# HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.)

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.)"

## Transcription

1 1 HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.) I. ARGUMENT RECOGNITION Important Concepts An argument is a unit of reasoning that attempts to prove that a certain idea is true by citing other ideas as evidence. The idea that the argument tries to prove is called the ultimate conclusion. Ideas that the argument uses as evidence for the ultimate conclusion, but that the argument assumes to be true without providing proof, are called premises. Intermediate ideas on the way from the premises to the ultimate conclusion are called subconclusions. The connection that holds between a set of ideas, R, and another idea, C, when the truth of the ideas in R is supposed to establish the truth of C is called an inference. In order to identify an argument, we ask, Is this passage trying to convince us that something is true? If so, the passage contains an argument. If not, it doesn t. Use Inference Indicator Expressions We can sometimes recognize an argument by spotting inference indicator expressions, although we should remember that some passages containing inference indicator expressions don t contain arguments because inference indicator expressions can occur in explanations as well. We should remember that some passages containing arguments don t contain inference indicator expressions. Reason indicator expressions show that X is being given as a reason to believe Y. Some examples: Y because X or Because X, Y. Y, since X or Since X, Y. Given that X, Y or Y, given that X. Assuming that X, Y or Y, assuming that X. Inasmuch as X, Y or Y, inasmuch as X. In view of the fact that X, Y or Y, in view of the fact that X. Y. The reason is that X Y. After all, X. Conclusion indicator expressions show that Y is supposed to be concluded from X. Some examples: X. Therefore Y. X. Thus Y. X. Consequently Y. X. Hence Y. X. So Y. X. This goes to show that Y. X. It follows that Y. X. As a result, Y. X. That s why Y. X, which implies that Y. X, which means that Y. To determine whether an inference indicator expression is a reason indicator expression or a conclusion indicator expression, first replace it with because, then replace it with therefore, and see which passage is more like the original. II. ARGUMENT ANALYSIS Identifying the important ideas, identifying the argumentative role of the ideas, identifying the inferences, and reconstructing the argument are often intermingled in practice and are frequently done mentally.

2 2 1. Identify the important ideas We make a list of the important ideas in the argument. Ideas are complete thoughts that are either true or false, even though we might not know for certain which it is. Start With the Ultimate Conclusion We start by asking, What is the main idea that this argument is trying to get us to believe? This main idea is the ultimate conclusion and we write it first in our list of important ideas, giving it the number 1 and putting a U next to it. If we can t identify the ultimate conclusion, we should simply list the important ideas in the order they appear in the passage. Once we draw in the inferences, the ultimate conclusion will be the idea to which all of the other ideas eventually lead. Identify the Lines of Reasoning It s often useful to determine whether or not the argument appears to have more than one line of reasoning as soon as possible. If an argument does have more than one line of reasoning, it s helpful to count how many separate lines of reasoning the argument has and to determine which ideas belong to each line. This will substantially reduce the complexity of the diagramming process. Identify the Other Important Ideas After we ve identified the ultimate conclusion, we go back and record all of the other ideas that strike us as relevant to establishing the truth of the ultimate conclusion, and number them starting with 2. If we aren t sure whether or not an idea is important, we should include it just to be safe. It s okay if some of the ideas in our list aren t included in the eventual diagram. Sentences and Ideas Sentences that convey ideas are usually statements. To be complete, a statement must have a subject and a predicate and all sentence connectors must be connecting sentences that are themselves complete. Masking statements, unlike normal statements, convey ideas they don t actually state. If the idea is important, we should rephrase the statement and include it in our list of ideas. Unimportant statements aren t relevant to establishing the truth of the ultimate conclusion. We won t include them in our list of ideas. Normal questions don t convey ideas. Statement questions do convey ideas. If the idea is important, we should rephrase the question and include it in our list of ideas. Normal commands don t convey ideas. Statement commands do convey ideas. If the idea is important, we should rephrase the command and include it in our list of ideas. Sometimes a sentence contains more than one idea. In general, sentence S conveys idea I if the truth of S ensures the truth of I. We must divide a sentence into its component ideas around inference indicator expressions. We may divide a

3 3 compound sentence around connectives like and, but, yet, however, although, even though, moreover, and nevertheless. We should split a sentence into its component ideas if the component ideas significantly differ in their plausibility or if one of the component ideas appears without the others elsewhere in the argument. We can t divide a compound sentence around connectives like if then, or or. Sometimes multiple sentences in an argument convey the same idea. S1 and S2 convey the same idea just in case if S1 is true then S2 is true and if S2 is true then S1 is true. We write down each important idea only once, even when it s conveyed by more than one sentence. Use Inference Indicator Expressions Inference indicator expressions can help us decide if an idea is important. If an idea is the object of an inference indicator expression, then it s either the reason or the conclusion of an inference and so needs to be included in the argument. 2. Identify the argumentative role of these ideas If we know what the ultimate conclusion of the argument is, we put a U next to it. For each of the other ideas in our list, we ask, Does the argument give us reason to believe this, or does the argument just take it for granted? If the argument doesn t give us reasons to believe an idea, it s a premise. We put P s next to the premises. If the argument does give us reasons to believe an idea, it s a subconclusion. We put S s next to the subconclusions. If we don t know what the ultimate conclusion is, we can simply put C s (indicating generic conclusions) next to ideas that the argument gives us reason to believe. Use Inference Indicator Expressions We can use inference indicator expressions to help us. The ultimate conclusion can be the object of conclusion indicator expressions but not reason indicator expressions. Premises can be the object of reason indicator expressions but not conclusion indicator expressions. Subconclusions can be the object of reason indicator expressions and conclusion indicator expressions. Note Inference Eraser Expressions The connectors and (not and so ) and its equivalents, such as moreover, and the connector but, and its equivalents, such as yet, however, although, even though, nevertheless, tend to show us that an inference is not present between the ideas they connect. 3. Identify the inferences

4 4 We can focus on the conclusions (whether the ultimate conclusion or a subconclusion) and ask What reason does the argument give us to believe this? or we can focus on the reasons (whether a premise or a subconclusion) and ask What is the argument taking this to establish? We draw an arrow pointing from an idea to the idea that it s taken to support. I1 and I2 are dependent reasons in support of I3 if neither I1 nor I2 can support I3 alone but together they can support I3. We connect dependent reasons with a bracket and draw one arrow from the bracket to the conclusion of the inference. I1 and I2 are independent reasons in support of I3 if both I1 and I2 could support I3 alone. We draw separate arrows from independent reasons or lines of reasoning. Use Inference Indicator Expressions We can make use of inference indicator expressions to help us here, if the passage has them. Note Inference Eraser Expressions We should be alert for inference eraser expressions. Arrow In and Out Rules The ultimate conclusion must have at least one arrow pointing to it but no arrows pointing from it. Premises must have arrows going from them but no arrows going to them. Subconclusions must have arrows going to them and from them. Identify Dependent Reasons. There are seven tests for dependent reasons: 1) The Ophthalmology Test, 2) The Inference Indicator / Eraser Test, 3) The Try It Out Test, 4) The Puzzle Piece Test, 5) The Normative Conclusion Test, 6) The Comparative Conclusion Test, 7) The Means / Ends Test. Identify Independent Reasons To identify independent lines of reasoning, we ask How many separate lines of reasoning are we given? We can answer this question by identifying distinct themes that are advanced in support of the conclusion. These themes are roughly identical with the notions shared by different ideas. Instances of a generalization may be treated either as examples or as evidence. If they re treated as examples, they shouldn t be included in the diagram. If they re treated as evidence, they should be included in the diagram.

5 5 Double-Checking the Inferences We double check the inferences by reading away from the arrow head with a reason indicator expression, by reading toward the arrow head with a conclusion indicator expression, by reading the bracket as an and, and by comparing our inferences against the original argument. 4. Reconstruct the argument We reconstruct the argument by diagramming it. We refer to the ideas by number, put the number of the ultimate conclusion at the bottom, the numbers of the premises at the top, numbers of subconclusions in the middle, and use arrows to represent the inferences. We connect dependent reasons with a plus sign and we draw separate arrows from independent reasons. We label the arrows with capital letters to make them easier to refer to later. III. ARGUMENT EVALUATION 1. Appreciate the general structure of the argument A good argument establishes the truth of its ultimate conclusion and gives its audience good reason to think that the ultimate conclusion is true. A bad argument either doesn t establish the truth of its ultimate conclusion or else doesn t give its audience good reason to think that the ultimate conclusion is true. For arguments with only one line of reasoning, one bad premise or one bad inference is enough to make the argument bad. Arguments with independent lines of reasoning are good if even one of the lines of reasoning is good. The Hanging Man Model We can imagine that the ultimate conclusion of the argument is a fellow hanging onto one or more ropes (inference) suspended from one or more beams (premises). Each inference corresponds to a different segment of the rope, and each dependent premise corresponds to a different part of the beam. An argument is good if it holds the fellow up and bad if it lets the fellow fall. Evaluating Subconclusions We should never evaluate subconclusions as a part of the final evaluation of an argument. We may look at subconclusions in the process of evaluating an argument. If we disagree with a subconclusion, we should examine the premises and inferences above it. 2. Evaluate the premises

6 6 When evaluating a premise, we should ask ourselves three questions: 1) Is this premise true? 2) Would most members of the argument s audience, including people who don t already believe the ultimate conclusion, believe this premise? and 3) Does the argument s audience have good reason to believe this premise? If the answer to one of these questions is no, the premise is bad. If the answer to all three questions is yes, then the premise is good. Evaluating If then Sentences In order to evaluate an If then sentence, we ask ourselves Could the first part be true and the back part be false at the same time? If the answer is Yes, then the If then sentence is false. If the answer is No, then the If then sentence is true. 3. Evaluate the inferences To say that the inference between R and C is valid is to say that if R were true then C would have to be true as well. To say that the inference between R and C is good is to say that if R were true then C would most likely be true as well, although it wouldn t have to be true. To say that the inference between R and C is bad is to say that even if R were true, C could very easily be false; it s to say that the truth of R has virtually no bearing upon the truth of C. The Bob Method Bob is a perfectly gullible but perfectly rational person. We tell Bob to believe R and then ask ourselves In light of his belief in R, how likely is Bob to believe C? If Bob is compelled to believe C, then the inference between R and C is valid. If Bob is inclined but not compelled to believe C, then the inference between R and C is invalid but good. If Bob is not at all inclined to believe C, then the inference between R and C is invalid and bad. The Counterexample Method When evaluating argument A1, see if you can find a structurally similar argument, A2, that has true premises and a false conclusion. If you can find such an argument A2, then there s something wrong with at least one inference in A1. The Formal Method Determine if an inference has one of the following forms and evaluate it accordingly. If P then Q. P. Therefore Q is valid. If P then Q. Not Q. Therefore Not P is valid. If P then Q. Q. Therefore P is invalid. If P then Q. Not P. Therefore Not Q is invalid.

7 7 If P then Q and If Not Q the Not P, are logically equivalent and interchangeable. 4. Evaluate the argument We evaluate the argument in light of our evaluation of the premises and the inferences. Finding out that an argument is bad gives us no useful information about the ultimate conclusion because bad arguments can have true or false conclusions. Finding out that an argument is good does give us useful information about the ultimate conclusion because good arguments must have true conclusions. If we think that an argument is good, we should believe the ultimate conclusion. If we think that an argument is pretty good but not perfect, we should think that the conclusion is probably, but not definitely, true. If we re faced with arguments for competing positions, we should believe the position supported by the strongest arguments. Recognizing, Analyzing, and Evaluating Arguments in Real Life Unless an argument is particularly long, difficult, or important, we ll probably end up doing much of the analysis and evaluating mentally instead of on paper. We can do this by: identifying the ultimate conclusion of the argument, determining what other ideas are important, determining how these ideas relate to each other in the argument (e.g. where the inferences are, and so on), assessing the premises and inferences. IV. ARGUMENT CONSTRUCTION 1. Determine the ultimate conclusion We determine our ultimate conclusion by posing a question, considering various answers to the question, learning and thinking more about the issues involved, and formulating our answer to the question. The answer we settle on will be the ultimate conclusion of our argument. 2. Construct the chain of reasoning We construct our chain of reasoning by asking What are some reasons to think this idea is true? Once we have some ideas down, we diagram our argument by determining what argumentative role we intend each of each of these ideas to serve, deciding how we want our inferences to run, and then diagramming our argument.

8 8 We evaluate this chain of reasoning by first assessing the inferences. If an inference is weak, can we repair it by adding a dependent reason to plug the gap. We can use the tests for dependent reasons to find the dependent reason needed to strengthen an inference however, we should add the dependent reasons necessary to perfect an inference in our argument only if the original inference was sufficiently weak to justify the additional complexity involved in supplying the extra ideas. After we ve repaired our inferences, we assess our premises. If a premise isn t true, we change it to something that is. If a premise is true but might not be acceptable to the argument s audience, we make the premise a subconclusion by asking What are some reasons to think that this idea is true? and returning to the beginning. We then evaluate the new inferences, and new premises, repeating the process until our argument is good. In order to supply independent lines of reasoning for an argument of our own, we recognize the theme of the argument we ve already constructed and try to construct and argument of a completely different type to support the conclusion at hand. 3. Communicate the argument The passage containing our argument should be well written and easy to diagram. General Writing Advice Word Choice: We should use our working vocabulary, and we should avoid specialized terminology like ultimate conclusion, subconclusion, premises, or inference. Sentence Structure: We should use complete sentences; in particular, we should make sure that all of our simple sentences have a subject and predicate and that all of our connectives in our compound sentences are connecting smaller complete sentences. Sentence Variation: If we wish, we can use unimportant statements to set the stage for our argument, and express some important ideas as statement questions, statement commands and masking statements. We can add some normal question or command sentences for rhetorical flourish. Placement of the Ultimate Conclusion: We should generally put the ultimate conclusion near the beginning of the argument, unless it s controversial, in which case we should put it near the end of the argument. We may put our conclusion near the middle of a passage, as long as we put it between independent lines of reasoning. Placement of the Other Ideas: To make our argument as easy as possible to diagram, the proximity of the ideas in our passage should reflect the proximity of the

9 9 ideas in the diagram. We may repeat ideas, if this will help our reader to understand how these ideas work together. Highlighting Inferences: We should use inference indicator expressions to make the argument easier to understand whenever we think that an inference would be hard to recognize without them and we should write the argument vertically, up and down the arrows, rather than horizontally. Highlighting Independent Lines of Reasoning: If our argument has independent lines of reasoning, we should take care to help our readers to individuate them.

### HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.)

1 HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.) I. ARGUMENT RECOGNITION Important Concepts An argument is a unit of reasoning that attempts to prove that a certain idea is true by

More information

### HANDBOOK. IV. Argument Construction Determine the Ultimate Conclusion Construct the Chain of Reasoning Communicate the Argument 13

1 HANDBOOK TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Argument Recognition 2 II. Argument Analysis 3 1. Identify Important Ideas 3 2. Identify Argumentative Role of These Ideas 4 3. Identify Inferences 5 4. Reconstruct the

More information

### CRITICAL THINKING: THE VERY BASICS - HANDBOOK

1 CRITICAL THINKING: THE VERY BASICS - HANDBOOK Dona Warren, Philosophy Department, The University of Wisconsin Stevens Point I. RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS An argument is a unit of reasoning that attempts to

More information

### Critical Thinking. The Four Big Steps. First example. I. Recognizing Arguments. The Nature of Basics

Critical Thinking The Very Basics (at least as I see them) Dona Warren Department of Philosophy The University of Wisconsin Stevens Point What You ll Learn Here I. How to recognize arguments II. How to

More information

### A Short Course in Logic Example 3

A Short Course in Logic Example 3 I) Recognizing Arguments III) Evaluating Arguments II) Analyzing Arguments Bad Argument: Bad Inference Identifying the Parts of the Argument Premises Inferences Diagramming

More information

### 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

### 1/19/2011. Concept. Analysis

Analysis Breaking down an idea, concept, theory, etc. into its most basic parts in order to get a better understanding of its structure. This is necessary to evaluate the merits of the claim properly (is

More information

### A Short Course in Logic Answers to Practice

A Short Course in Logic Answers to Practice Logic is a skill and, like any skill, it s improved with practice. I) Analyzing Arguments Sometimes it can be difficult to identify the ultimate conclusion of

More information

### 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

### EXERCISES, QUESTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES My Answers

EXERCISES, QUESTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES My Answers Exercises Drinking Age ) Although some laws appear unmotivated, many laws have obvious justifications. For instance, driving while under the influence is

More information

### 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

### The SAT Essay: An Argument-Centered Strategy

The SAT Essay: An Argument-Centered Strategy Overview Taking an argument-centered approach to preparing for and to writing the SAT Essay may seem like a no-brainer. After all, the prompt, which is always

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

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

### 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

### SHORT ANSWER. Write the word or phrase that best completes each statement or answers the question.

Exam Name SHORT ANSWER. Write the word or phrase that best completes each statement or answers the question. Draw a Venn diagram for the given sets. In words, explain why you drew one set as a subset of

More information

### Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics. Critical Thinking Lecture 2. Background Material for the Exercise on Inference Indicators

Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics Critical Thinking Lecture 2 Background Material for the Exercise on Inference Indicators Inference-Indicators and the Logical Structure of an Argument 1. The Idea

More information

### Comments on Lasersohn

Comments on Lasersohn John MacFarlane September 29, 2006 I ll begin by saying a bit about Lasersohn s framework for relativist semantics and how it compares to the one I ve been recommending. I ll focus

More information

### 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

More information

### The St. Petersburg paradox & the two envelope paradox

The St. Petersburg paradox & the two envelope paradox Consider the following bet: The St. Petersburg I am going to flip a fair coin until it comes up heads. If the first time it comes up heads is on the

More information

### Aquinas' 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 information

### 1 Clarion Logic Notes Chapter 4

1 Clarion Logic Notes Chapter 4 Summary Notes These are summary notes so that you can really listen in class and not spend the entire time copying notes. These notes will not substitute for reading the

More information

### C. Problem set #1 due today, now, on the desk. B. More of an art than a science the key things are: 4.

Lecture 4: The Language of Argument Philosophy 130 September 22 and 27, 2016 O Rourke & Gibson I. Administrative A. Questions? B. Read Ch. 3 & pp. 90-94 C. Problem set #1 due today, now, on the desk II.

More information

### 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

### 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

### How to Write a Philosophy Paper

How to Write a Philosophy Paper The goal of a philosophy paper is simple: make a compelling argument. This guide aims to teach you how to write philosophy papers, starting from the ground up. To do that,

More information

### Ayer s linguistic theory of the a priori

Ayer s linguistic theory of the a priori phil 43904 Jeff Speaks December 4, 2007 1 The problem of a priori knowledge....................... 1 2 Necessity and the a priori............................ 2

More information

### The way we convince people is generally to refer to sufficiently many things that they already know are correct.

Theorem A Theorem is a valid deduction. One of the key activities in higher mathematics is identifying whether or not a deduction is actually a theorem and then trying to convince other people that you

More information

### EXERCISES, QUESTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES

1 EXERCISES, QUESTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES Exercises From the Text 1) In the text, we diagrammed Example 7 as follows: Whatever you do, don t vote for Joan! An action is ethical only if it stems from the right

More information

### 1.2. 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 information

### 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

More information

### 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

### A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC FOR METAPHYSICIANS

A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC FOR METAPHYSICIANS 0. Logic, Probability, and Formal Structure Logic is often divided into two distinct areas, inductive logic and deductive logic. Inductive logic is concerned

More information

### 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

### 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

### Part 2 Module 4: Categorical Syllogisms

Part 2 Module 4: Categorical Syllogisms Consider Argument 1 and Argument 2, and select the option that correctly identifies the valid argument(s), if any. Argument 1 All bears are omnivores. All omnivores

More information

### In a previous lecture, we used Aristotle s syllogisms to emphasize the

The Flow of Argument Lecture 9 In a previous lecture, we used Aristotle s syllogisms to emphasize the central concept of validity. Visualizing syllogisms in terms of three-circle Venn diagrams gave us

More information

### UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016

Logical Consequence UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane 1 Intuitive characterizations of consequence Modal: It is necessary (or apriori) that, if the premises are true, the conclusion

More information

### A. Problem set #3 it has been posted and is due Tuesday, 15 November

Lecture 9: Propositional Logic I Philosophy 130 1 & 3 November 2016 O Rourke & Gibson I. Administrative A. Problem set #3 it has been posted and is due Tuesday, 15 November B. I am working on the group

More information

### CHAPTER 9 DIAGRAMMING DEBATES. What You ll Learn in this Chapter

1 CHAPTER 9 DIAGRAMMING DEBATES What You ll Learn in this Chapter So far, we ve learned how to analyze and evaluate arguments as they stand alone. Frequently, however, arguments are interrelated, with

More information

### Millian responses to Frege s puzzle

Millian responses to Frege s puzzle phil 93914 Jeff Speaks February 28, 2008 1 Two kinds of Millian................................. 1 2 Conciliatory Millianism............................... 2 2.1 Hidden

More information

### Think by Simon Blackburn. Chapter 1b Knowledge

Think by Simon Blackburn Chapter 1b Knowledge According to A.C. Grayling, if cogito ergo sum is an argument, it is missing a premise. This premise is: A. Everything that exists thinks. B. Everything that

More information

### Dynamics of change in logic

Philosophical Institute of Czech Academy of Sciences PhDs in Logic, Prague May 2, 2018 Plurality of logics as philosophical problem There are many logical systems, yet it is not clear what this fact tells

More information

### 2017 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 information

### 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

More information

### 1. 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 information

### Norva Y S Lo Produced by Norva Y S Lo Edited by Andrew Brennan

ritical Thinking Norva Y S Lo Produced by Norva Y S Lo Edited by Andrew Brennan LETURE 2! Arguments Summary In this week s lectures, you will learn (1) Argument (ollection of statements, some of which

More information

### 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

### Well, how are we supposed to know that Jesus performed miracles on earth? Pretty clearly, the answer is: on the basis of testimony.

Miracles Last time we were discussing the Incarnation, and in particular the question of how one might acquire sufficient evidence for it to be rational to believe that a human being, Jesus of Nazareth,

More information

### PHILOSOPHY ESSAY ADVICE

PHILOSOPHY ESSAY ADVICE One: What ought to be the primary objective of your essay? The primary objective of your essay is not simply to present information or arguments, but to put forward a cogent argument

More information

### Quine on the analytic/synthetic distinction

Quine on the analytic/synthetic distinction Jeff Speaks March 14, 2005 1 Analyticity and synonymy.............................. 1 2 Synonymy and definition ( 2)............................ 2 3 Synonymy

More information

### PAGE(S) WHERE TAUGHT (If submission is not text, cite appropriate resource(s))

Prentice Hall Literature Timeless Voices, Timeless Themes Copper Level 2005 District of Columbia Public Schools, English Language Arts Standards (Grade 6) STRAND 1: LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT Grades 6-12: Students

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 Reasons, Arguments, and the Concept of Validity 1. The Concept of Validity Consider

More information

### Writing 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 information

### Overview: Application: What to Avoid:

UNIT 3: BUILDING A BASIC ARGUMENT While "argument" has a number of different meanings, college-level arguments typically involve a few fundamental pieces that work together to construct an intelligent,

More information

### 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

### 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

### What 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 information

### 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

### The Cosmological Argument

The Cosmological Argument Reading Questions The Cosmological Argument: Elementary Version The Cosmological Argument: Intermediate Version The Cosmological Argument: Advanced Version Summary of the Cosmological

More information

### What are Truth-Tables and What Are They For?

PY114: Work Obscenely Hard Week 9 (Meeting 7) 30 November, 2010 What are Truth-Tables and What Are They For? 0. Business Matters: The last marked homework of term will be due on Monday, 6 December, at

More information

### 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

### Logic & Proofs. Chapter 3 Content. Sentential Logic Semantics. Contents: Studying this chapter will enable you to:

Sentential Logic Semantics Contents: Truth-Value Assignments and Truth-Functions Truth-Value Assignments Truth-Functions Introduction to the TruthLab Truth-Definition Logical Notions Truth-Trees Studying

More information

### 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

More information

### Who or what is God?, asks John Hick (Hick 2009). A theist might answer: God is an infinite person, or at least an

John Hick on whether God could be an infinite person Daniel Howard-Snyder Western Washington University Abstract: "Who or what is God?," asks John Hick. A theist might answer: God is an infinite person,

More information

### 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

### Am I free? Freedom vs. Fate

Am I free? Freedom vs. Fate We ve been discussing the free will defense as a response to the argument from evil. This response assumes something about us: that we have free will. But what does this mean?

More information

### A 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 information

Håkan Salwén. Hume s Law: An Essay on Moral Reasoning Lorraine Besser-Jones Volume 31, Number 1, (2005) 177-180. Your use of the HUME STUDIES archive indicates your acceptance of HUME STUDIES Terms and

More information

### 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

More information

### Some Templates for Beginners: Template Option 1 I am analyzing A in order to argue B. An important element of B is C. C is significant because.

Common Topics for Literary and Cultural Analysis: What kinds of topics are good ones? The best topics are ones that originate out of your own reading of a work of literature. Here are some common approaches

More information

### ON WRITING PHILOSOPHICAL ESSAYS: SOME GUIDELINES Richard G. Graziano

ON WRITING PHILOSOPHICAL ESSAYS: SOME GUIDELINES Richard G. Graziano The discipline of philosophy is practiced in two ways: by conversation and writing. In either case, it is extremely important that a

More information

### 3.3. Negations as premises Overview

3.3. Negations as premises 3.3.0. Overview A second group of rules for negation interchanges the roles of an affirmative sentence and its negation. 3.3.1. Indirect proof The basic principles for negation

More information

### The Power of Critical Thinking Why it matters How it works

Page 1 of 60 The Power of Critical Thinking Chapter Objectives Understand the definition of critical thinking and the importance of the definition terms systematic, evaluation, formulation, and rational

More information

### 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

More information

### Argumentative Writing

Argumentative Writing Anca T-Hummel NBCT-AYA/ELA taus-hummel@phoenixunion.org Joanna Nichols I.L. English jnichols@phoenixunion.org ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY The argumentative essay is a genre of writing that

More information

### Faults and Mathematical Disagreement

45 Faults and Mathematical Disagreement María Ponte ILCLI. University of the Basque Country mariaponteazca@gmail.com Abstract: My aim in this paper is to analyse the notion of mathematical disagreements

More information

### 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

### The paradox we re discussing today is not a single argument, but a family of arguments. Here s an example of this sort of argument:!

The Sorites Paradox The paradox we re discussing today is not a single argument, but a family of arguments. Here s an example of this sort of argument:! Height Sorites 1) Someone who is 7 feet in height

More information

### Boghossian & 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 information

### 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

### Announcements The Logic of Quantifiers Logical Truth & Consequence in Full Fol. Outline. Overview The Big Picture. William Starr

Announcements 10.27 The Logic of Quantifiers Logical Truth & Consequence in Full Fol William Starr 1 Hang tight on the midterm We ll get it back to you as soon as we can 2 Grades for returned HW will be

More information

### Wright on response-dependence and self-knowledge

Wright on response-dependence and self-knowledge March 23, 2004 1 Response-dependent and response-independent concepts........... 1 1.1 The intuitive distinction......................... 1 1.2 Basic equations

More information

### PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS UNDERSTANDING OF PROOF: WHAT IF THE TRUTH SET OF AN OPEN SENTENCE IS BROADER THAN THAT COVERED BY THE PROOF?

PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS UNDERSTANDING OF PROOF: WHAT IF THE TRUTH SET OF AN OPEN SENTENCE IS BROADER THAN THAT COVERED BY THE PROOF? Andreas J. Stylianides*, Gabriel J. Stylianides*, & George N. Philippou**

More information

### 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 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

### Helpful 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 information

### HOW TO BE (AND HOW NOT TO BE) A NORMATIVE REALIST:

1 HOW TO BE (AND HOW NOT TO BE) A NORMATIVE REALIST: A DISSERTATION OVERVIEW THAT ASSUMES AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE ABOUT MY READER S PHILOSOPHICAL BACKGROUND Consider the question, What am I going to have

More information

### A solution to the problem of hijacked experience

A solution to the problem of hijacked experience Jill is not sure what Jack s current mood is, but she fears that he is angry with her. Then Jack steps into the room. Jill gets a good look at his face.

More information

### Qualitative and quantitative inference to the best theory. reply to iikka Niiniluoto Kuipers, Theodorus

University of Groningen Qualitative and quantitative inference to the best theory. reply to iikka Niiniluoto Kuipers, Theodorus Published in: EPRINTS-BOOK-TITLE IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult

More information

### 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

### GMAT ANALYTICAL WRITING ASSESSMENT

GMAT ANALYTICAL WRITING ASSESSMENT 30-minute Argument Essay SKILLS TESTED Your ability to articulate complex ideas clearly and effectively Your ability to examine claims and accompanying evidence Your

More information

### Testing semantic sequents with truth tables

Testing semantic sequents with truth tables Marianne: Hi. I m Marianne Talbot and in this video we are going to look at testing semantic sequents with truth tables. (Slide 2) This video supplements Session

More information

### 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

More information

### Baronett, Logic (4th ed.) Chapter Guide

Chapter 6: Categorical Syllogisms Baronett, Logic (4th ed.) Chapter Guide A. Standard-form Categorical Syllogisms A categorical syllogism is an argument containing three categorical propositions: two premises

More information

### 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....................

More information

### An Introduction to. Formal Logic. Second edition. Peter Smith, February 27, 2019

An Introduction to Formal Logic Second edition Peter Smith February 27, 2019 Peter Smith 2018. Not for re-posting or re-circulation. Comments and corrections please to ps218 at cam dot ac dot uk 1 What

More information

### Leibniz, Principles, and Truth 1

Leibniz, Principles, and Truth 1 Leibniz was a man of principles. 2 Throughout his writings, one finds repeated assertions that his view is developed according to certain fundamental principles. Attempting

More information

### Quantificational logic and empty names

Quantificational logic and empty names Andrew Bacon 26th of March 2013 1 A Puzzle For Classical Quantificational Theory Empty Names: Consider the sentence 1. There is something identical to Pegasus On

More information

### Introducing truth tables. Hello, I m Marianne Talbot and this is the first video in the series supplementing the Formal Logic podcasts.

Introducing truth tables Marianne: Hello, I m Marianne Talbot and this is the first video in the series supplementing the Formal Logic podcasts. Okay, introducing truth tables. (Slide 2) This video supplements

More information

### Review of David J. Chalmers Constructing the World (OUP 2012) David Chalmers burst onto the philosophical scene in the mid-1990s with his work on

Review of David J. Chalmers Constructing the World (OUP 2012) Thomas W. Polger, University of Cincinnati 1. Introduction David Chalmers burst onto the philosophical scene in the mid-1990s with his work

More information