to develop practical techniques for using the verified concepts/principles.

When people 'do logic' they find conditions, premises, which are verifiable/falsifiable/verified by physical evidence, credible/corroborated eyewitness reports, and/or logical arguments in which the premises are verifiable/falsifiable/verified by physical evidence and are relevant to the conclusions which are valid if relevant to the premises and true if the premises are verified, which are causally linked to consequences, conclusions.

In the If P, Then Q logical argument,

P = Condition = Cause = Premise
Q = Consequence = Effect = Conclusion

Example: IF (P) this specific rock hits that window at this angle and with this force, THEN (Q) that specific window will break.

P = Condition = Cause = Premise: IF (P) this specific rock hits that specific window at this angle and with this force, ...

Q = Consequence = Effect = Conclusion: ..., THEN (Q) that specific window will break.

When people use the inductive method of obtaining knowledge, they observe or experiment with phenomena--people/objects/events--to determine a large enough sample of the occurrences of the phenomena to notice a causal link between specific people/objects/events who/which are causes and who/which appear to cause people/objects/events who/which are effects.

When enough observations of/experiments with people/objects/events produce evidence of causality, a causal link between people/objects/events who/which are causes and people/objects/events who/which are effects, then an hypothesis can be created which predicts that when the conditions//causes/premises which are the people/objects/events who/which are causes occur then the consequences/effects/conclusions will be the people/objects/events who/which are effects (of the causes).

When, for example, enough observations of/experiments with specific rocks hitting specific windows produce data inre the size, shape, and weight of rocks and the force with which the rocks hit windows of a range of thickness and strength, then generalities can be developed which enable people to predict which rocks will break which windows.

When the predictions are observed to be accurate when rocks within the range of the specified characteristics for rocks break windows within the range of the specified characteristics for windows, then the hypothesis is confirmed and is a physical law until a disqualifying case is observed in which either a rock which has the specified characteristics for rocks does not break a window which has specified characteristics for windows or a rock which has less than the specified characteristics for rocks breaks a window which has the specific characteristics for windows or which has more than the specific characteristics for windows.

When (P) conditions/causes/premises are causally linked to (Q) consequences//effects/conclusions, then true knowledge has been produced.

By deductive logic, verified hypotheses which are accepted to be physical laws can be used as premises/conditions for hypotheses which predict new conclusions/consequences.

In the sequence of the development of knowledge, of the development of accurate concepts and principles and practical techniques, hypotheses/predictions developed by deductive logic must be verifiable/falsifiable/verified by physical evidence before they can be accepted as physical laws and their concepts/principles/techniques be accepted as true knowledge.