# 1.6 Validity and Truth

Save this PDF as:

Size: px
Start display at page:

## Transcription

1 M01_COPI1396_13_SE_C01.QXD 10/10/07 9:48 PM Page CHAPTER 1 Basic Logical Concepts deductive arguments about probabilities themselves, in which the probability of a certain combination of events is deduced from the probabilities of other events.* In sum, the distinction between induction and deduction rests on the nature of the claims made by the two types of arguments about the relations between their premises and their conclusions. Thus we characterize the two types of arguments as follows: A deductive argument is one whose conclusion is claimed to follow from its premises with absolute necessity, this necessity not being a matter of degree and not depending in any way on whatever else may be the case. In sharp contrast, an inductive argument is one whose conclusion is claimed to follow from its premises only with probability, this probability being a matter of degree and dependent on what else may be the case. 1.6 Validity and Truth A deductive argument is valid when it is successful. Its validity refers to the relation between its propositions between the set of propositions that serve as the premises and the one proposition that serves as the conclusion of that argument. If the conclusion follows with logical necessity from the premises, we say that the argument is valid. Therefore validity can never apply to any single proposition by itself, because the needed relation cannot possibly be found within any one proposition. Truth and falsity, on the other hand, are attributes of individual propositions. A single statement that serves as a premise in an argument may be true; the statement that serves as its conclusion may be false. This conclusion might have been validly inferred, but to say that any conclusion (or any single premise) is itself valid or invalid makes no sense. Truth is the attribute of a proposition that asserts what really is the case. When I assert that Lake Superior is the largest of the five Great Lakes, I assert what really is the case, what is true. If I had claimed that Lake Michigan is the largest of the Great Lakes my assertion would not be in accord with the real world; therefore it would be false. This contrast between validity and truth is important: Truth and falsity are attributes of individual propositions or statements; validity and invalidity are attributes of arguments. Just as the concept of validity cannot apply to single propositions, the concept of truth cannot apply to arguments. Of the several propositions in an *If, for example, we learn that the probability of three successive heads in three tosses of a coin is 1 / 8, we may infer deductively that the probability of getting at least one tail in three tosses of a coin is 7 / 8. Other illustrations of such arguments are given in Chapter 14.

2 M01_COPI1396_13_SE_C01.QXD 10/10/07 9:48 PM Page Validity and Truth 31 argument, some (or all) may be true and some (or all) may be false. However, the argument as a whole is neither true nor false. Propositions, which are statements about the world, may be true or false; deductive arguments, which consist of inferences from one set of propositions to other propositions, may be valid or invalid. The relations between true (or false) propositions and valid (or invalid) arguments are critical and complicated. Those relations lie at the heart of deductive logic. Part II of this book is devoted largely to examination of those complex relations, but a preliminary discussion of the relation between validity and truth is in order here. We begin by emphasizing that an argument may be valid even if one or more of its premises is not true. Every argument makes a claim about the relation between its premises and the conclusion drawn from them; that relation may hold even if the premises turn out to be false or the truth of the premises is in dispute. This point was made dramatically by Abraham Lincoln in 1858 in one of his debates with Stephen Douglas. Lincoln was attacking the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court, which had held that slaves who had escaped into Northern states must be returned to their owners in the South. Lincoln said: I think it follows [from the Dred Scott decision] and submit to the consideration of men capable of arguing, whether as I state it in syllogistic form the argument has any fault in it: Nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy a right distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United States. The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy the right of property in a slave. I believe that no fault can be pointed out in that argument; assuming the truth of the premises, the conclusion, so far as I have capacity at all to understand it, follows inevitably. There is a fault in it as I think, but the fault is not in the reasoning; but the falsehood in fact is a fault of the premises. I believe that the right of property in a slave is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, and Judge Douglas thinks it is. I believe that the Supreme Court and the advocates of that decision [the Dred Scott decision] may search in vain for the place in the Constitution where the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed. I say, therefore, that I think one of the premises is not true in fact. 26 The reasoning in the argument that Lincoln recapitulates and attacks is not faulty but its second premise (that the right of property in a slave is... affirmed in the Constitution ) is plainly false. The conclusion has therefore not

3 M01_COPI1396_13_SE_C01.QXD 10/10/07 9:48 PM Page CHAPTER 1 Basic Logical Concepts been established. Lincoln s logical point is correct and important: An argument may be valid even when its conclusion and one or more of its premises are false. The validity of an argument, we emphasize once again, depends only on the relation of the premises to the conclusion. There are many possible combinations of true and false premises and conclusions in both valid and invalid arguments. Here follow seven illustrative arguments, each prefaced by the statement of the combination (or truth and validity) that it represents. With these illustrations (whose content is deliberately trivial) before us, we will be in a position to formulate some important principles concerning the relations between truth and validity. I. Some valid arguments contain only true propositions true premises and a true conclusion: All mammals have lungs. All whales are mammals. Therefore all whales have lungs. II. Some valid arguments contain only false propositions false premises and a false conclusion: All four-legged creatures have wings. All spiders have four legs. Therefore all spiders have wings. This argument is valid because, if its premises were true, its conclusion would have to be true also even though we know that in fact both the premises and the conclusion of this argument are false. III. Some invalid arguments contain only true propositions all their premises are true, and their conclusions are true as well: If I owned all the gold in Fort Knox, then I would be wealthy. I do not own all the gold in Fort Knox. Therefore I am not wealthy. The true conclusion of this argument does not follow from its true premises. This will be seen more clearly when the immediately following illustration is considered. IV. Some invalid arguments contain only true premises and have a false conclusion. This is illustrated by an argument exactly like the previous one (III) in form, changed only enough to make the conclusion false. If Bill Gates owned all the gold in Fort Knox, then Bill Gates would be wealthy. Bill Gates does not own all the gold in Fort Knox. Therefore Bill Gates is not wealthy.

4 M01_COPI1396_13_SE_C01.QXD 10/10/07 9:48 PM Page Validity and Truth 33 The premises of this argument are true, but its conclusion is false. Such an argument cannot be valid because it is impossible for the premises of a valid argument to be true and its conclusion to be false. V. Some valid arguments have false premises and a true conclusion: All fishes are mammals. All whales are fishes. Therefore all whales are mammals. The conclusion of this argument is true, as we know; moreover, it may be validly inferred from these two premises, both of which are wildly false. VI. Some invalid arguments also have false premises and a true conclusion: All mammals have wings. All whales have wings. Therefore all whales are mammals. From Examples V and VI taken together, it is clear that we cannot tell from the fact that an argument has false premises and a true conclusion whether it is valid or invalid. VII. Some invalid arguments, of course, contain all false propositions false premises and a false conclusion: All mammals have wings. All whales have wings. Therefore all mammals are whales. These seven examples make it clear that there are valid arguments with false conclusions (Example II), as well as invalid arguments with true conclusions (Examples III and VI). Hence it is clear that the truth or falsity of an argument s conclusion does not by itself determine the validity or invalidity of that argument. Moreover, the fact that an argument is valid does not guarantee the truth of its conclusion (Example II). Two tables (referring to the seven preceding examples) will make very clear the variety of possible combinations. The first table shows that invalid arguments can have every possible combination of true and false premises and conclusions: Invalid Arguments True Conclusion False Conclusion True Premises Example III Example IV False Premises Example VI Example VII

5 M01_COPI1396_13_SE_C01.QXD 10/10/07 9:48 PM Page CHAPTER 1 Basic Logical Concepts The second table shows that valid arguments can have only three of those combinations of true and false premises and conclusions: Valid Arguments True Conclusion False Conclusion True Premises Example I False Premises Example V Example II The one blank position in the second table exhibits a fundamental point: If an argument is valid and its premises are true, we may be certain that its conclusion is true also. To put it another way: If an argument is valid and its conclusion is false, not all of its premises can be true. Some perfectly valid arguments do have false conclusions, but any such argument must have at least one false premise. When an argument is valid and all of its premises are true, we call it sound. The conclusion of a sound argument obviously must be true and only a sound argument can establish the truth of its conclusion. If a deductive argument is not sound that is, if the argument is not valid or if not all of its premises are true it fails to establish the truth of its conclusion even if in fact the conclusion is true. To test the truth or falsehood of premises is the task of science in general, because premises may deal with any subject matter at all. The logician is not (professionally) interested in the truth or falsehood of propositions so much as in the logical relations between them. By logical relations between propositions we mean those relations that determine the correctness or incorrectness of the arguments in which they occur. The task of determining the correctness or incorrectness of arguments falls squarely within the province of logic. The logician is interested in the correctness even of arguments whose premises may be false. Why do we not confine ourselves to arguments with true premises, ignoring all others? Because the correctness of arguments whose premises are not known to be true may be of great importance. In science, for example, we verify theories by deducing testable consequences from uncertain theoretical premises but we cannot know beforehand which theories are true. In everyday life also, we must often choose between alternative courses of action, first seeking to deduce the consequences of each. To avoid deceiving ourselves, we must reason correctly about the consequences of the alternatives, taking each as a premise. If we were interested only in arguments with true premises, we would not know which set of consequences to trace out until we knew which of the alternative premises was true. But if we knew which of the alternative premises was true, we would not need to reason about it at all, because our purpose was to help us decide which alternative premise to make true. To confine our attention to arguments with premises known to be true would therefore be self-defeating.

6 M01_COPI1396_13_SE_C01.QXD 10/10/07 9:48 PM Page 35 Summary 35 Effective methods for establishing the validity or invalidity of deductive arguments are presented and explained at length in Part II of this book. EXERCISES Construct a series of deductive arguments, on any subject of your choosing, each with only two premises, having the following characteristics: 1. A valid argument with one true premise, one false premise, and a false conclusion 2. A valid argument with one true premise, one false premise, and a true conclusion 3. An invalid argument with two true premises and a false conclusion 4. An invalid argument with two true premises and a true conclusion 5. A valid argument with two false premises and a true conclusion 6. An invalid argument with two false premises and a true conclusion 7. An invalid argument with one true premise, one false premise, and a true conclusion 8. A valid argument with two true premises and a true conclusion SUMMARY The most fundamental concepts of logic are introduced in this chapter. In Section 1.1 we explained why logic is defined as the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning. In Section 1.2 we gave an account of propositions, which may be asserted or denied, and which are either true or false, and of arguments the central concern of logicians which are clusters of propositions of which one is the conclusion and the others are the premises offered in its support. In Section 1.3 we discussed difficulties in the recognition of arguments, arising from the variety of ways in which the propositions they contain may be expressed, and sometimes even the absence of their express statement in arguments called enthymemes. In Section 1.4 we discussed the differences between arguments and explanations, showing why this distinction often depends on the context, and the intent of the passage in that context. In Section 1.5 we explained the fundamental difference between deductive arguments, whose conclusions may be certain (if the premises are true and the reasoning valid), and inductive arguments, aiming to establish matters of fact, whose conclusions may be very probable but are never certain.

### Instructor s Manual 1

Instructor s Manual 1 PREFACE This instructor s manual will help instructors prepare to teach logic using the 14th edition of Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen, and Kenneth McMahon s Introduction to Logic. The

### 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

### 9 Methods of Deduction

M09_COPI1396_13_SE_C09.QXD 10/19/07 3:46 AM Page 372 9 Methods of Deduction 9.1 Formal Proof of Validity 9.2 The Elementary Valid Argument Forms 9.3 Formal Proofs of Validity Exhibited 9.4 Constructing

### The Problem of Major Premise in Buddhist Logic

The Problem of Major Premise in Buddhist Logic TANG Mingjun The Institute of Philosophy Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Shanghai, P.R. China Abstract: This paper is a preliminary inquiry into the main

### 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 ------------.

### 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

### TWO APPROACHES TO INSTRUMENTAL RATIONALITY

TWO APPROACHES TO INSTRUMENTAL RATIONALITY AND BELIEF CONSISTENCY BY JOHN BRUNERO JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY VOL. 1, NO. 1 APRIL 2005 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT JOHN BRUNERO 2005 I N SPEAKING

### 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

### Logic: A Brief Introduction

Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University PART III - Symbolic Logic Chapter 7 - Sentential Propositions 7.1 Introduction What has been made abundantly clear in the previous discussion

### BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC 1. What is Logic?...2 2. Inferences and Arguments...2 3. Deductive Logic versus Inductive Logic...5 4. Statements versus Propositions...6 5. Form versus Content...7 6. Preliminary

### 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.

### 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

### I Don't Believe in God I Believe in Science

I Don't Believe in God I Believe in Science This seems to be a common world view that many people hold today. It is important that when we look at statements like this we spend a proper amount of time

### A Judgmental Formulation of Modal Logic

A Judgmental Formulation of Modal Logic Sungwoo Park Pohang University of Science and Technology South Korea Estonian Theory Days Jan 30, 2009 Outline Study of logic Model theory vs Proof theory Classical

### 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

### 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

### An Inferentialist Conception of the A Priori. Ralph Wedgwood

An Inferentialist Conception of the A Priori Ralph Wedgwood When philosophers explain the distinction between the a priori and the a posteriori, they usually characterize the a priori negatively, as involving

### Lecture 5 Philosophy of Mind: Dualism Barbara Montero On the Philosophy of the Mind

Lecture 5 Philosophy of Mind: Dualism Barbara Montero On the Philosophy of the Mind 1 Agenda 1. Barbara Montero 2. The Mind-Body Problem 3. Descartes Argument for Dualism 4. Theistic Version of Descartes

### Paley s Inductive Inference to Design

PHILOSOPHIA CHRISTI VOL. 7, NO. 2 COPYRIGHT 2005 Paley s Inductive Inference to Design A Response to Graham Oppy JONAH N. SCHUPBACH Department of Philosophy Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan

### Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. i-ix, 379. ISBN \$35.00.

Appeared in Linguistics and Philosophy 26 (2003), pp. 367-379. Scott Soames. 2002. Beyond Rigidity: The Unfinished Semantic Agenda of Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. i-ix, 379.

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### Basic Logical Concepts

M01_COPI1396_13_SE_C01.QXD 10/10/07 9:48 PM Page 4 1 Basic Logical Concepts 1.1 What Logic Is 1.2 Propositions and Arguments 1.3 Recognizing Arguments 1.4 Arguments and Explanations 1.5 Deductive and Inductive

### Validity & Soundness LECTURE 3! Critical Thinking. Summary: In this week s lectures, we will learn! (1) What it is for an argument to be valid.

Critical Thinking Norva Y S Lo Produced by Norva Y S Lo Edited by Andrew Brennan LECTURE 3! Validity & Soundness Summary: In this week s lectures, we will learn! (1) What it is for an argument to be. (2)

### Logic and Argument Analysis: An Introduction to Formal Logic and Philosophic Method (REVISED)

Carnegie Mellon University Research Showcase @ CMU Department of Philosophy Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences 1985 Logic and Argument Analysis: An Introduction to Formal Logic and Philosophic

### Do we have knowledge of the external world?

Do we have knowledge of the external world? This book discusses the skeptical arguments presented in Descartes' Meditations 1 and 2, as well as how Descartes attempts to refute skepticism by building our

### Chapter 8 - Sentential Truth Tables and Argument Forms

Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall Stetson University Chapter 8 - Sentential ruth ables and Argument orms 8.1 Introduction he truth-value of a given truth-functional compound proposition depends

### Charles Saunders Peirce ( )

Charles Saunders Peirce (1839-1914) Few persons care to study logic, because everybody conceives himself to be proficient enough in the art of reasoning already. But I observe that this satisfaction is

### Logic: Deductive and Inductive by Carveth Read M.A. CHAPTER IX CHAPTER IX FORMAL CONDITIONS OF MEDIATE INFERENCE

CHAPTER IX CHAPTER IX FORMAL CONDITIONS OF MEDIATE INFERENCE Section 1. A Mediate Inference is a proposition that depends for proof upon two or more other propositions, so connected together by one or

### Test Item File. Full file at

Test Item File 107 CHAPTER 1 Chapter 1: Basic Logical Concepts Multiple Choice 1. In which of the following subjects is reasoning outside the concern of logicians? A) science and medicine B) ethics C)

### 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

### 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

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.

### 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

### Creation & necessity

Creation & necessity Today we turn to one of the central claims made about God in the Nicene Creed: that God created all things visible and invisible. In the Catechism, creation is described like this:

### Kripke on the distinctness of the mind from the body

Kripke on the distinctness of the mind from the body Jeff Speaks April 13, 2005 At pp. 144 ff., Kripke turns his attention to the mind-body problem. The discussion here brings to bear many of the results

### The Subject Matter of Ethics G. E. Moore

The Subject Matter of Ethics G. E. Moore 1 It is very easy to point out some among our every-day judgments, with the truth of which Ethics is undoubtedly concerned. Whenever we say, So and so is a good

### Introduction to Philosophy

Introduction to Philosophy Descartes 2: The Cogito Jeremy Dunham Descartes Meditations A Recap of Meditation 1 First Person Narrative From Empiricism to Rationalism The Withholding Principle Local Doubt

### PHIL 115: Philosophical Anthropology. I. Propositional Forms (in Stoic Logic) Lecture #4: Stoic Logic

HIL 115: hilosophical Anthropology Lecture #4: Stoic Logic Arguments from the Euthyphro: Meletus Argument (according to Socrates) [3a-b] Argument: Socrates is a maker of gods; so, Socrates corrupts the

### In Defense of Radical Empiricism. Joseph Benjamin Riegel. Chapel Hill 2006

In Defense of Radical Empiricism Joseph Benjamin Riegel A thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

### WHAT IS HUME S FORK? Certainty does not exist in science.

WHAT IS HUME S FORK? www.prshockley.org Certainty does not exist in science. I. Introduction: A. Hume divides all objects of human reason into two different kinds: Relation of Ideas & Matters of Fact.

### 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

### Chapter 18 David Hume: Theory of Knowledge

Key Words Chapter 18 David Hume: Theory of Knowledge Empiricism, skepticism, personal identity, necessary connection, causal connection, induction, impressions, ideas. DAVID HUME (1711-76) is one of the

### REASONING SYLLOGISM. Subject Predicate Distributed Not Distributed Distributed Distributed

REASONING SYLLOGISM DISTRIBUTION OF THE TERMS The word "Distrlbution" is meant to characterise the ways in which terrns can occur in Categorical Propositions. A Proposition distributes a terrn if it refers

### A Solution to the Gettier Problem Keota Fields. the three traditional conditions for knowledge, have been discussed extensively in the

A Solution to the Gettier Problem Keota Fields Problem cases by Edmund Gettier 1 and others 2, intended to undermine the sufficiency of the three traditional conditions for knowledge, have been discussed

### 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

### Ayer and Quine on the a priori

Ayer and Quine on the a priori November 23, 2004 1 The problem of a priori knowledge Ayer s book is a defense of a thoroughgoing empiricism, not only about what is required for a belief to be justified

### Reason and Judgment, A Primer Istvan S. N. Berkeley, Ph.D. ( istvan at louisiana dot edu) 2008, All Rights Reserved.

Reason and Judgment, A Primer Istvan S. N. Berkeley, Ph.D. (E-mail: istvan at louisiana dot edu) 2008, All Rights Reserved. I. Introduction Aristotle said that our human capacity to reason is one of the

### Baruch Spinoza Ethics Reading Guide Patrick R. Frierson

Baruch Spinoza Ethics Reading Guide Patrick R. Frierson Spinoza s Life and Works 1 1632 Spinoza born to a Portuguese-Jewish family living in Amsterdam 1656 Excommunicated from his synagogue and community

Introduction to Philosophy Russell Marcus Queens College http://philosophy.thatmarcusfamily.org Excerpts from the Objections & Replies to Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy A. To the Cogito. 1.

### Rational Self-Doubt and the Failure of Closure *

Rational Self-Doubt and the Failure of Closure * Joshua Schechter Brown University Abstract Closure for justification is the claim that thinkers are justified in believing the logical consequences of their

### Lay75879_ch01 11/17/03 2:03 PM Page x

Lay75879_ch01 11/17/03 2:03 PM Page x McGraw-Hill Higher Education Layman: The Power of Logic, 3e CHAPTER 1 / Page x Lay75879_ch01 11/17/03 2:03 PM Page 1 McGraw-Hill Higher Education Layman: The Power

### Suppose... Kant. The Good Will. Kant Three Propositions

Suppose.... Kant You are a good swimmer and one day at the beach you notice someone who is drowning offshore. Consider the following three scenarios. Which one would Kant says exhibits a good will? Even

### Must we have self-evident knowledge if we know anything?

1 Must we have self-evident knowledge if we know anything? Introduction In this essay, I will describe Aristotle's account of scientific knowledge as given in Posterior Analytics, before discussing some

### INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE

INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE Péter Érdi Henry R. Luce Professor Center for Complex Systems Studies Kalamazoo College, Michigan and Dept. Biophysics KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics of

### 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

### INTERMEDIATE LOGIC Glossary of key terms

1 GLOSSARY INTERMEDIATE LOGIC BY JAMES B. NANCE INTERMEDIATE LOGIC Glossary of key terms This glossary includes terms that are defined in the text in the lesson and on the page noted. It does not include

### Freedom as Morality. UWM Digital Commons. University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. Hao Liang University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Theses and Dissertations

University of Wisconsin Milwaukee UWM Digital Commons Theses and Dissertations May 2014 Freedom as Morality Hao Liang University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Follow this and additional works at: http://dc.uwm.edu/etd

### CRITICAL THINKING (CT) MODEL PART 1 GENERAL CONCEPTS

Fall 2001 ENGLISH 20 Professor Tanaka CRITICAL THINKING (CT) MODEL PART 1 GENERAL CONCEPTS In this first handout, I would like to simply give you the basic outlines of our critical thinking model

### complete state of affairs and an infinite set of events in one go. Imagine the following scenarios:

-1- -2- EPISTEMOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY 3. We are in a physics laboratory and make the observation that all objects fall at a uniform Can we solve the problem of induction, and if not, to what extent is it

### THE FORM OF REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM J. M. LEE. A recent discussion of this topic by Donald Scherer in [6], pp , begins thus:

Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic Volume XIV, Number 3, July 1973 NDJFAM 381 THE FORM OF REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM J. M. LEE A recent discussion of this topic by Donald Scherer in [6], pp. 247-252, begins

### Essential Logic Ronald C. Pine

Essential Logic Ronald C. Pine Chapter 11: Other Logical Tools Syllogisms and Quantification Introduction A persistent theme of this book has been the interpretation of logic as a set of practical tools.

### The Problem of Induction and Popper s Deductivism

The Problem of Induction and Popper s Deductivism Issues: I. Problem of Induction II. Popper s rejection of induction III. Salmon s critique of deductivism 2 I. The problem of induction 1. Inductive vs.

### HAVE WE REASON TO DO AS RATIONALITY REQUIRES? A COMMENT ON RAZ

HAVE WE REASON TO DO AS RATIONALITY REQUIRES? A COMMENT ON RAZ BY JOHN BROOME JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY SYMPOSIUM I DECEMBER 2005 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT JOHN BROOME 2005 HAVE WE REASON

### Notes on Bertrand Russell s The Problems of Philosophy (Hackett 1990 reprint of the 1912 Oxford edition, Chapters XII, XIII, XIV, )

Notes on Bertrand Russell s The Problems of Philosophy (Hackett 1990 reprint of the 1912 Oxford edition, Chapters XII, XIII, XIV, 119-152) Chapter XII Truth and Falsehood [pp. 119-130] Russell begins here

### 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

### 4.1 A problem with semantic demonstrations of validity

4. Proofs 4.1 A problem with semantic demonstrations of validity Given that we can test an argument for validity, it might seem that we have a fully developed system to study arguments. However, there

### The Assurance of God's Faithfulness

The Assurance of God's Faithfulness by Kel Good A central doctrine held by many of us who subscribe to "moral government," which comes under much criticism, is the idea that God is voluntarily good. This

### Justified Inference. Ralph Wedgwood

Justified Inference Ralph Wedgwood In this essay, I shall propose a general conception of the kind of inference that counts as justified or rational. This conception involves a version of the idea that

### I. l--arguments and their Uses

Australasian Journal of Philosophy Vol. 77, No. 2, pp. 174-191; June 1999 BEGGING THE QUESTION Walter Sinnott-Armstrong No topic in informal logic is more important than begging the question. Also, none

### WHY ENGINEERS SHOULD CONSIDER FORMAL METHODS. C. Michael Holloway

To appear in the Proceedings of the 16 th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, October 1997 WHY ENGINEERS SHOULD CONSIDER FORMAL METHODS C. Michael Holloway NASA Langley Research Center Mail Stop 130 /

### Entailment, with nods to Lewy and Smiley

Entailment, with nods to Lewy and Smiley Peter Smith November 20, 2009 Last week, we talked a bit about the Anderson-Belnap logic of entailment, as discussed in Priest s Introduction to Non-Classical Logic.

### Spinoza, Ethics 1 of 85 THE ETHICS. by Benedict de Spinoza (Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata) Translated from the Latin by R. H. M.

Spinoza, Ethics 1 of 85 THE ETHICS by Benedict de Spinoza (Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata) Translated from the Latin by R. H. M. Elwes PART I: CONCERNING GOD DEFINITIONS (1) By that which is self-caused

### A SOLUTION TO FORRESTER'S PARADOX OF GENTLE MURDER*

162 THE JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY cial or political order, without this second-order dilemma of who is to do the ordering and how. This is not to claim that A2 is a sufficient condition for solving the world's

### FIL 4600/10/20: KANT S CRITIQUE AND CRITICAL METAPHYSICS

FIL 4600/10/20: KANT S CRITIQUE AND CRITICAL METAPHYSICS Autumn 2012, University of Oslo Thursdays, 14 16, Georg Morgenstiernes hus 219, Blindern Toni Kannisto t.t.kannisto@ifikk.uio.no SHORT PLAN 1 23/8:

### Martha C. Nussbaum (4) Outline:

Another problem with people who fail to examine themselves is that they often prove all too easily influenced. When a talented demagogue addressed the Athenians with moving rhetoric but bad arguments,

### Categorical Logic Handout Logic: Spring Sound: Any valid argument with true premises.

Categorical Logic Handout Logic: Spring 2017 Deductive argument: An argument whose premises are claimed to provide conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion. Validity: A characteristic of any

### 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

### Responses to the sorites paradox

Responses to the sorites paradox phil 20229 Jeff Speaks April 21, 2008 1 Rejecting the initial premise: nihilism....................... 1 2 Rejecting one or more of the other premises....................

### UNDERSTANDING RATIONALITY IN HOBBES AND HUME

FILOZOFIA Roč. 69, 2014, č. 8 UNDERSTANDING RATIONALITY IN HOBBES AND HUME HUN CHUNG, Department of Philosophy, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, USA CHUNG, H.: Understanding Rationality

### Truth and Evidence in Validity Theory

Journal of Educational Measurement Spring 2013, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 110 114 Truth and Evidence in Validity Theory Denny Borsboom University of Amsterdam Keith A. Markus John Jay College of Criminal Justice

book symposium 651 Burge, T. 1986. Intellectual norms and foundations of mind. Journal of Philosophy 83: 697 720. Burge, T. 1989. Wherein is language social? In Reflections on Chomsky, ed. A. George, Oxford:

### BLACKWELL PUBLISHING THE SCOTS PHILOSOPHICAL CLUB UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS

VOL. 55 NO. 219 APRIL 2005 CONTEXTUALISM: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS ARTICLES Epistemological Contextualism: Problems and Prospects Michael Brady & Duncan Pritchard 161 The Ordinary Language Basis for Contextualism,

### Fr. Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell: The Famous 1948 BBC Radio Debate on the Existence of God

Fr. Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell: The Famous 1948 BBC Radio Debate on the Existence of God Father Frederick C. Copleston (Jesuit Catholic priest) versus Bertrand Russell (agnostic philosopher) Copleston:

### Received: 30 August 2007 / Accepted: 16 November 2007 / Published online: 28 December 2007 # Springer Science + Business Media B.V.

Acta anal. (2007) 22:267 279 DOI 10.1007/s12136-007-0012-y What Is Entitlement? Albert Casullo Received: 30 August 2007 / Accepted: 16 November 2007 / Published online: 28 December 2007 # Springer Science

### b) The meaning of "child" would need to be taken in the sense of age, as most people would find the idea of a young child going to jail as wrong.

Explanation for Question 1 in Quiz 8 by Norva Lo - Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 9:39 AM The following is the solution for Question 1 in Quiz 8: (a) Which term in the argument is being equivocated. (b) What

### Dogmatism and Moorean Reasoning. Markos Valaris University of New South Wales. 1. Introduction

Dogmatism and Moorean Reasoning Markos Valaris University of New South Wales 1. Introduction By inference from her knowledge that past Moscow Januaries have been cold, Mary believes that it will be cold

### Artificial Intelligence I

Artificial Intelligence I Matthew Huntbach, Dept of Computer Science, Queen Mary and Westfield College, London, UK E 4NS. Email: mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk. Notes may be used with the permission of the author.

### Tools for Logical Analysis. Roger Bishop Jones

Tools for Logical Analysis Roger Bishop Jones Started 2011-02-10 Last Change Date: 2011/02/12 09:14:19 http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/www/papers/p015.pdf Draft Id: p015.tex,v 1.2 2011/02/12 09:14:19 rbj

### The Ontological Argument for the existence of God. Pedro M. Guimarães Ferreira S.J. PUC-Rio Boston College, July 13th. 2011

The Ontological Argument for the existence of God Pedro M. Guimarães Ferreira S.J. PUC-Rio Boston College, July 13th. 2011 The ontological argument (henceforth, O.A.) for the existence of God has a long

### - 1 - Outline of NICOMACHEAN ETHICS, Book I Book I--Dialectical discussion leading to Aristotle's definition of happiness: activity in accordance

- 1 - Outline of NICOMACHEAN ETHICS, Book I Book I--Dialectical discussion leading to Aristotle's definition of happiness: activity in accordance with virtue or excellence (arete) in a complete life Chapter

### 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

### With prompting and support, identify the reasons an author gives to support points in a text.

Big Idea: Reading for Argumentation ANCHOR STANDARD: Reading #8 HANDOUT TWO Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, including the validity of the reasoning as well as the relevancy

### what makes reasons sufficient?

Mark Schroeder University of Southern California August 2, 2010 what makes reasons sufficient? This paper addresses the question: what makes reasons sufficient? and offers the answer, being at least as