Argument Basics. When an argument shows that its conclusion is worth accepting we say that the argument is good.
|
|
- Wendy Beverly Johnson
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Argument Basics When an argument shows that its conclusion is worth accepting we say that the argument is good. When an argument fails to do so we say that the argument is bad. But there are different ways for an argument to be good or bad because there are different types of arguments.
2 Two types of arguments 1) Deductive Argument 2) Inductive Argument
3 (1) Deduction: Reasoning from general principles to particular cases 1. The sum of the interior angles of any triangle is 180 degrees. 2. ABC is a triangle. 3. Angle A = 50 degrees. 4. Angle B = 40 degrees. Therefore C. Angle C = 90 degrees. In deductive arguments, the premises entail the conclusions. This is a very powerful form of reasoning. If the premises are true and the form is valid, then conclusion must be true.
4 (2) Induction: Reasoning from particular cases to general principles 1. Helium is a gas and it has a low density at 1ATM & 22C. 2. Oxygen is a gas and it has a low density at 1ATM & 22C. 3. Nitrogen is a gas and it has a low density at 1ATM & 22C. Therefore C. All gases have a low density at 1ATM and 22C. In inductive reasoning the premises support the conclusion in direct proportion to the extent and comprehensiveness of the available data.
5 A philosophical aside In praise of induction and risk Valid [deductive] arguments are risk free. Inductive logic studies risky arguments. A risky argument can be a very good one, and yet its conclusions can be false, even when the premises are true. Most of our arguments are risky. Ian Hacking, Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic, 11. A inference rule is amended it yields an inference we are unwilling to accept; and inference rule is amended if it violates a rule we are unwilling to amend. All this applies equally well to [deduction and] induction. Predictions are justified if they conform to valid canons of induction; and the canons are valid if they accurately codify accepted inductive practice. Nelson Goodman, Fact, Fiction and Forecast, 64. Important Note: (i) No inductive argument meets the standard of deductive validity. (ii) No deductive argument meets the standard of inductive validity.
6 (3) Analogical reasoning: Similar cases ought to be treated similarly 1. A is relevantly similar to B. 2. A has property P. Therefore C. B has property P. Meeting the G condition here is different from either deduction or induction. (Assuming that Premise 2 is acceptable) it all comes down to the claim of relevant similarity.
7 (4) Conductive Reasoning: Weighing pros and cons, arguments and counterarguments Conductive arguments can typically involve a blend of the above three. You strengthen a conductive argument by explicitly conceding and attempting to address counter-considerations. E.g., the question of affirmative action Again, here, meeting the G condition is not simply deductive validity, sufficient inductive support, or a strongly compelling analogy; this a a fourth (and most complex) way of meeting the G condition.
8 Interpreting Arguments (i) Standardizing Arguments What is the C? What are the P s? (ii) Patterns of Premises How exactly are the P s organized and interrelated? (iii) Unstated Premises and Conclusions Filling in what is left unsaid (and left for you to fill in). (iv) Charity in Interpretation Be kind! Avoid the temptation to portray an argument poorly.
9 Argument Structure In order to evaluate an argument, it is obviously crucial to first understand exactly what the argument is. Step 1: identify premises and conclusions Step 2(a): identify the content of the premises and conclusion Step 2(b): identify the form or structure of the argument
10 Standardizing Arguments (I) To standardize an argument is to explicitly set apart its conclusion and its premises. Standardizing arguments should not be confused with formalizing or schematizing arguments. Procedure: (i) (ii) Find the conclusion. What is the passage trying to make me believe? Find the premises. What claims are being offered to support the conclusion.
11 Standardizing Arguments (II) Be careful! Be thoughtful! In written and spoken exchanges, conclusions are often scattered among premises and irrelevant material in the passage you are evaluating. Conclusions may be asserted first, last or in the middle of a passage. This makes arguments difficult to evaluate. In good editorials, conclusions are asserted first. In good analytical writing, conclusions are asserted last. In general, it is a sign of bad writing that conclusions are asserted in the middle.
12 Example (I) Research by Professor Fizzbane has shown conclusively that all humdingers are zipwags. Interestingly, our research at Gentech labs has shown that the rare spittleburg collected from Amazonia is also a humdinger. We conclude, uncontroversially, that the spittleburg is a zipwag. Hermione Granger, Recent Gentech Research
13 Example (I) Analysis Here is the standardized argument. Premise 1: All humdingers are zigwags. Premise 2: This spittleburg is a humdinger. Conclusion: This spittleburg is zigwag. We would formalize the argument as follows: Premise 1: All P are Q Premise 2: R is P Conclusion: Therefore, R is Q
14 Example (II) At Stalingrad, General Chuikov faced an unhappy dilemma. On the one hand, he could order a further retreat in the face of the German advance. This would result in significant losses to the 62 nd army. On the other hand, he could order the army to stand its ground at Stalingrad. That, too, would result in heavy losses.
15 Example (II) Analysis Here is the standardized argument: 1: Either we retreat further or we stand our ground. 2: If we retreat, then we will suffer heavy losses. 3: If we stand our ground, then we will suffer heavy losses. 4: Therefore, we will suffer heavy losses. Here is the formalized argument: Premise 1: Either P or Q. Premise 2: If P then R. Premise 3: If Q then R. Conclusion: R.
16 Scope The scope of a claim can be understood as the coverage of the claim. (i) Universal claims. Cover all. All toddlers love toy cars. Every toddler loves toy cars There is no toddler that does not love toy cars. (ii) Particular claims Cover some. Some toddlers love toy cars. A few toddlers love toy cars. There is a toddler that loves toy cars.
17 Degrees of Commitment People s commitment to their conclusions vary. They may be more or less committed to a conclusion. It is certain that It is indubitable that It is probable that It is likely that It might be true that It could be true that
18 Organization of Premises Premises may be organized in different ways. There are (i) convergent premises, and (ii) linked premises Sometimes called convergent support, and linked support.
19 Convergent Premises Convergent premises (also convergent support) are completely independent, and each individually adds to the case in favor of the conclusion. The failure of an individual premise does not necessarily indicate the failure of the whole argument. Convergent premises: P1 P2 P3 C1
20 Example of Convergent Premises David Dangoor, Phillip Morris in a Rolling Stone interview I ll tell you what I like about this business. First, there are no surprises. There is nothing more to be said or discovered about cigarettes. Second, no new company wants to get into the tobacco business. That s great. Third, we have the best partners in the world: the governments. In a lot of countries, the taxes from our product are incredibly important to the whole welfare state. So, no matter how you look at it, this is a great business to be in if you can handle the fact that some people are not going to like you.
21 Example Standardized P1: There is no more negative evidence forthcoming about tobacco. P2: No one today wants to get into the tobacco business. P3: Tobacco companies have the best partners in the world. Therefore C1: The tobacco business is a great business to be in if you can handle the fact that some people are not going to like you.
22 Linked Premises Linked premises (also linked support) are interdependent in their support for the conclusion. Linked Premises P1 + P2 + P3 C1 Linked arguments are only as strong as their weakest link. If any link fails, then the argument fails.
23 Example of Linked Support Anyone who uses weapons that predictably injure civilians is acting immorally. Cluster bombs predictably injure civilians. Those jerks are still today using cluster bombs. Therefore, they are acting immorally. [p.41]
24 Example Standardized P1: Anyone who uses weapons that predictably injure civilians is acting immorally. P2: Cluster bombs predictably injure civilians. P3: A group of people is using cluster bombs. C1: That group is acting immorally.
25 Subarguments Arguments often proceed in stages. A statement that serves as the conclusion of one argument becomes a premise in another argument. Subarguments may be provided to support controversial premises.
26 Example of Subargument (I) A computer cannot cheat in a game, because cheating requires deliberately breaking the rules in order to win. A computer cannot deliberately break rules because it has no freedom of action.
27 Example of Subargument (I) P1: A computer has no freedom of action C1 (P2): A computer cannot deliberately break rules. P3: Cheating requires deliberately breaking rules. C2: A computer cannot cheat.
28 Example of Subargument (I) 1. A computer has no freedom of action. Thus 2. A computer cannot deliberately break rules. 3. Cheating requires deliberately breaking rules. Therefore C. A computer cannot cheat C
29 Unstated Conclusions Sometimes conclusions are left implicit. This is often an effective rhetorical device as it forces the listener to contribute to, and thereby participate in, the argument. Consider the following cases: The law does not permit suicide, and whatever the law does not explicitly permit it forbids. Aristotle Could evolution ever account for the depth of intellect that Carl Sagan possesses? Not in a billion years. (p.51)
30 Supplementing Unstated Material P1. The law does not permit suicide. P2. Whatever the law does not explicitly permit it forbids. Therefore C. Suicide is illegal. P1. Evolution cannot account for the depth of intellect that Carl Sagan possesses. Therefore C. The theory of evolution is false.
31 Unstated Premises The question of unstated premises gets us into more subtle terrain, because all communication relies on a vast implicit background of shared beliefs and values. In general, in any conversation, we do not explicitly articulate everything that is relevant. Sometimes, one of these implicit background beliefs must be explicitly added when standardizing an argument, on the grounds that: (i) The author clearly seems to be committed to it (ii) Explicitly adding it greatly improves the force or clarity of the argument
32 Example (I) [P0: Freedom of action is required to deliberately break rules.] P1: A computer has no freedom of action C1 (P2): A computer cannot deliberately break rules. P3: Cheating requires deliberately breaking rules. C2: A computer cannot cheat.
33 Former US President Jimmy Carter, Just War or a Just War? from The New York Times (9 March 2003). Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.
34 Standardized 1. America s reputation was staked on commitment to certain key principles. 2. These principles are based on religious principles, respect for international law, and important alliances. 3. Adherence to these principles has usually resulted in wise decisions. 4. Attacking Iraq without international support would violated these principles. Therefore C. America should not attack Iraq without international support
35 Be Careful! No supplementation without justification Guidelines for when to add missing premises 1) Logical gaps indicative of missing premise(s). 2) Additional premise is implicitly or explicitly accepted by the arguer. 3) Statements of missing premises should be as plausible as possible.
36 The Principle of Charity: Be Charitable! Bend over backwards to be fair to the arguer. Reid on Hume: Temper, moderation, and good manners. In other words: Begin with the assumption that the argument is cogent. Do not add material to an argument that makes it a worse argument. Assume that the arguer will be responsive to reasoned counter-arguments.
37 Wisdom from your textbook! On the presumption that people who offer arguments are seeking to be reasonable, and to provide information supported by logically connected ideas, we should not represent their argument as implausible or unreasonable unless there is compelling evidence for doing so. [p.60]
38 Final Example III Mill, On Liberty (1859) The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth. If it is wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
39 1. If an opinion that is right is censored, then those who mistakenly think that it is wrong are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth. 2. If an opinion that is wrong is censored, then those who correctly think that it is wrong are robbed of almost as great a benefit Thus 3. Those who dissent from a censured opinion are wronged to an even greater extent than those who agree with the censured opinion. 4. If an opinion that is right is censored, then those who correctly agree with the censored opinion are also wronged. Thus 5. Silencing the expression of an opinion robs the human race, both present and future generations. Therefore C. Censorship is wrong.
40 Example III Diagram C
41 A counter-argument Sometimes opinions are particularly volatile, and can have harmful consequences. This is why we have laws against hate literature. We are not free simpliciter, but rather, only free to the extent that our actions do not impinge the freedoms of others. Whenever opinions can predictably have the consequence of impinging on the rights and freedoms of others, they should be censured.
42 Standardized 1. Like all rights and freedoms, freedom of expression of opinion is essentially qualified and restricted. 2. One is only entitled to a certain right or freedom to the extent that it does not impinge on the rights and freedoms of others. 3. Some opinions impinge on the rights of others. Therefore C: Whenever opinions can predictably have the consequence of impinging on the rights and freedoms of others, they should be censured.
43 Three Key Logical Terms (1) Cogency (2) Soundness (3) Validity
44 (1) Cogency Cogency: A general property of arguments that reflects the extent to which an argument compels or constraints. A cogent argument satisfies the ARG conditions. An argument may be said to be cogent or lack cogency. Does admitting that an argument is cogent commit you to the conclusion? In some cases yes and in others no. It depends on the mode of reasoning at work! Strangely, as a matter of style and convention, we usually don t use the term cogent in cases where admitting the cogency of the argument would, in fact, absolutely commit us to the conclusion. Typically, the use of cogent to describe an argument often indicates a tentative commitment to the argument.
45 (2) Soundness Soundness: An argument is sound if the premises of the argument are true and the conclusion is implied by the premises. A sound argument satisfies the ARG conditions. Committing to the soundness of an argument is to commit to the truth and relevance of the premises as well as the acceptability of the form of the argument. Deductive arguments have the highest standard of cogency. Thus, we seldom describe deductive arguments, involving deductive entailment, as cogent. We usually described them as sound. A sound argument has true premises that deductively entail the conclusion. A sound argument is an argument that has the highest standard of cogency.
46 (3) Validity In day-to-day life, we talk about a valid driver s license, or the validation of software serial number. Validity is a technical term in deductive logic. If an argument has an appropriate deductive form, then we say that the argument is valid. Recall: deductive logic is just one mode of reasoning, though it is a very powerful form of reasoning. An argument is either valid or invalid. When we say that an argument is invalid we mean that we are rejecting the argument because it doesn t have the right deductive form. When we say this, we don t care about the content of the premises. That is, we don t care what the premises are about.
47 (3) Validity (more) If an argument has a valid form and the premises are true, then the conclusion of the argument must be true. The conclusion is deductively entailed. But, an argument may be valid (have the right form or structure) but not be true. It s premises could be false. Important: Committing to the validity of an argument, does not necessarily commit you to the truth conclusion. Likewise, asserting the invalidity of an argument, does not necessarily commit you to rejecting the conclusion. (You might accept the conclusion, but reject the form of the argument given for the conclusion.)
48 Validity Illustrated P1: If it s whirly-gig then smack-gurgle. P2: This is a whirly-gig. C1: This is also a smack-gurgle. This is a valid argument. We recognize the form as being valid. All arguments of this form are valid: P1: If P then Q. P2: P C1: Therefore, Q But, not all arguments of this form necessarily produce true conclusions. In this case, we don t know if the premises are true or false. We only know that argument is valid. We know nothing about its truth!
49 Example 1: Important! Validity and Truth are Different. P1: All men are mortal. P2: Socrates is a man. C1: Socrates is mortal. Valid and True. Example 2: P1: All men are purple. P2: Socrates is a man. C1: Socrates is purple. Valid but false. Note that Example 1 and Example 2 have exactly the same form or structure of argument.
50 A Practical Aside Sometimes you will hear valid applied to other modes of reasoning. For example, you might hear: That s a valid analogy. This is generally a mistake or error. As a matter of style and convention, we reserve the word valid for deductive arguments that have an appropriate form. Sometimes you will hear sound applied to other modes of reasoning. For example, you might hear: That s a sound analogy. This is generally an mistake or error. Likewise, we also usually reserve the term sound for deductive arguments that have true premises and entail the conclusion. Cogence is usually the positive term used to describe arguments that use modes of reasoning other than deduction. In technical discussion you might here someone refer to a sound induction or a valid induction. This is often simply a mistake but sometimes a controversial philosophical point is being made
Deduction. Of all the modes of reasoning, deductive arguments have the strongest relationship between the premises
Deduction Deductive arguments, deduction, deductive logic all means the same thing. They are different ways of referring to the same style of reasoning Deduction is just one mode of reasoning, but it is
More informationBasic 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 informationRichard 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 informationNational 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 information2016 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 informationEvaluating Arguments
Govier: A Practical Study of Argument 1 Evaluating Arguments Chapter 4 begins an important discussion on how to evaluate arguments. The basics on how to evaluate arguments are presented in this chapter
More informationWriting Module Three: Five Essential Parts of Argument Cain Project (2008)
Writing Module Three: Five Essential Parts of Argument Cain Project (2008) Module by: The Cain Project in Engineering and Professional Communication. E-mail the author Summary: This module presents techniques
More information2017 Philosophy. Higher. Finalised Marking Instructions
National Qualifications 07 07 Philosophy Higher Finalised Marking Instructions Scottish Qualifications Authority 07 The information in this publication may be reproduced to support SQA qualifications only
More informationPhilosophy 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 informationIntro 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 informationThree 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 informationKANT S EXPLANATION OF THE NECESSITY OF GEOMETRICAL TRUTHS. John Watling
KANT S EXPLANATION OF THE NECESSITY OF GEOMETRICAL TRUTHS John Watling Kant was an idealist. His idealism was in some ways, it is true, less extreme than that of Berkeley. He distinguished his own by calling
More informationLogic 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 informationA 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 informationKANTIAN ETHICS (Dan Gaskill)
KANTIAN ETHICS (Dan Gaskill) German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was an opponent of utilitarianism. Basic Summary: Kant, unlike Mill, believed that certain types of actions (including murder,
More information1. Introduction Formal deductive logic Overview
1. Introduction 1.1. Formal deductive logic 1.1.0. Overview In this course we will study reasoning, but we will study only certain aspects of reasoning and study them only from one perspective. The special
More information2.3. 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 informationTo better understand VALIDITY, we now turn to the topic of logical form.
LOGIC GUIDE 2 To better understand VALIDITY, we now turn to the topic of logical form. LOGICAL FORM The logical form of a statement or argument is the skeleton, or structure. If you retain only the words
More informationHume. Hume the Empiricist. Judgments about the World. Impressions as Content of the Mind. The Problem of Induction & Knowledge of the External World
Hume Hume the Empiricist The Problem of Induction & Knowledge of the External World As an empiricist, Hume thinks that all knowledge of the world comes from sense experience If all we can know comes from
More informationMCQ 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 informationFollow Will of the People. Your leftist h. b. ave often d1sgusted b h
Philosophy 101 (3/24/11) I ve posted solutions to HW #3 (study these!) HW #4 is due today Quiz #4 is next Thursday This will be re-do of the last quiz (on chs. 3&4) I ll give you the higher of your two
More information16. Universal derivation
16. Universal derivation 16.1 An example: the Meno In one of Plato s dialogues, the Meno, Socrates uses questions and prompts to direct a young slave boy to see that if we want to make a square that has
More informationLogic is the study of the quality of arguments. An argument consists of a set of
Logic: Inductive Logic is the study of the quality of arguments. An argument consists of a set of premises and a conclusion. The quality of an argument depends on at least two factors: the truth of the
More information1.5 Deductive and Inductive Arguments
M01_COPI1396_13_SE_C01.QXD 10/10/07 9:48 PM Page 26 26 CHAPTER 1 Basic Logical Concepts 19. All ethnic movements are two-edged swords. Beginning benignly, and sometimes necessary to repair injured collective
More informationCritical Thinking 5.7 Validity in inductive, conductive, and abductive arguments
5.7 Validity in inductive, conductive, and abductive arguments REMEMBER as explained in an earlier section formal language is used for expressing relations in abstract form, based on clear and unambiguous
More informationArgument Writing. Whooohoo!! Argument instruction is necessary * Argument comprehension is required in school assignments, standardized testing, job
Argument Writing Whooohoo!! Argument instruction is necessary * Argument comprehension is required in school assignments, standardized testing, job promotion as well as political and personal decision-making
More informationPortfolio 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 informationThe Critical Mind is A Questioning Mind
criticalthinking.org http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/the-critical-mind-is-a-questioning-mind/481 The Critical Mind is A Questioning Mind Learning How to Ask Powerful, Probing Questions Introduction
More informationTWO VERSIONS OF HUME S LAW
DISCUSSION NOTE BY CAMPBELL BROWN JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION NOTE MAY 2015 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT CAMPBELL BROWN 2015 Two Versions of Hume s Law MORAL CONCLUSIONS CANNOT VALIDLY
More informationCommon Morality: Deciding What to Do 1
Common Morality: Deciding What to Do 1 By Bernard Gert (1934-2011) [Page 15] Analogy between Morality and Grammar Common morality is complex, but it is less complex than the grammar of a language. Just
More informationINHISINTERESTINGCOMMENTS on my paper "Induction and Other Minds" 1
DISCUSSION INDUCTION AND OTHER MINDS, II ALVIN PLANTINGA INHISINTERESTINGCOMMENTS on my paper "Induction and Other Minds" 1 Michael Slote means to defend the analogical argument for other minds against
More informationINDUCTION. 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 informationPastor-teacher Don Hargrove Faith Bible Church September 8, 2011
Pastor-teacher Don Hargrove Faith Bible Church http://www.fbcweb.org/doctrines.html September 8, 2011 Building Mental Muscle & Growing the Mind through Logic Exercises: Lesson 4a The Three Acts of the
More informationPhil 114, April 24, 2007 until the end of semester Mill: Individual Liberty Against the Tyranny of the Majority
Phil 114, April 24, 2007 until the end of semester Mill: Individual Liberty Against the Tyranny of the Majority The aims of On Liberty The subject of the work is the nature and limits of the power which
More informationOSSA Conference Archive OSSA 5
University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 5 May 14th, 9:00 AM - May 17th, 5:00 PM Commentary pm Krabbe Dale Jacquette Follow this and additional works at: http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive
More informationIntroduction 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 informationThis document consists of 10 printed pages.
Cambridge International Examinations Cambridge International Advanced Level THINKING SKILLS 9694/43 Paper 4 Applied Reasoning MARK SCHEME imum Mark: 50 Published This mark scheme is published as an aid
More informationIntroduction to Analyzing and Evaluating Arguments
Introduction to Analyzing and Evaluating Arguments 1. HOW TO ANALYZE AN ARGUMENT Example 1. Socrates must be mortal. After all, all humans are mortal, and Socrates is a human. What does the author of this
More information2 FREE CHOICE The heretical thesis of Hobbes is the orthodox position today. So much is this the case that most of the contemporary literature
Introduction The philosophical controversy about free will and determinism is perennial. Like many perennial controversies, this one involves a tangle of distinct but closely related issues. Thus, the
More information2014 Examination Report 2014 Extended Investigation GA 2: Critical Thinking Test GENERAL COMMENTS
2014 Extended Investigation GA 2: Critical Thinking Test GENERAL COMMENTS The Extended Investigation Critical Thinking Test assesses the ability of students to produce arguments, and to analyse and assess
More information2nd International Workshop on Argument for Agreement and Assurance (AAA 2015), Kanagawa Japan, November 2015
2nd International Workshop on Argument for Agreement and Assurance (AAA 2015), Kanagawa Japan, November 2015 On the Interpretation Of Assurance Case Arguments John Rushby Computer Science Laboratory SRI
More informationInstructor 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
More informationArgumentation 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 informationConference on the Epistemology of Keith Lehrer, PUCRS, Porto Alegre (Brazil), June
2 Reply to Comesaña* Réplica a Comesaña Carl Ginet** 1. In the Sentence-Relativity section of his comments, Comesaña discusses my attempt (in the Relativity to Sentences section of my paper) to convince
More informationA Brief Introduction to Key Terms
1 A Brief Introduction to Key Terms 5 A Brief Introduction to Key Terms 1.1 Arguments Arguments crop up in conversations, political debates, lectures, editorials, comic strips, novels, television programs,
More informationFatalism and Truth at a Time Chad Marxen
Stance Volume 6 2013 29 Fatalism and Truth at a Time Chad Marxen Abstract: In this paper, I will examine an argument for fatalism. I will offer a formalized version of the argument and analyze one of the
More information(i) Morality is a system; and (ii) It is a system comprised of moral rules and principles.
Ethics and Morality Ethos (Greek) and Mores (Latin) are terms having to do with custom, habit, and behavior. Ethics is the study of morality. This definition raises two questions: (a) What is morality?
More informationExplanatory Indispensability and Deliberative Indispensability: Against Enoch s Analogy Alex Worsnip University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Explanatory Indispensability and Deliberative Indispensability: Against Enoch s Analogy Alex Worsnip University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Forthcoming in Thought please cite published version In
More informationPLEASE 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 informationBoghossian & Harman on the analytic theory of the a priori
Boghossian & Harman on the analytic theory of the a priori PHIL 83104 November 2, 2011 Both Boghossian and Harman address themselves to the question of whether our a priori knowledge can be explained in
More informationChapter 2 Reasoning about Ethics
Chapter 2 Reasoning about Ethics TRUE/FALSE 1. The statement "nearly all Americans believe that individual liberty should be respected" is a normative claim. F This is a statement about people's beliefs;
More informationChapter 2: Reasoning about ethics
Chapter 2: Reasoning about ethics 2012 Cengage Learning All Rights reserved Learning Outcomes LO 1 Explain how important moral reasoning is and how to apply it. LO 2 Explain the difference between facts
More informationEvaluating actions The principle of utility Strengths Criticisms Act vs. rule
UTILITARIAN ETHICS Evaluating actions The principle of utility Strengths Criticisms Act vs. rule A dilemma You are a lawyer. You have a client who is an old lady who owns a big house. She tells you that
More informationA Note on Straight-Thinking
A Note on Straight-Thinking A supplementary note for the 2nd Annual JTS/CGST Public Ethics Lecture March 5, 2002(b), adj. 2009:03:05 G.E.M. of TKI Arguments & Appeals In arguments, people try to persuade
More informationThe 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
More informationDoes Deduction really rest on a more secure epistemological footing than Induction?
Does Deduction really rest on a more secure epistemological footing than Induction? We argue that, if deduction is taken to at least include classical logic (CL, henceforth), justifying CL - and thus deduction
More informationPHI 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 informationValley Bible Church Theology Studies. Inerrancy
Inerrancy We believe the Bible is completely truth in everything it teaches, whether explicitly or implicitly. It more than accomplishes its purpose without failure, it does so without communicating erroneously.
More informationUnit. 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 informationHelpful Hints for doing Philosophy Papers (Spring 2000)
Helpful Hints for doing Philosophy Papers (Spring 2000) (1) The standard sort of philosophy paper is what is called an explicative/critical paper. It consists of four parts: (i) an introduction (usually
More informationCausing People to Exist and Saving People s Lives Jeff McMahan
Causing People to Exist and Saving People s Lives Jeff McMahan 1 Possible People Suppose that whatever one does a new person will come into existence. But one can determine who this person will be by either
More informationWhat 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 informationMILL ON JUSTICE: CHAPTER 5 of UTILITARIANISM Lecture Notes Dick Arneson Philosophy 13 Fall, 2005
1 MILL ON JUSTICE: CHAPTER 5 of UTILITARIANISM Lecture Notes Dick Arneson Philosophy 13 Fall, 2005 Some people hold that utilitarianism is incompatible with justice and objectionable for that reason. Utilitarianism
More informationI. Claim: a concise summary, stated or implied, of an argument s main idea, or point. Many arguments will present multiple claims.
Basics of Argument and Rhetoric Although arguing, speaking our minds, and getting our points across are common activities for most of us, applying specific terminology to these activities may not seem
More informationLogic for Computer Science - Week 1 Introduction to Informal Logic
Logic for Computer Science - Week 1 Introduction to Informal Logic Ștefan Ciobâcă November 30, 2017 1 Propositions A proposition is a statement that can be true or false. Propositions are sometimes called
More informationReason and Argument. Richard Feldman Second Edition
Reason and Argument Richard Feldman Second Edition Pearson Education Limited Edinburgh Gate Harlow Essex CM20 2JE England and Associated Companies throughout the world Visit us on the World Wide Web at:
More informationGenre Guide for Argumentative Essays in Social Science
Genre Guide for Argumentative Essays in Social Science 1. Social Science Essays Social sciences encompass a range of disciplines; each discipline uses a range of techniques, styles, and structures of writing.
More informationWhy There s Nothing You Can Say to Change My Mind: The Principle of Non-Contradiction in Aristotle s Metaphysics
Davis 1 Why There s Nothing You Can Say to Change My Mind: The Principle of Non-Contradiction in Aristotle s Metaphysics William Davis Red River Undergraduate Philosophy Conference North Dakota State University
More information24.02 Moral Problems and the Good Life
MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu 24.02 Moral Problems and the Good Life Fall 2008 For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms. Three Moral Theories
More informationSelections 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 informationAquinas' Third Way Modalized
Philosophy of Religion Aquinas' Third Way Modalized Robert E. Maydole Davidson College bomaydole@davidson.edu ABSTRACT: The Third Way is the most interesting and insightful of Aquinas' five arguments for
More informationComments on Truth at A World for Modal Propositions
Comments on Truth at A World for Modal Propositions Christopher Menzel Texas A&M University March 16, 2008 Since Arthur Prior first made us aware of the issue, a lot of philosophical thought has gone into
More information2018 Philosophy. Higher. Finalised Marking Instructions
National Qualifications 08 08 Philosophy Higher Finalised Marking Instructions Scottish Qualifications Authority 08 The information in this publication may be reproduced to support SQA qualifications only
More informationLogic: 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
More informationIII Knowledge is true belief based on argument. Plato, Theaetetus, 201 c-d Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Edmund Gettier
III Knowledge is true belief based on argument. Plato, Theaetetus, 201 c-d Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Edmund Gettier In Theaetetus Plato introduced the definition of knowledge which is often translated
More informationIs rationality normative?
Is rationality normative? Corpus Christi College, University of Oxford Abstract Rationality requires various things of you. For example, it requires you not to have contradictory beliefs, and to intend
More informationOn Searle on Human Rights, Again! J. Angelo Corlett, San Diego State University
On Searle on Human Rights, Again! J. Angelo Corlett, San Diego State University With regard to my article Searle on Human Rights (Corlett 2016), I have been accused of misunderstanding John Searle s conception
More informationMust 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
More informationHOW 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* I am indebted to Jay Atlas and Robert Schwartz for their helpful criticisms
HEMPEL, SCHEFFLER, AND THE RAVENS 1 7 HEMPEL, SCHEFFLER, AND THE RAVENS * EMPEL has provided cogent reasons in support of the equivalence condition as a condition of adequacy for any definition of confirmation.?
More informationProofs of Non-existence
The Problem of Evil Proofs of Non-existence Proofs of non-existence are strange; strange enough in fact that some have claimed that they cannot be done. One problem is with even stating non-existence claims:
More informationFull file at
Chapter 1 What is Philosophy? Summary Chapter 1 introduces students to main issues and branches of philosophy. The chapter begins with a basic definition of philosophy. Philosophy is an activity, and addresses
More informationA Brief History of Thinking about Thinking Thomas Lombardo
A Brief History of Thinking about Thinking Thomas Lombardo "Education is nothing more nor less than learning to think." Peter Facione In this article I review the historical evolution of principles and
More informationRussell: On Denoting
Russell: On Denoting DENOTING PHRASES Russell includes all kinds of quantified subject phrases ( a man, every man, some man etc.) but his main interest is in definite descriptions: the present King of
More informationMoore on External Relations
Moore on External Relations G. J. Mattey Fall, 2005 / Philosophy 156 The Dogma of Internal Relations Moore claims that there is a dogma held by philosophers such as Bradley and Joachim, that all relations
More informationCriticizing Arguments
Kareem Khalifa Criticizing Arguments 1 Criticizing Arguments Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College Written August, 2012 Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Step 1: Initial Evaluation
More informationWhat 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 informationSaving the Substratum: Interpreting Kant s First Analogy
Res Cogitans Volume 5 Issue 1 Article 20 6-4-2014 Saving the Substratum: Interpreting Kant s First Analogy Kevin Harriman Lewis & Clark College Follow this and additional works at: http://commons.pacificu.edu/rescogitans
More informationChapter 5: Freedom and Determinism
Chapter 5: Freedom and Determinism At each time t the world is perfectly determinate in all detail. - Let us grant this for the sake of argument. We might want to re-visit this perfectly reasonable assumption
More informationIt Ain t What You Prove, It s the Way That You Prove It. a play by Chris Binge
It Ain t What You Prove, It s the Way That You Prove It a play by Chris Binge (From Alchin, Nicholas. Theory of Knowledge. London: John Murray, 2003. Pp. 66-69.) Teacher: Good afternoon class. For homework
More informationDiagramming Arguments
Diagramming Arguments Supplement to Critical Thinking Richard L. Epstein Distributed FREE January, 03 Advanced Reasoning Forum A Diagrams................ 3 Exercises for Section A...........
More information1.2. What is said: propositions
1.2. What is said: propositions 1.2.0. Overview In 1.1.5, we saw the close relation between two properties of a deductive inference: (i) it is a transition from premises to conclusion that is free of any
More informationIntroduction 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 informationEthics and Science. Obstacles to search for truth. Ethics: Basic Concepts 1
So far (from class and course pack) Moral dilemmas: e.g., euthanasia (class), Churchill decision in World War 2 Ethics ultimately concerned with how to live well. One part of that involves choice of actions
More informationTHE ALLYN & BACON GUIDE TO WRITING
THE ALLYN & BACON GUIDE TO WRITING SEVENTH EDITION JOHN D. RAMAGE, JOHN C. BEAN, AND JUNE JOHNSON PART 2: WRITING PROJECTS CHAPTER 13 WRITING A CLASSICAL ARGUMENT Chapter 13 Learning Objectives In this
More informationWhat would count as Ibn Sīnā (11th century Persia) having first order logic?
1 2 What would count as Ibn Sīnā (11th century Persia) having first order logic? Wilfrid Hodges Herons Brook, Sticklepath, Okehampton March 2012 http://wilfridhodges.co.uk Ibn Sina, 980 1037 3 4 Ibn Sīnā
More informationPuzzles for Divine Omnipotence & Divine Freedom
Puzzles for Divine Omnipotence & Divine Freedom 1. Defining Omnipotence: A First Pass: God is said to be omnipotent. In other words, God is all-powerful. But, what does this mean? Is the following definition
More informationCHAPTER 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 informationFourth Meditation: Truth and falsity
Fourth Meditation: Truth and falsity In these past few days I have become used to keeping my mind away from the senses; and I have become strongly aware that very little is truly known about bodies, whereas
More informationChapter 2 Ethical Concepts and Ethical Theories: Establishing and Justifying a Moral System
Chapter 2 Ethical Concepts and Ethical Theories: Establishing and Justifying a Moral System Ethics and Morality Ethics: greek ethos, study of morality What is Morality? Morality: system of rules for guiding
More information