Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur. NP-TEL National Programme On Technology Enhanced Learning. Course Title Introduction to Logic

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur. NP-TEL National Programme On Technology Enhanced Learning. Course Title Introduction to Logic"

Transcription

1 Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur NP-TEL National Programme On Technology Enhanced Learning Course Title Introduction to Logic Lecture-06 Strength of Inductive arguments, Counter example method by Prof. A.V. Ravishankar Sarma Dept. of Humanities and Social Sciences Welcome back in the last few lectures we discussed about how to recognize an argument and then we also identified what kind of argument it is based on how the conclusion follows from the premises if it necessarily follows from the premises then it is called as a deductive argument the conclusion probably follows from the premises then it is called as an inductive argument. So we also discussed about in an important concept which is called as validity and we said that a deductive argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given the premises are true. You will not have any example where in which you have true premises and it falls come true if you can come across with such kind of instance then it is the argument is automatically called as an invalid argument. All invalid arguments are unsound arguments, so in the last class we discussed in greater detail about another important property which is called as soundness someone else is a kind of a valid kind of argument in order in addition to in addition to this that this argument is valid it is also having true premises. A sound argument is a valid argument which has true premises so then we discussed about some examples. (Refer Slide Time: 01:41)

2 Which we showed that you have you can have true premises, you can have one of the premises false and the conclusion is still true or you can even have both the premises false and even the conclusion can also be false but it can be a valid argument or you can have conclusion false and one of both the premises are false, then also it can be a valid argument except I know. One such argument we have seen is all circles are all squares or circles all circles are parallelograms all squares are parallelograms enough. So the premises false but the conclusion is true but at this it is considered to be a valid out but in dated a this course we do not use this kind of argument because nobody will be in a position to believe that all squares or circles or something like that, it goes beyond our intuition and all, so that argument is valid but it is unsound argument. So today what we are going to do is this that we are going to talk about the strength of the inductive arguments we can only talk about the strength of the inductive argument. So this often mistake has will be committed by the logic students that we say that inductive argument is valid, in an inductive tea argument cannot be valid in all because the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises in all inductive arguments, however strong it is you can even come up with a single counter instance where you can show that the conclusion is false given the premises are true. So that is the reason why inductive arguments you cannot talk about talk of validity of inductive arguments and you can only talk about the strength of the inductive argument.

3 So one example we have seen earlier 99% of the commercial flights that you took landed safely so that means the next way that you are going to take that is also going to land safely, the next way that you are going to take is what is going beyond what is stated in the premises. So the 99% of the flights that you have taken is the one is the one side of the story and the other one is the next flight. So that information is not in the premises in all that means the information goes beyond what is stated in the premises in all that makes this inductive argument defensible. So now today we will discuss about what we mean by saying that a given inductive argument is strong given intuitive argument is weak, we can only talk about strength of the inductive arguments. If it is a strong argument then we will talk about what kind of argument it easy stay cogent argument, cogent argument is a sound argument with true premises in just like in the case of sound argument in the case of deductive arguments, we said that is a sound argument is one in which it is a valid argument together with that we have true premises in all. So in the same way in the case of inductive argument a cogent argument is a strong argument with probably true premises in all, if at least one of the premises is false then it is called as a nun cogent argument. The conclusion probably follows from the premises but it one of the premises maybe probably is false in that is called as a nun cogent argument. So we will talk about these things with more examples then we will see. A strong argument is a one in which it is probable that if the premises are true then the conclusion is also probably true in, so a strong inductive argument is one in which it is possible but definitely it is not improbable but it is improbable that the conclusion is false, given the assumptions that the premises are probably true. So the idea here is that in a strong inductive argument it is very difficult to come across a situation in which the conclusion is probably false and the premises are probably true enough. So a week inductive argument is one in which it is not probable that if the premises are true the conclusion also probably true in on, so I am just replacing the words necessity with probability and on so that is what you need to note here in the case of deductive arguments conclusion necessarily follows from the premises there is no single counter instance, which shows that your premises are true in the conclusion is false but in the case of inductive arguments the necessary part is replaced by probability and all.

4 Because inductive arguments there are no guarantee that if premises are true the conclusion is also necessarily true conclusion, only probably follows from the premises. So that is a characteristic of inductive argument. So another important thing which we need to notice is that no valid arguments are strong and no strong arguments are valid even if it is 99.99% and all and it is treated as inductive argument for example 99% of the commercial flights such to so far landed safely without any issue enough. And from that you can infer that the next part that you are going to take will also land safely safe you know. So even if it is 99.99% and all it is where it might be very much possible that the next file that you might take might end up with some kind of issue or problem at all, it might not lawns it may not land safely exit. So no valid arguments are strong it should not confuse us with the validity and you can say that the argument is very strong enough. So instead of saying that you know argument is very strong and I can say it is valued at the entire conclusion necessarily follows from the premises use the language of deductive logic that is the validity. So if you want to incorporate necessity into consideration that that is what we want to achieve in the case of mathematical reasoning, so in mathematics everything has to follow certainly from the premises and on are also considering some kind of mathematical statements. There is a kind of necessity which is required there, so in that case we call those arguments as valued in you cannot say they have strong. So strong and weak argument arises in dated a discourse you know in which you know nothing is hundred percent true in all, so in those cases we use arguments based on observations or believes exit I and all will involve this inductive arguments, where we invoke the strength of the argument but validity strength and weakness comes in degrees in all. It can come up with for example in the conclusion you can say conclusion can be true by 70%, 90% maybe 85% you can calculate the probability values and then you can measure the strength of the argument. The strength and weakness comes in degrees that is anything between 0 and 1 the probability values but the validity invalidity does not come with degrees in all. Suppose if you accept that all men are mortal Socrates is man Socrates is mortal. So the first statement all men are mortal is accepted with hundred percent certainty you know, so there is no way in which there are no exceptions to that particular kind of thing, so it is a hundred

5 percent true, so Socrates is man is all solid person true then from these certain truths you will automatically say that the conclusion also necessarily follows from the premises. (Refer Slide Time: 09:29) So what are considered to be strong and inductive week inductive arguments it is not easy to find what constitutes a strong in inductive argument, one what constitutes a week inductive argument it involves lot of four additional factors in all, so it depends upon you can it is based on case to case basis we can say that a given argument is stronger given argument is weak and so when the evidence is hard to come by maybe then in that case you can say that even twenty percent of the twenty percent is also considered to be the strength of the argument enough. So let us consider some examples with reach even we can understand the strength of the argument, suppose if you infer in this way many clothes observed, so far have been black observed meticulously for some years and you are interested in ornithology etcetera boards etc then you came to know that with your observations and repeated observations etcetera under various circumstances etc you observed in IDK observed in some other place etc you came to this thing. Many clothes observed so far have been black therefore based on this observation you will say that probably the next crow to be observed will also be black and all because many crows are already in black enough, so this argument is a strong argument in a sense that it is talking about almost all the crows if not everything in all but it is talking about the entire class of crows now.

6 So it is considered to be a strong argument enough but for instance if you observe only two three crows and all and then you infer this particular kind of thing. You know probably the next crow that you are going to observe is black and all of course we all know that in our cross will always be black or not but with few observations under some only for few circumstances etc will not give us, it will not lead us to the strength of the argument in all you need how repeated observations a good enough in number and then it is tested in wide varieties of circumstances then only we will say that the given argument is strong. In the same way we will come across arguments from analogy in debt red is course, so this argument can also become a weak argument in this sense, when a lighted match is slowly dunked into water the flame is snuffed out obviously put the flame into the water and it will be snuff not at all but gasoline is a liquid, so imagining that gasoline is also liquid and then it is just like water in a sense that it at least it appears to be like water, Kerosene in our Patrol or anything it has some special features of water. Just like water it is in appear to be the same as water, so therefore when the lighted match is slowly dunked into gasoline the flame will be snuffed out in all. So here you are trying to bring in similarity between two events, so that is one is this that putting matchbox into the water and then putting matchbox into the gasoline exposed to the gasoline. In the first case it will be snuffed out and the second gage might flame may not be snuffed out. So based on one particular kind of instance if you if you say that using the similarity in ocean if you say that lighted match is slowly dunked into gasoline will also be snuffed out then this argument may not be a strong argument, so rather it will shall not be stuffed out so it is a weak analogy kind of argot. So analogies are very important in sciences in particular we want to use lot of metaphors to understand various phenomena and on, so we will talking I will talking about these things in greater detail little bit later. But at this moment this argument is considered to be a weak argument and if you go into the details of this argument then this argument is also considered under the category of weak analogy. Suppose if somebody convinces you with this particular kind of argument then that particular arguer is said to have committed a kind of mistake in the argumentation, so that

7 mistake is called as the fallacy of weak induction which we are going to study little bit later and that fallacy of weak induction arises because of weak analogy. There is no appropriate analogy between matchbox into water and matchbox is in contact with gasoline and all behave in a two different ways. So in the same way in day-to-day discourse we usually we have lots of beliefs in all beliefs in God's believes in astrology are sometimes some cat passes through as in all will infer that you know every time when cat pass through while you are going to your office, something has happened in the office then you will infer that cat is responsible for all my problems at all. Now there is somewhat a correlation in our correlation should not be confused with the causation, so here is an example which again tells us that this is a weak argument Austria logical calculations indicate that Indian stock market will crash in the years let us say 2014 is unpredictable behavior of stock market, somehow you have calculated the positions of planetary positions etc and all then you have also they also in a lot of calculations except I not meticulous calculations. So you could come up with some kind of thing that is applied planetary positions will lead to some kind of for business it impacts business and all in that particular kind of country, so then suppose if you infer that you should get your money out of the market before that year because stock market is going to crash there is no proper evidence for this particular kind of thing, it is very difficult for us to believe just based on astrological predictions and you will be taking out your money. Suppose if it is based on some other kind of behavior in all suppose if you have seen how the Mitch equity market is functioning are some other means GDP growth all some of the important factors which are responsible for the stock market growth, if you observe it then it makes sense for us to believe that you should get all the money out of for the market whatever you have invested it should get it out in, that makes some particular kind of sensor, it is very difficult for us to believe the conclusion to be true based on probably true based on the premises in all just based on has ta logical predictions you cannot we cannot come to this particular kind of conclusion.

8 (Refer Slide Time: 16:47) So then the next question that comes to us is once the inductive argument is strong enough, then there is one extra feature which will be adding to it that is what is called as cogency. Just in the case of for sound argument a valid argument is not just enough and on you need to invoke an additional feature, so the argument also has to be sounded. So just like that we have a strong argument can be cogent and a cogent argument. So what is a cogent argument a cogent argument is a strong argument in which all the premises it so happened that all the premises are probably true, so probably true means it is based on some facts of experience your experience suggests that it is true or maybe it is a scientific fact or maybe it may be historical fact etc that makes this statement probably. Let us consider a simple example to show that an argument is sound as a not strong argument as well as cogent argument.

9 So all of us know about Big Bang Theory universe has come into existence somewhere sometime in all suppose if you argue like this, if the big bang theory is correct then the universe is billions of years old in billions of years old universe there was some kind of a fireball or something like that it started cooling and then planet started forming you know that is what we know from this big bank, there was a huge big bang in on and how this big bang has come into existence that is not what we are interested in. You say that at least something used to be there based on scientific theories in all a scientific study suggested that there is a big bang and then after that some kind of fireball it started cooling and then all the planets formed it and if you argue that if the big bang theory is correct then the universes universe was definitely not created in six days. So that is what may be the Bible might be claiming that God has created entire universe in six days and the seventh day he took rest. So that is what we usually biblical belief or not of course you know we write to we have every right to believe something to be true in on but we might believe, so many other things in all that may be false also, so it is our subjective kind of opinion or some kind of. So does it based on that if the universe if you argue that the universe is billion volt then it was not created in six days probably not created in six days it makes sense for us to say that this argument is strong, of course you can verify with some good evidential source in scientific textbooks are some kind of theory of big bang theory. For example if you verified then all this statements that we have mentioned seems to be also true, so that makes this argument not only strong but also a cogent are you but if some of the argument some of the statements that you mentioned in this argument in the Big Bang Theory the one, which we are discussed is probably false in all our historical facts are maybe the scientific theories claims that that is not the case in all then obviously this argument may probably follow from the premises in all but still it may be one of the premises is false and on probably false. Then this is called as a nun cogent argument, so a cogent argument is a strong argument with true probably true premises, so we might confuse cogency with the soundness so a cogent argument can have false conclusion for its premises do not absolutely guarantee the truth of the conclusion. So it can still be called as a cogent argument even if it has a false conclusion false conclusion in the sense that is not a hundred percent falls in all but probably maybe you 99%true means one person falls only.

10 That means at least one counter instance is already there, so in inductive arguments you cannot talk about this is necessity in all in that all unity of arguments comes up with degrees of truth one of the conclusion will be accepting the conclusion with some degree of truth 99% of the commercial flights landed safely implies that probably the next phase that you are going to take also land safely. And maybe the next flight may come under the category of 99.99%so that is why is probably to that does not mean that it is a strong argument and probably it is it is also a cogent argument because you verified with lots of facts and all your repeated observations, tells you that is the case are you gut feeling tells us that it cannot be false enough but even in that case so it might very well happen that a cogent argument can help a false conclusion, false conclusion in the sense that 99% of the thing is true mean say at least one percent is false automatic. But in case of a sound argument it cannot have a false conclusion because what is the sound argument? It is a valid argument with true premises you know if the premises are true the conclusion cannot be false enough you cannot say with the you cannot say that it is one percent Falls are ninety-nine percent true except I know if the conclusion is accepted it is accepted with hundred percent certainty there is no way in which you can have any such kind of four degrees of truth awarding a sound argument. A sound argument cannot have a false conclusion but a cogent argument can have a false conclusion the sense of the one which we are talking the case of deductive arguments, a sound argument cannot have a false conclusion because it is where it is valid argument and it is all premises are true in all but it is if it is a valid argument it is automatically the case that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion is false. So it is in this sense a sound argument cannot have a false conclusion but a cogent argument can have a kind of false conclusion. So what do you mean by un cogency so till now we talked about cogency is one in which you know it is a strong inductive argument with probability two premises a uncogent argument is the one in which it is it is either week we all weak arguments are automatically uncogent arguments means conclusion may not probably follow from the premises, automatically it is invalid sorry uncogent.

11 (Refer Slide Time: 23:46) Are it can be this can still be a straw a strong argument but at least with the one probably false premise on, so an un cogent argument falls into at least one of these categories, so the category one is like this that it may be a strong argument but it is it as one false premise. In one of the premises is probably false and that leads to one cogent argument if both the premises are true in all then the conclusion also probably true then it is called as a cogent argument and the strong argument. Category two is that it may be a weak argument but all these premises are true probably true in that case it may be an uncogent argument almost all weak arguments are automatically un cogent arguments. Another category in which the Sun cogent argument falls is this thing it is a week and it is at least one false premise, so it is slightly different from the category one category one says that strong but one of the premises falls category three suggests says that is a week but it has at least one false premise. (Refer Slide Time: 24:59)

12 So far we discussed about cogency, uncogency of an inductive argument we said that we cannot talk about validity of an inductive argument if we talk about validity of an inductive argument need some is taken. Validity is something which is which invokes some kind of necessity in the connection between the premises and the conclusion the relationship between the premises and the conclusion the case of validity is a kind of necessity relation and all but in the case of inductive argument conclusion probably follows from the premises. So let us consider one simple method it so it is basically a common sensical method and all this is not a formal kind of method we will be entering into different kinds of formal methods a little bit later but let us talk about one simple method with which you can show that a given deductive argument is invalid. So here is a method which is called as counter intuitive method, so what is a counter intuitive method and what you are going to do is simply like this. So what you will be doing is first you will be identifying the form of an ultimate before that in a nutshell counterexample method is in which you will show that a given deductive argument is invalid. So when can you show that a deductive argument is invalid if you can cook up a single counter example that means cooking up with the counter example means you are coming up with the true premises and a false conclusion. So there are certain things obvious things which we know them to be true there are obvious things which we know them to be a false, for example if you say all cats are dogs then automatically the statement is false. Now it is not referring to the actual thing check this in the

13 world for example if it is a all dogs are animals of course dogs comes under the category of animals and that seems to be obviously it is a straightforward I suppose if you say that all cats are fish obviously that statement is wrong they all these things. So now it is person who is not having any knowledge of logic or anything can easily understand that the statement is false instrument is true with, suppose if you say all fish live in water and all so it makes some sense to believe that this is true enough. So all Cat fish if you say it is automatically falls, so we will be using a set of things which we are witch we are sure that they are true or sure that they are false except I not so you will take into consideration a set which consists of cats dogs mammals fish all these things you know. Then you will cook up a counter example once you extract the form of a given deductive argument, so here is a method which is very interesting you know you do not require any logical method to identify that this is an invalid argument, it only shows that the given in deductive argument is invalid first you will identify the form of the argument. Let us say for example if you say if the graph if we train the grass is wet and it rained and also that is the grass is wet. So the form here is a implies B and a then B follows in a me A stands for rain and then B stands for grass effect, so that seems to be perfectly valid arguments it has valid form in all. So now what you will do in this method is you will find some English statements are terms that substituted for the capital letters in the conclusion of the argument form produce a well-known falsehood enough, first what you will do is you will extract the form of the argument. And then 16 for example if you have a form like a implies B & B then a B follows a follows then what you will do is you will substitute some of the English terms into this thing. So for example here are the two things which you will commonly come across for example. (Refer Slide Time: 29:11)

14 You extracted the form and then you have written in this particular kind of sense, so this is one particular kind of thing you will be talking about and the second A+ B and not A and then if you input not B. So given an English language argument for example if you said that it rained then the grass is wet grass is wet, so that is much rained at all. So obviously you can say that this argument is invalid or not in a sense that you can have a counter example in which if you rain the grass is wet the class is indeed wet and all. But this may be falls in that means it rain may be false alarm instead of it rained and all it might be might be the case that the sprinkler might be on or maybe some other means in which the grass was wait in. So instead of talking about this thing what you will do is here is a sec you know you always thinks cats, dogs, animals the different classifications in all fish or mammals all these things which we are obviously. We know that they are obviously you can say tables are anything which you can look up and on, so if you say all cats are dogs and the statement is false in if you if you want to make this particular kind of thing true in all. So then you have to cook up an example in which you have to say that all cats are animals if x is a cat the next is an animal at all suppose if you say x is a cat then x is an animal obviously, all cats are animals on it cannot be fish it cannot be any other kind of species like any other thing. So this is what we have transformed into this thing so now B stands for x is animal, so we have substitute one of these terms it depends upon our creativity. So what we what we have done here

15 is that given an argument we extracted the form in all, so once we extracted the form we forget forgot about what is mentioned in the content of the argument. So now instead of for these thing obvious things we take into consideration cats dogs mammals except on our retreat or any other thing which comes to your mind and all. So x is an animal so now what is he here in X is it cap you can easily see that this argument is invalid in a sense that there are, so many animals which are not cats and all maybe leopards are some other things which come under the category of cats and all but it might be a pig or it might be dog it may be any other thing at all. So what we have done here is that you have true premises but it you can have a false conclusion, so X is a cat then x is an animal assume that this is true and X is also an animal is also true then if you infer that X is X has to be cat in all that means is necessarily follows from these two things in all then there is some kind of problem. Here X need not have to be cat in or it can be donkey or it can be some other thing in are dog or any other thing you know, so you have true premises but you could construct a false conclusion. So that makes this particular argument in valued at all because you could come up with a counter instance in which both are true and this is false in all today circumstances you come up with this particular kind of example. So like this I this counter example method only establishes that a given deductive argument is invalid but when you have valid arguments then this kind of technique will not help us. So now what we have done here is simply this that we substituted English statements are terms with the relevant capital letters that is ABC etc on all and once you substitute it that means that becomes a form of the argument. You forget about what is ABC then there are certain things which you obviously know to be true obviously known to be false, so now you have to find English-language statements are terms that if substituted uniformly that means if a is there you need to substitute it for X is a cat if B is the one which is the case then is we have representing it as animal. So animal is the thing which has to be uniformly substituted enough suppose if you substitute B for A and all that then something wrong here it is not in uniform substitution. So now once you substituted that one you have to check your work and then see whether if you have succeeded that means you have come up with a counter example you have shown that

16 argument is invalid in all. Here we clearly we showed that the argument is invalid if X is a cat then x is an animal it seems to be okay for us all cats are obviously animals that is true, x is an animal this is the assumption which has him to be true then based on that if you infer that X has we cater X is X is a cat necessarily follows from these things. Then nobody will be in a position to believe that the conclusion to be true in X can be a donkey or is can be a big but it can be an animal at all, so we already constructed a counterexample it which you could show that the given argument is invalid. (Refer Slide Time: 35:09) So counterexample to an argument form is a substitution instance in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false in. So what you are trying to do here is you are trying to come up with some kind of counter in instance in all, so things which we obviously known to be true obviously known to be faults are the ones which you are trying to substitute here. The first thing which we

17 have done is we extracted the form of the argument it can be A implies B or B or a or maybe in plus B not a and not B all these things are invalid forms. So once see how this form you forget about what is B 6 a tie on, so now for A B etc uniformly substitute with the things which we obviously know I not it can be cats donkeys, snakes, rats us or anything. So that is why the big the sect is not completed on you can involve the snakes or some other important features that you can add in all here. So a good outer a counterexample to an argument form is the substitution instance in which the premises are well-known truths like all cats are animals are well known faults like statements like all cats are donkeys all these things obvious things are. Well known truths and the conclusion obviously a well-known fall really not like a cat is a snake or something it does not like to be big sense if you can con e with this example and also it will be boring for us to go into the greater depth of this thing. So it only establishes that a given argument is invalid you do not have to have any knowledge of logic to know that this argument is invalid once you extract into the form you substitute the instances that you obviously know to be true obviously no you know them to be false. One form is like this no as a B's some C's are not be so some C's are a one counterexample is this thing that, now we are taking fish cat s paw malls etc in that particular set we have mentioned there. So No is our B for instead of we substituted fish and then B you substituted with cats and we are not disturbing the truth value of this particular kind of thing now is I mean obviously it is the case then no Fisher Cats and all no donkeys are cats are no cats are monkey sex a trial, so obviously the case which we know that this the case. So the first one is satisfied with this particular kind of thing and some C's are not beasts instead of C we substituted mammals some mammals are not cats I mean album walls need not have to be cat on it might be a tiger it might be something else a pig or something else some other kind of form, so it also satisfied by this example and then the other example the conclusion which we are represented is in the uniform substitution we came up with some mammals are fishing on obviously this summer moles cannot be cannot be fish in a fish does not come under the category of Mammals.

18 So obviously we have a counter example the premises are true the conclusion is false that means you could cook up a single instance where your premises are true and the conclusion is false that makes, this argument automatically invalid. If you take like this you can consider lots of examples in which you know you can say there are no A or B's some C' or B and no C sorry this is also an invalid argument you can think of one example which is already there here in the same way you can take a fish, cats mammals walls etc and then you can cook up a counter example and then say that this argument is invalid. (Refer Slide Time: 38:56) So there are some other instances in which you can show that a given argument is purely invalid enough, so that is like suppose if you take into consideration this argument if the government imposes import restrictions the price of automobiles will rise, therefore since the government will not impose import restrictions it follows that the price of automobiles mobiles will not rise. So anyone know who is not having any knowledge of imposing restrictions why how this automobiles price will increase I am not interested in all these things in all our government will not impose restrictions all these things I have nothing to do with anything I am a layman for example if you say that.

19 Then being a logician you can still talk about validity of this argument or not so the first thing which you need to do is the English language sentences which are mentioned in this argument you need to extract the form of the argument, it is not easy to come up with the form of the argument in many arguments that you come across in day-to-day life but in most of the cases suppose if you could come up with form of the argument and all then you can test the validity automatically. So that is the reason why we said in the beginning of beginning that this method only works for deductive arguments and then you can only establish that the given argument is invalid, so now if the government imposes import restrictions stands for G letter G and then price of automobiles will rise it is represented as P. So when we talk about propositional logic in greater detail then we will enter into the details of this thing how to represent a given sentence in terms of sentential letters like GPX a time. So this is safely can be safely represented as if G then p.m. and then the next statement the government will not impose restrictions is what is represented as not G, so therefore it has to be not piano this is more or less coming under the category of this one a implies B and not a and then you got not be you know. So for this you can think of some kind of counter example to show that this is invalid argument. So in this case if G then p and not G and not P it is a more or less same as this one implies the instead of a we have G and then instead of be we have, so this is not let us consider a in plus V not a and not B so how to show that this argument is invalid, so there are obvious things which we know indebted a discourse in our we can verify with historical facts you may not use this particular kind of example you can use cats donkeys snakes etcetera also they can come up with the same kind of counter example. So here is a counterexample it depends upon our creativity to construct a counter example, so we all of us know that for example G stands for a tall Hitler committed suicide and then p stands for in this case it is be a doll Hitler is dead now so we all know that historical fighter is dead they died actually already. So now we substitute G&P into this particular kind of argument if g then p exit i know, so suppose if you is in this case stands for if at all filter committed suicide.

20 So this is the one if at all Hitler committed suicide then Adolph us Larry is dead B stands for dead and then E stands for suicide if they had committed Susan obviously has to be greater if it is successful in, so adult Hitler did not commit suicide that means the second one let me say a does not commit suicide enough. So that follows from this it follows that at all fitted is not dated is because he has not committed suicide that does not mean that everyone has to die in some day or other. So even if you know you had not committed suicide but he might have died in some other ways he might have died a natural death are you my to hide in some other ways now some plane crash or something like that there are many ways with one king died and all but if you had not committed said, that does not mean that he is it not died does not seem to be acceptable to us it is counterintuitive to us. Now in the same way you can say that if X is a cat then x is an animal, so x is not a cat that means x is not an animal at all. So then that they are clearly shows that the argument is invalid if x is a cat then x is an animal obviously that is true in all then something like x is not a cat and all you came across one kind of let us say pig you know obviously that is not a cat in all, so from that you cannot infer that x is not an animal in all so if you infer that X is not an animal then you are it is clearly an instance very of true premises and a false conclusion that means you can always come up with an instance where your true premises in a false conclusion. You must note that even if you can come up with a single counter example then that makes this argument automatically invalid, so in the same way some other set of examples in which you can show that these arguments are obviously invalid. (Refer Slide Time: 44:48)

21 So they are like this all A are B all these are B so all B is C so the actual valid form for this one is like this all A are B all B are C then you will say that all is all A are C. So this is considered to be a valid kind of forming on obviously whatever you substitute for a B and C and all it can be donkey or it can be carrot at anything in all you will not be able to come up with any counterexample to this one. For example if it is not used in the current form if you say all be sorry is are all see sorry a something I change it a little bit then it becomes in invalid form of the street will become an invalid argument, so the one which we have is not in that particular kind of form it is slightly different all a surprise all C service instead of all resources we are all see surprise, so if you infer that from that A are C then you can obviously construct a counter example like all dogs are animals it satisfies the first premise. And then all cats are animals we have C stands for cats & B stands for animals and a stands for dogs here, so from that uniform substitution you came up with a conclusion that all dogs or cats so nobody will be in a position to accept its conclusion to be true. So what did we do we constructed a premises which are obviously true but the conclusion is false like all dogs or cats so from a given form invalid form is substituted some instances which we obviously know them to be true then it will lead to obviously false conclusion at all. So some other examples can be all A are B and here is a counter exam every cat is an animal ear is represented by cat and B is represented by animal then the second premise no C is A that

22 means no dog is a cat that is also obviously the case in all know donkey can be horse or something like them. So obviously you know the conclusion is no dog is an animal, so if you say that no dog is an animal then obviously docks are animals only, so it is not any other kind of reptiles or something like. So now we have discussed an important method in which we showed that a given argument is can only be invalid in, it shows that it works only for deductive arguments which are obviously invalid in all. So all invalid forms suppose if you can come across invalid forms automatically the arguments will be invalided out. So here are the limitations of this counter example method which seems to be working nice for establishing the invalidity of deductive arguments but it has his own limitations. The counterexample method cannot prove validity, so that is why you know it cannot be used for establishing the validity of a given argument but it only shows that a given argument is invalid. So it is a decision kind of procedure only for establishing the invalidity of a given B that you argument of course it will not work for the inductive arguments it is a completely another story. So sometimes constructing a counter example in some situations will be extremely difficult enough. So we have to use lot of creativity is involved in constructing the counter examples if the argument is having, so many variables except I not we just handled with the simple examples in all like modus ponens modus tollens, are the one which we are used as a transitivity property exit on all or not all arguments can be as simple as the one which talked about sometimes constructing counter example may be kind of difficult task and all sometimes it will be too difficult. So in this lecture what we discussed was simply this that we first we spoke about the strength of the inductive arguments, so we said that inductive argument can only be strong or a weak and all because the conclusion only probably follows from the premises in there is no guarantee that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises in the case of inductive arguments. So once we identified that it is a strong argument then we questioned ourselves is this argument is having some kind of false probably false premise.

23 You know if that is the case then we said that that is a week that is a uncogent argument and a nun cogent argument is a one inductive argument strong inductive argument in which it has one of the premises probably falls in on. So in a sense all week inductive arguments can automatically be unkind arguments enough, so then once we identified that given inductive argument is strong or weak we talked about cochin see around currency and then we introduced an important method which only establishes the invalidity of a deductive argument. It will not work for the validity of a deductive argument it only shows that a given argument is invalid, so that method is called as counter example method. In the counter example method what we have seen is simply this that given an argument we transformed it into appropriate form and then since it is automatically an invalid form you substituted with some instances which we obviously know them to be true or obviously know them to be false like you know all donkeys are cats so obviously false state. All cats are reptiles to say that is also fall straight you constructed some examples like this and then we showed that in all the invalid forms we could come up with some kind of counter examples, we could come up with counter example means we could come up with an instance an example where your true you have true premises but it you have a false conclusion. So this is the one which we have discussed and then in the next lecture what we are going to talk about is a different kind of model for an argumentation which is due to a famous British logician philosopher and of course we also constitute any storing of science stiffen to Lynn. So we will discuss different tool means model, so why in the sense that is totally dissatisfied with the formal kind of logic in which is dissatisfied with the models of formal logic it is failing to capture the day-to-day argumentation, that we use in obviously in the day-to-day discourse. So in the leg stretch next lecture we will be talking about a model of argumentation do too steep and tool it is widely used as one of the important models for the argumentation which is called as tool means model of argumentation, so we will cone with this lecture next thank you. Acknowledgement Ministry of Human Resource & Development Prof. Phalguni Gupta Co-ordinator, NPTEL IIT Kanpur Prof. Satyaki Roy

24 Co Co-ordinator, NPTEL IIT Kanpur Camera Ram Chandra Dilip Tripathi Padam Shukla Manoj Shrivastava Sanjay Mishra Editing Ashish Singh Badal Pradhan Tapobrata Das Shubham Rawat Shikha Gupta Pradeep Kumar K. K Mishra Jai Singh Sweety Kanaujia Aradhana Singh Sweta Preeti Sachan Ashutosh Gairola Dilip Katiyar Ashutosh Kumar Light & Sound Sharwan Hari Ram Production Crew Bhadra Rao Puneet Kumar Bajpai Priyanka Singh Office Lalty Dutta Ajay Kanaujia Shivendra Kumar Tiwari Saurabh Shukla Direction Sanjay Pal Production Manager Bharat Lal

25 an IIT Kanpur reserved

Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur. NP-TEL National Programme On Technology Enhanced Learning. Course Title Introduction to Logic

Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur. NP-TEL National Programme On Technology Enhanced Learning. Course Title Introduction to Logic Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur NP-TEL National Programme On Technology Enhanced Learning Course Title Introduction to Logic Lecture-09 Informal Fallacies: Fallacies of relevance and fallacies of

More information

Logic Book Part 1! by Skylar Ruloff!

Logic Book Part 1! by Skylar Ruloff! Logic Book Part 1 by Skylar Ruloff Contents Introduction 3 I Validity and Soundness 4 II Argument Forms 10 III Counterexamples and Categorical Statements 15 IV Strength and Cogency 21 2 Introduction This

More information

1.5. Argument Forms: Proving Invalidity

1.5. Argument Forms: Proving Invalidity 18. If inflation heats up, then interest rates will rise. If interest rates rise, then bond prices will decline. Therefore, if inflation heats up, then bond prices will decline. 19. Statistics reveal that

More information

PHILOSOPHY 102 INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC PRACTICE EXAM 1. W# Section (10 or 11) 4. T F The statements that compose a disjunction are called conjuncts.

PHILOSOPHY 102 INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC PRACTICE EXAM 1. W# Section (10 or 11) 4. T F The statements that compose a disjunction are called conjuncts. PHILOSOPHY 102 INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC PRACTICE EXAM 1 W# Section (10 or 11) 1. True or False (5 points) Directions: Circle the letter next to the best answer. 1. T F All true statements are valid. 2. T

More information

PHI Introduction Lecture 4. An Overview of the Two Branches of Logic

PHI Introduction Lecture 4. An Overview of the Two Branches of Logic PHI 103 - Introduction Lecture 4 An Overview of the wo Branches of Logic he wo Branches of Logic Argument - at least two statements where one provides logical support for the other. I. Deduction - a conclusion

More information

Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic

Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic Standardizing and Diagramming In Reason and the Balance we have taken the approach of using a simple outline to standardize short arguments,

More information

Artificial Intelligence: Valid Arguments and Proof Systems. Prof. Deepak Khemani. Department of Computer Science and Engineering

Artificial Intelligence: Valid Arguments and Proof Systems. Prof. Deepak Khemani. Department of Computer Science and Engineering Artificial Intelligence: Valid Arguments and Proof Systems Prof. Deepak Khemani Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Module 02 Lecture - 03 So in the last

More information

Critical Thinking - Wk 3. Instructor: Jason Sheley

Critical Thinking - Wk 3. Instructor: Jason Sheley Critical Thinking - Wk 3 Instructor: Jason Sheley Quick Quiz Give an example of a statement. Give an example of sentence that is not a statement. Give an example of an argument Validity, Truth, Soundness,

More information

Introduction to Logic. Instructor: Jason Sheley

Introduction to Logic. Instructor: Jason Sheley Introduction to Logic Instructor: Jason Sheley In this section we will learn: What is the difference between Deduction and Induction? Why use different types of logic? What is a valid argument? Invalid?

More information

Lecture 3 Arguments Jim Pryor What is an Argument? Jim Pryor Vocabulary Describing Arguments

Lecture 3 Arguments Jim Pryor What is an Argument? Jim Pryor Vocabulary Describing Arguments Lecture 3 Arguments Jim Pryor What is an Argument? Jim Pryor Vocabulary Describing Arguments 1 Agenda 1. What is an Argument? 2. Evaluating Arguments 3. Validity 4. Soundness 5. Persuasive Arguments 6.

More information

Chapter 1. Introduction. 1.1 Deductive and Plausible Reasoning Strong Syllogism

Chapter 1. Introduction. 1.1 Deductive and Plausible Reasoning Strong Syllogism Contents 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Deductive and Plausible Reasoning................... 3 1.1.1 Strong Syllogism......................... 3 1.1.2 Weak Syllogism.......................... 4 1.1.3 Transitivity

More information

MCQ IN TRADITIONAL LOGIC. 1. Logic is the science of A) Thought. B) Beauty. C) Mind. D) Goodness

MCQ IN TRADITIONAL LOGIC. 1. Logic is the science of A) Thought. B) Beauty. C) Mind. D) Goodness MCQ IN TRADITIONAL LOGIC FOR PRIVATE REGISTRATION TO BA PHILOSOPHY PROGRAMME 1. Logic is the science of-----------. A) Thought B) Beauty C) Mind D) Goodness 2. Aesthetics is the science of ------------.

More information

Intro Viewed from a certain angle, philosophy is about what, if anything, we ought to believe.

Intro Viewed from a certain angle, philosophy is about what, if anything, we ought to believe. Overview Philosophy & logic 1.2 What is philosophy? 1.3 nature of philosophy Why philosophy Rules of engagement Punctuality and regularity is of the essence You should be active in class It is good to

More information

Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics. Critical Thinking Lecture 1. Background Material for the Exercise on Validity

Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics. Critical Thinking Lecture 1. Background Material for the Exercise on Validity Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics Critical Thinking Lecture 1 Background Material for the Exercise on Validity Reasons, Arguments, and the Concept of Validity 1. The Concept of Validity Consider

More information

Selections from Aristotle s Prior Analytics 41a21 41b5

Selections from Aristotle s Prior Analytics 41a21 41b5 Lesson Seventeen The Conditional Syllogism Selections from Aristotle s Prior Analytics 41a21 41b5 It is clear then that the ostensive syllogisms are effected by means of the aforesaid figures; these considerations

More information

HOW TO ANALYZE AN ARGUMENT

HOW TO ANALYZE AN ARGUMENT What does it mean to provide an argument for a statement? To provide an argument for a statement is an activity we carry out both in our everyday lives and within the sciences. We provide arguments for

More information

IDHEF Chapter 2 Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All?

IDHEF Chapter 2 Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All? IDHEF Chapter 2 Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All? -You might have heard someone say, It doesn t really matter what you believe, as long as you believe something. While many people think this is

More information

A R G U M E N T S I N A C T I O N

A R G U M E N T S I N A C T I O N ARGUMENTS IN ACTION Descriptions: creates a textual/verbal account of what something is, was, or could be (shape, size, colour, etc.) Used to give you or your audience a mental picture of the world around

More information

Introduction Symbolic Logic

Introduction Symbolic Logic An Introduction to Symbolic Logic Copyright 2006 by Terence Parsons all rights reserved CONTENTS Chapter One Sentential Logic with 'if' and 'not' 1 SYMBOLIC NOTATION 2 MEANINGS OF THE SYMBOLIC NOTATION

More information

C. Exam #1 comments on difficult spots; if you have questions about this, please let me know. D. Discussion of extra credit opportunities

C. Exam #1 comments on difficult spots; if you have questions about this, please let me know. D. Discussion of extra credit opportunities Lecture 8: Refutation Philosophy 130 March 19 & 24, 2015 O Rourke I. Administrative A. Roll B. Schedule C. Exam #1 comments on difficult spots; if you have questions about this, please let me know D. Discussion

More information

Overview of Today s Lecture

Overview of Today s Lecture Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 1 Overview of Today s Lecture Music: Robin Trower, Daydream (King Biscuit Flower Hour concert, 1977) Administrative Stuff (lots of it) Course Website/Syllabus [i.e.,

More information

Philosophical Arguments

Philosophical Arguments Philosophical Arguments An introduction to logic and philosophical reasoning. Nathan D. Smith, PhD. Houston Community College Nathan D. Smith. Some rights reserved You are free to copy this book, to distribute

More information

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE ON THIS QUIZ

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE ON THIS QUIZ PLEASE DO NOT WRITE ON THIS QUIZ Critical Thinking: Quiz 4 Chapter Three: Argument Evaluation Section I. Indicate whether the following claims (1-10) are either true (A) or false (B). 1. If an arguer precedes

More information

2. Refutations can be stronger or weaker.

2. Refutations can be stronger or weaker. Lecture 8: Refutation Philosophy 130 October 25 & 27, 2016 O Rourke I. Administrative A. Schedule see syllabus as well! B. Questions? II. Refutation A. Arguments are typically used to establish conclusions.

More information

What is an argument? PHIL 110. Is this an argument? Is this an argument? What about this? And what about this?

What is an argument? PHIL 110. Is this an argument? Is this an argument? What about this? And what about this? What is an argument? PHIL 110 Lecture on Chapter 3 of How to think about weird things An argument is a collection of two or more claims, one of which is the conclusion and the rest of which are the premises.

More information

Deduction by Daniel Bonevac. Chapter 1 Basic Concepts of Logic

Deduction by Daniel Bonevac. Chapter 1 Basic Concepts of Logic Deduction by Daniel Bonevac Chapter 1 Basic Concepts of Logic Logic defined Logic is the study of correct reasoning. Informal logic is the attempt to represent correct reasoning using the natural language

More information

There are two common forms of deductively valid conditional argument: modus ponens and modus tollens.

There are two common forms of deductively valid conditional argument: modus ponens and modus tollens. INTRODUCTION TO LOGICAL THINKING Lecture 6: Two types of argument and their role in science: Deduction and induction 1. Deductive arguments Arguments that claim to provide logically conclusive grounds

More information

Lecture 2.1 INTRO TO LOGIC/ ARGUMENTS. Recognize an argument when you see one (in media, articles, people s claims).

Lecture 2.1 INTRO TO LOGIC/ ARGUMENTS. Recognize an argument when you see one (in media, articles, people s claims). TOPIC: You need to be able to: Lecture 2.1 INTRO TO LOGIC/ ARGUMENTS. Recognize an argument when you see one (in media, articles, people s claims). Organize arguments that we read into a proper argument

More information

Argumentation Module: Philosophy Lesson 7 What do we mean by argument? (Two meanings for the word.) A quarrel or a dispute, expressing a difference

Argumentation Module: Philosophy Lesson 7 What do we mean by argument? (Two meanings for the word.) A quarrel or a dispute, expressing a difference 1 2 3 4 5 6 Argumentation Module: Philosophy Lesson 7 What do we mean by argument? (Two meanings for the word.) A quarrel or a dispute, expressing a difference of opinion. Often heated. A statement of

More information

Revisiting the Socrates Example

Revisiting the Socrates Example Section 1.6 Section Summary Valid Arguments Inference Rules for Propositional Logic Using Rules of Inference to Build Arguments Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements Building Arguments for Quantified

More information

Lecture 4: Deductive Validity

Lecture 4: Deductive Validity Lecture 4: Deductive Validity Right, I m told we can start. Hello everyone, and hello everyone on the podcast. This week we re going to do deductive validity. Last week we looked at all these things: have

More information

Philosophy 1100: Ethics

Philosophy 1100: Ethics Philosophy 1100: Ethics Topic 1 - Course Introduction: 1. What is Philosophy? 2. What is Ethics? 3. Logic a. Truth b. Arguments c. Validity d. Soundness What is Philosophy? The Three Fundamental Questions

More information

Chapter 1 - Basic Training

Chapter 1 - Basic Training Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University Chapter 1 - Basic Training 1.1 Introduction In this logic course, we are going to be relying on some mental muscles that may need some toning

More information

(Refer Slide Time 03:00)

(Refer Slide Time 03:00) Artificial Intelligence Prof. Anupam Basu Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur Lecture - 15 Resolution in FOPL In the last lecture we had discussed about

More information

Introduction to Philosophy

Introduction to Philosophy Introduction to Philosophy Philosophy 110W Russell Marcus Hamilton College, Fall 2013 Class 1 - Introduction to Introduction to Philosophy My name is Russell. My office is 202 College Hill Road, Room 210.

More information

Basic Concepts and Skills!

Basic Concepts and Skills! Basic Concepts and Skills! Critical Thinking tests rationales,! i.e., reasons connected to conclusions by justifying or explaining principles! Why do CT?! Answer: Opinions without logical or evidential

More information

Handout 2 Argument Terminology

Handout 2 Argument Terminology Handout 2 Argument Terminology 1. Arguing, Arguments, & Statements Open Question: What happens when two people are in an argument? An argument is an abstraction from what goes on when people arguing. An

More information

Relevance. Premises are relevant to the conclusion when the truth of the premises provide some evidence that the conclusion is true

Relevance. Premises are relevant to the conclusion when the truth of the premises provide some evidence that the conclusion is true Relevance Premises are relevant to the conclusion when the truth of the premises provide some evidence that the conclusion is true Premises are irrelevant when they do not 1 Non Sequitur Latin for it does

More information

PHLA10 Reason and Truth Exercise 1

PHLA10 Reason and Truth Exercise 1 Y e P a g e 1 Exercise 1 Pg. 17 1. When is an idea or statement valid? (trick question) A statement or an idea cannot be valid; they can only be true or false. Being valid or invalid are properties of

More information

ARGUMENTS. Arguments. arguments

ARGUMENTS. Arguments. arguments ARGUMENTS Arguments arguments 1 Argument Worksheet 1. An argument is a collection of propositions with one proposition, the conclusion, following from the other propositions, the premises. Inference is

More information

Introducing Our New Faculty

Introducing Our New Faculty Dr. Isidoro Talavera Franklin University, Philosophy Ph.D. in Philosophy - Vanderbilt University M.A. in Philosophy - Vanderbilt University M.A. in Philosophy - University of Missouri M.S.E. in Math Education

More information

Example Arguments ID1050 Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning

Example Arguments ID1050 Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning Example Arguments ID1050 Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning First Steps to Analyzing an Argument In the following slides, some simple arguments will be given. The steps to begin analyzing each argument

More information

PHI 244. Environmental Ethics. Introduction. Argument Worksheet. Argument Worksheet. Welcome to PHI 244, Environmental Ethics. About Stephen.

PHI 244. Environmental Ethics. Introduction. Argument Worksheet. Argument Worksheet. Welcome to PHI 244, Environmental Ethics. About Stephen. Introduction PHI 244 Welcome to PHI 244, About Stephen Texts Course Requirements Syllabus Points of Interest Website http://seschmid.org, http://seschmid.org/teaching Email Policy 1 2 Argument Worksheet

More information

Exposition of Symbolic Logic with Kalish-Montague derivations

Exposition of Symbolic Logic with Kalish-Montague derivations An Exposition of Symbolic Logic with Kalish-Montague derivations Copyright 2006-13 by Terence Parsons all rights reserved Aug 2013 Preface The system of logic used here is essentially that of Kalish &

More information

Lecture 1: Validity & Soundness

Lecture 1: Validity & Soundness Lecture 1: Validity & Soundness 1 Goals Today Introduce one of our central topics: validity and soundness, and its connection to one of our primary course goals, namely: learning how to evaluate arguments

More information

Portfolio Project. Phil 251A Logic Fall Due: Friday, December 7

Portfolio Project. Phil 251A Logic Fall Due: Friday, December 7 Portfolio Project Phil 251A Logic Fall 2012 Due: Friday, December 7 1 Overview The portfolio is a semester-long project that should display your logical prowess applied to real-world arguments. The arguments

More information

Tutorial A02: Validity and Soundness By: Jonathan Chan

Tutorial A02: Validity and Soundness By: Jonathan Chan A02.1 Definition of validity Tutorial A02: Validity and Soundness By: One desirable feature of arguments is that the conclusion should follow from the premises. But what does it mean? Consider these two

More information

Curtis Solomon What is the difference between a deductive and an inductive argument?

Curtis Solomon What is the difference between a deductive and an inductive argument? Review: What is the difference between a deductive and an inductive argument? What is a valid argument? What is a sound argument? Vs. Arguments inductive argument: argument in which it is improbable that

More information

Unit. Categorical Syllogism. What is a syllogism? Types of Syllogism

Unit. Categorical Syllogism. What is a syllogism? Types of Syllogism Unit 8 Categorical yllogism What is a syllogism? Inference or reasoning is the process of passing from one or more propositions to another with some justification. This inference when expressed in language

More information

Richard L. W. Clarke, Notes REASONING

Richard L. W. Clarke, Notes REASONING 1 REASONING Reasoning is, broadly speaking, the cognitive process of establishing reasons to justify beliefs, conclusions, actions or feelings. It also refers, more specifically, to the act or process

More information

7.1. Unit. Terms and Propositions. Nature of propositions. Types of proposition. Classification of propositions

7.1. Unit. Terms and Propositions. Nature of propositions. Types of proposition. Classification of propositions Unit 7.1 Terms and Propositions Nature of propositions A proposition is a unit of reasoning or logical thinking. Both premises and conclusion of reasoning are propositions. Since propositions are so important,

More information

WHY SHOULD ANYONE BELIEVE ANYTHING AT ALL?

WHY SHOULD ANYONE BELIEVE ANYTHING AT ALL? WHY SHOULD ANYONE BELIEVE ANYTHING AT ALL? Beliefs don t trump facts in the real world. People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.

More information

1. To arrive at the truth we have to reason correctly. 2. Logic is the study of correct reasoning. B. DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

1. To arrive at the truth we have to reason correctly. 2. Logic is the study of correct reasoning. B. DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS I. LOGIC AND ARGUMENTATION 1 A. LOGIC 1. To arrive at the truth we have to reason correctly. 2. Logic is the study of correct reasoning. 3. It doesn t attempt to determine how people in fact reason. 4.

More information

Logic: The Science that Evaluates Arguments

Logic: The Science that Evaluates Arguments Logic: The Science that Evaluates Arguments Logic teaches us to develop a system of methods and principles to use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others to guide us in constructing arguments

More information

Transition to Quantified Predicate Logic

Transition to Quantified Predicate Logic Transition to Quantified Predicate Logic Predicates You may remember (but of course you do!) during the first class period, I introduced the notion of validity with an argument much like (with the same

More information

Announcements. CS243: Discrete Structures. First Order Logic, Rules of Inference. Review of Last Lecture. Translating English into First-Order Logic

Announcements. CS243: Discrete Structures. First Order Logic, Rules of Inference. Review of Last Lecture. Translating English into First-Order Logic Announcements CS243: Discrete Structures First Order Logic, Rules of Inference Işıl Dillig Homework 1 is due now Homework 2 is handed out today Homework 2 is due next Tuesday Işıl Dillig, CS243: Discrete

More information

PHI 1500: Major Issues in Philosophy

PHI 1500: Major Issues in Philosophy PHI 1500: Major Issues in Philosophy Session 3 September 9 th, 2015 All About Arguments (Part II) 1 A common theme linking many fallacies is that they make unwarranted assumptions. An assumption is a claim

More information

Logical (formal) fallacies

Logical (formal) fallacies Fallacies in academic writing Chad Nilep There are many possible sources of fallacy an idea that is mistakenly thought to be true, even though it may be untrue in academic writing. The phrase logical fallacy

More information

Artificial Intelligence. Clause Form and The Resolution Rule. Prof. Deepak Khemani. Department of Computer Science and Engineering

Artificial Intelligence. Clause Form and The Resolution Rule. Prof. Deepak Khemani. Department of Computer Science and Engineering Artificial Intelligence Clause Form and The Resolution Rule Prof. Deepak Khemani Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Module 07 Lecture 03 Okay so we are

More information

Three Kinds of Arguments

Three Kinds of Arguments Chapter 27 Three Kinds of Arguments Arguments in general We ve been focusing on Moleculan-analyzable arguments for several chapters, but now we want to take a step back and look at the big picture, at

More information

1.6 Validity and Truth

1.6 Validity and Truth M01_COPI1396_13_SE_C01.QXD 10/10/07 9:48 PM Page 30 30 CHAPTER 1 Basic Logical Concepts deductive arguments about probabilities themselves, in which the probability of a certain combination of events is

More information

6: DEDUCTIVE LOGIC. Chapter 17: Deductive validity and invalidity Ben Bayer Drafted April 25, 2010 Revised August 23, 2010

6: DEDUCTIVE LOGIC. Chapter 17: Deductive validity and invalidity Ben Bayer Drafted April 25, 2010 Revised August 23, 2010 6: DEDUCTIVE LOGIC Chapter 17: Deductive validity and invalidity Ben Bayer Drafted April 25, 2010 Revised August 23, 2010 Deduction vs. induction reviewed In chapter 14, we spent a fair amount of time

More information

INDUCTION. All inductive reasoning is based on an assumption called the UNIFORMITY OF NATURE.

INDUCTION. All inductive reasoning is based on an assumption called the UNIFORMITY OF NATURE. INDUCTION John Stuart Mill wrote the first comprehensive study of inductive logic. Deduction had been studied extensively since ancient times, but induction had to wait until the 19 th century! The cartoon

More information

Part II: How to Evaluate Deductive Arguments

Part II: How to Evaluate Deductive Arguments Part II: How to Evaluate Deductive Arguments Week 4: Propositional Logic and Truth Tables Lecture 4.1: Introduction to deductive logic Deductive arguments = presented as being valid, and successful only

More information

Logic: A Brief Introduction. Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University

Logic: A Brief Introduction. Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University 2012 CONTENTS Part I Critical Thinking Chapter 1 Basic Training 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Logic, Propositions and Arguments 1.3 Deduction and Induction

More information

2.1 Review. 2.2 Inference and justifications

2.1 Review. 2.2 Inference and justifications Applied Logic Lecture 2: Evidence Semantics for Intuitionistic Propositional Logic Formal logic and evidence CS 4860 Fall 2012 Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2.1 Review The purpose of logic is to make reasoning

More information

2016 Philosophy. Higher. Finalised Marking Instructions

2016 Philosophy. Higher. Finalised Marking Instructions National Qualifications 06 06 Philosophy Higher Finalised Marking Instructions Scottish Qualifications Authority 06 The information in this publication may be reproduced to support SQA qualifications only

More information

NPTEL NPTEL ONINE CERTIFICATION COURSE. Introduction to Machine Learning. Lecture-59 Ensemble Methods- Bagging,Committee Machines and Stacking

NPTEL NPTEL ONINE CERTIFICATION COURSE. Introduction to Machine Learning. Lecture-59 Ensemble Methods- Bagging,Committee Machines and Stacking NPTEL NPTEL ONINE CERTIFICATION COURSE Introduction to Machine Learning Lecture-59 Ensemble Methods- Bagging,Committee Machines and Stacking Prof. Balaraman Ravindran Computer Science and Engineering Indian

More information

Session 10 INDUCTIVE REASONONING IN THE SCIENCES & EVERYDAY LIFE( PART 1)

Session 10 INDUCTIVE REASONONING IN THE SCIENCES & EVERYDAY LIFE( PART 1) UGRC 150 CRITICAL THINKING & PRACTICAL REASONING Session 10 INDUCTIVE REASONONING IN THE SCIENCES & EVERYDAY LIFE( PART 1) Lecturer: Dr. Mohammed Majeed, Dept. of Philosophy & Classics, UG Contact Information:

More information

What is a logical argument? What is deductive reasoning? Fundamentals of Academic Writing

What is a logical argument? What is deductive reasoning? Fundamentals of Academic Writing What is a logical argument? What is deductive reasoning? Fundamentals of Academic Writing Logical relations Deductive logic Claims to provide conclusive support for the truth of a conclusion Inductive

More information

National Quali cations

National Quali cations H SPECIMEN S85/76/ National Qualications ONLY Philosophy Paper Date Not applicable Duration hour 5 minutes Total marks 50 SECTION ARGUMENTS IN ACTION 30 marks Attempt ALL questions. SECTION KNOWLEDGE AND

More information

ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. 1.1 What is Logic? Arguments and Propositions

ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. 1.1 What is Logic? Arguments and Propositions Handout 1 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC 1.1 What is Logic? Arguments and Propositions In our day to day lives, we find ourselves arguing with other people. Sometimes we want someone to do or accept something as true

More information

Please visit our website for other great titles:

Please visit our website for other great titles: First printing: July 2010 Copyright 2010 by Jason Lisle. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission of the publisher, except

More information

Lecture 4.2 Aquinas Phil Religion TOPIC: Aquinas Cosmological Arguments for the existence of God. Critiques of Aquinas arguments.

Lecture 4.2 Aquinas Phil Religion TOPIC: Aquinas Cosmological Arguments for the existence of God. Critiques of Aquinas arguments. TOPIC: Lecture 4.2 Aquinas Phil Religion Aquinas Cosmological Arguments for the existence of God. Critiques of Aquinas arguments. KEY TERMS/ GOALS: Cosmological argument. The problem of Infinite Regress.

More information

Argumentative Analogy versus Figurative Analogy

Argumentative Analogy versus Figurative Analogy Argumentative Analogy versus Figurative Analogy By Timo Schmitz, Philosopher As argumentative analogy or simply analogism (ἀναλογισµός), one calls the comparison through inductive reasoning of at least

More information

Conditionals II: no truth conditions?

Conditionals II: no truth conditions? Conditionals II: no truth conditions? UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane 1 Arguments for the material conditional analysis As Edgington [1] notes, there are some powerful reasons

More information

Tutorial A03: Patterns of Valid Arguments By: Jonathan Chan

Tutorial A03: Patterns of Valid Arguments By: Jonathan Chan A03.1 Introduction Tutorial A03: Patterns of Valid Arguments By: With valid arguments, it is impossible to have a false conclusion if the premises are all true. Obviously valid arguments play a very important

More information

What we want to know is: why might one adopt this fatalistic attitude in response to reflection on the existence of truths about the future?

What we want to know is: why might one adopt this fatalistic attitude in response to reflection on the existence of truths about the future? Fate and free will From the first person point of view, one of the most obvious, and important, facts about the world is that some things are up to us at least sometimes, we are able to do one thing, and

More information

PHIL2642 CRITICAL THINKING USYD NOTES PART 1: LECTURE NOTES

PHIL2642 CRITICAL THINKING USYD NOTES PART 1: LECTURE NOTES PHIL2642 CRITICAL THINKING USYD NOTES PART 1: LECTURE NOTES LECTURE CONTENTS LECTURE 1: CLAIMS, EXPLAINATIONS AND ARGUMENTS LECTURE 2: CONDITIONS AND DEDUCTION LECTURE 3: MORE DEDUCTION LECTURE 4: MEANING

More information

PRACTICE EXAM The state of Israel was in a state of mourning today because of the assassination of Yztzak Rabin.

PRACTICE EXAM The state of Israel was in a state of mourning today because of the assassination of Yztzak Rabin. PRACTICE EXAM 1 I. Decide which of the following are arguments. For those that are, identify the premises and conclusions in them by CIRCLING them and labeling them with a P for the premises or a C for

More information

General Philosophy. Dr Peter Millican,, Hertford College. Lecture 4: Two Cartesian Topics

General Philosophy. Dr Peter Millican,, Hertford College. Lecture 4: Two Cartesian Topics General Philosophy Dr Peter Millican,, Hertford College Lecture 4: Two Cartesian Topics Scepticism, and the Mind 2 Last Time we looked at scepticism about INDUCTION. This Lecture will move on to SCEPTICISM

More information

Semantic Entailment and Natural Deduction

Semantic Entailment and Natural Deduction Semantic Entailment and Natural Deduction Alice Gao Lecture 6, September 26, 2017 Entailment 1/55 Learning goals Semantic entailment Define semantic entailment. Explain subtleties of semantic entailment.

More information

1. True or False: The terms argument and disagreement mean the same thing. 2. True or False: No arguments have more than two premises.

1. True or False: The terms argument and disagreement mean the same thing. 2. True or False: No arguments have more than two premises. Logic Chapter 1 Practice Test: True / False: Mark each of the following statements as True or False. 1. True or False: The terms argument and disagreement mean the same thing. 2. True or False: No arguments

More information

Argument. What is it? How do I make a good one?

Argument. What is it? How do I make a good one? Argument What is it? How do I make a good one? Argument Vs Persuasion Everything s an argument, really. Argument: appeals strictly by reason and logic Persuasion: logic and emotion The forum of your argument

More information

PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS

PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS ATAR course examination, 2017 Question/Answer booklet PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS Please place your student identification label in this box Student number: In figures In words Time allowed for this paper Reading

More information

A Primer on Logic Part 1: Preliminaries and Vocabulary. Jason Zarri. 1. An Easy $10.00? a 3 c 2. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

A Primer on Logic Part 1: Preliminaries and Vocabulary. Jason Zarri. 1. An Easy $10.00? a 3 c 2. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) A Primer on Logic Part 1: Preliminaries and Vocabulary Jason Zarri 1. An Easy $10.00? Suppose someone were to bet you $10.00 that you would fail a seemingly simple test of your reasoning skills. Feeling

More information

CHAPTER THREE Philosophical Argument

CHAPTER THREE Philosophical Argument CHAPTER THREE Philosophical Argument General Overview: As our students often attest, we all live in a complex world filled with demanding issues and bewildering challenges. In order to determine those

More information

Symbolic Logic Prof. Chhanda Chakraborti Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur

Symbolic Logic Prof. Chhanda Chakraborti Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur Symbolic Logic Prof. Chhanda Chakraborti Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur Lecture - 01 Introduction: What Logic is Kinds of Logic Western and Indian

More information

Skim the Article to Find its Conclusion and Get a Sense of its Structure

Skim the Article to Find its Conclusion and Get a Sense of its Structure Pryor, Jim. (2006) Guidelines on Reading Philosophy, What is An Argument?, Vocabulary Describing Arguments. Published at http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/reading.html, and http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/index.html

More information

PHIL / PSYC 351. Thinking and Reasoning

PHIL / PSYC 351. Thinking and Reasoning PHIL / PSYC 351 Thinking and Reasoning The Instructors My name is Jonathan Livengood. I am an assistant professor of philosophy. My primary area of specialization is philosophy of science. Jonathan Livengood

More information

2.3. Failed proofs and counterexamples

2.3. Failed proofs and counterexamples 2.3. Failed proofs and counterexamples 2.3.0. Overview Derivations can also be used to tell when a claim of entailment does not follow from the principles for conjunction. 2.3.1. When enough is enough

More information

The problems of induction in scientific inquiry: Challenges and solutions. Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction Defining induction...

The problems of induction in scientific inquiry: Challenges and solutions. Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction Defining induction... The problems of induction in scientific inquiry: Challenges and solutions Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction... 2 2.0 Defining induction... 2 3.0 Induction versus deduction... 2 4.0 Hume's descriptive

More information

5.6.1 Formal validity in categorical deductive arguments

5.6.1 Formal validity in categorical deductive arguments Deductive arguments are commonly used in various kinds of academic writing. In order to be able to perform a critique of deductive arguments, we will need to understand their basic structure. As will be

More information

Faith indeed tells what the senses do not tell, but not the contrary of what they see. It is above them and not contrary to them.

Faith indeed tells what the senses do not tell, but not the contrary of what they see. It is above them and not contrary to them. 19 Chapter 3 19 CHAPTER 3: Logic Faith indeed tells what the senses do not tell, but not the contrary of what they see. It is above them and not contrary to them. The last proceeding of reason is to recognize

More information

Academic argument does not mean conflict or competition; an argument is a set of reasons which support, or lead to, a conclusion.

Academic argument does not mean conflict or competition; an argument is a set of reasons which support, or lead to, a conclusion. ACADEMIC SKILLS THINKING CRITICALLY In the everyday sense of the word, critical has negative connotations. But at University, Critical Thinking is a positive process of understanding different points of

More information

A short introduction to formal logic

A short introduction to formal logic A short introduction to formal logic Dan Hicks v0.3.2, July 20, 2012 Thanks to Tim Pawl and my Fall 2011 Intro to Philosophy students for feedback on earlier versions. My approach to teaching logic has

More information

Chapter 3: More Deductive Reasoning (Symbolic Logic)

Chapter 3: More Deductive Reasoning (Symbolic Logic) Chapter 3: More Deductive Reasoning (Symbolic Logic) There's no easy way to say this, the material you're about to learn in this chapter can be pretty hard for some students. Other students, on the other

More information

Announcements. CS311H: Discrete Mathematics. First Order Logic, Rules of Inference. Satisfiability, Validity in FOL. Example.

Announcements. CS311H: Discrete Mathematics. First Order Logic, Rules of Inference. Satisfiability, Validity in FOL. Example. Announcements CS311H: Discrete Mathematics First Order Logic, Rules of Inference Instructor: Işıl Dillig Homework 1 is due now! Homework 2 is handed out today Homework 2 is due next Wednesday Instructor:

More information

Deductive Forms: Elementary Logic By R.A. Neidorf READ ONLINE

Deductive Forms: Elementary Logic By R.A. Neidorf READ ONLINE Deductive Forms: Elementary Logic By R.A. Neidorf READ ONLINE If you are searching for a book Deductive Forms: Elementary Logic by R.A. Neidorf in pdf format, in that case you come on to the correct website.

More information

Empty Names and Two-Valued Positive Free Logic

Empty Names and Two-Valued Positive Free Logic Empty Names and Two-Valued Positive Free Logic 1 Introduction Zahra Ahmadianhosseini In order to tackle the problem of handling empty names in logic, Andrew Bacon (2013) takes on an approach based on positive

More information