# 1.6 Validity and Truth

Size: px
Start display at page:

Transcription

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

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

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

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

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

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

### 1.5 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

### 7. Some recent rulings of the Supreme Court were politically motivated decisions that flouted the entire history of U.S. legal practice.

M05_COPI1396_13_SE_C05.QXD 10/12/07 9:00 PM Page 193 5.5 The Traditional Square of Opposition 193 EXERCISES Name the quality and quantity of each of the following propositions, and state whether their

### 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

### Dr. Carlo Alvaro Reasoning and Argumentation Distribution & Opposition DISTRIBUTION

DISTRIBUTION Categorical propositions are statements that describe classes (groups) of objects designate by the subject and the predicate terms. A class is a group of things that have something in common

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

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

### The Problem of Major Premise in Buddhist Logic

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

### HOW TO ANALYZE AN ARGUMENT

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

### 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,

### ARGUMENTS. Arguments. arguments

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

### MPS 17 The Structure of Persuasion Logos: reasoning, reasons, good reasons not necessarily about formal logic

MPS 17 The Structure of Persuasion Logos: reasoning, reasons, good reasons not necessarily about formal logic Making and Refuting Arguments Steps of an Argument You make a claim The conclusion of your

### 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

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

A Primer on Logic Part 1: Preliminaries and Vocabulary Jason Zarri 1. An Easy \$10.00? Suppose someone were to bet you \$10.00 that you would fail a seemingly simple test of your reasoning skills. Feeling

### Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic

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

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

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

### 9 Methods of Deduction

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

### 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.

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

### 1/5. The Critique of Theology

1/5 The Critique of Theology The argument of the Transcendental Dialectic has demonstrated that there is no science of rational psychology and that the province of any rational cosmology is strictly limited.

### PART III - Symbolic Logic Chapter 7 - Sentential Propositions

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

### THE MORAL ARGUMENT. Peter van Inwagen. Introduction, James Petrik

THE MORAL ARGUMENT Peter van Inwagen Introduction, James Petrik THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSIONS of human freedom is closely intertwined with the history of philosophical discussions of moral responsibility.

### 5.3 The Four Kinds of Categorical Propositions

M05_COI1396_13_E_C05.QXD 11/13/07 8:39 AM age 182 182 CHATER 5 Categorical ropositions Categorical propositions are the fundamental elements, the building blocks of argument, in the classical account of

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

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

### Logic: A Brief Introduction

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

### 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

### Example Arguments ID1050 Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning

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

### 5.6 Further Immediate Inferences

M05_COPI1396_13_SE_C05.QXD 10/12/07 9:00 PM Page 198 198 CHAPTER 5 Categorical Propositions EXERCISES A. If we assume that the first proposition in each of the following sets is true, what can we affirm

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

### Chapter 1 - Basic Training

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

### Building Systematic Theology

1 Building Systematic Theology Study Guide LESSON FOUR DOCTRINES IN SYSTEMATICS 2013 by Third Millennium Ministries www.thirdmill.org For videos, manuscripts, and other resources, visit Third Millennium

### 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

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

Fate and free will From the first person point of view, one of the most obvious, and important, facts about the world is that some things are up to us at least sometimes, we are able to do one thing, and

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

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

### 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.

### The Development of Laws of Formal Logic of Aristotle

This paper is dedicated to my unforgettable friend Boris Isaevich Lamdon. The Development of Laws of Formal Logic of Aristotle The essence of formal logic The aim of every science is to discover the laws

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

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

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

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

### What God Could Have Made

1 What God Could Have Made By Heimir Geirsson and Michael Losonsky I. Introduction Atheists have argued that if there is a God who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then God would have made

### OSSA 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

### CONTENTS A SYSTEM OF LOGIC

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION NOTE ON THE TEXT. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY XV xlix I /' ~, r ' o>

### Based on the translation by E. M. Edghill, with minor emendations by Daniel Kolak.

On Interpretation By Aristotle Based on the translation by E. M. Edghill, with minor emendations by Daniel Kolak. First we must define the terms 'noun' and 'verb', then the terms 'denial' and 'affirmation',

### Chapter 9- Sentential Proofs

Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University Chapter 9- Sentential roofs 9.1 Introduction So far we have introduced three ways of assessing the validity of truth-functional arguments.

### CHAPTER THREE Philosophical Argument

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

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

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

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

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

### Broad on Theological Arguments. I. The Ontological Argument

Broad on God Broad on Theological Arguments I. The Ontological Argument Sample Ontological Argument: Suppose that God is the most perfect or most excellent being. Consider two things: (1)An entity that

### Man and the Presence of Evil in Christian and Platonic Doctrine by Philip Sherrard

Man and the Presence of Evil in Christian and Platonic Doctrine by Philip Sherrard Source: Studies in Comparative Religion, Vol. 2, No.1. World Wisdom, Inc. www.studiesincomparativereligion.com OF the

### 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

### 1/12. The A Paralogisms

1/12 The A Paralogisms The character of the Paralogisms is described early in the chapter. Kant describes them as being syllogisms which contain no empirical premises and states that in them we conclude

### Semantic Foundations for Deductive Methods

Semantic Foundations for Deductive Methods delineating the scope of deductive reason Roger Bishop Jones Abstract. The scope of deductive reason is considered. First a connection is discussed between the

### 6.5 Exposition of the Fifteen Valid Forms of the Categorical Syllogism

M06_COPI1396_13_SE_C06.QXD 10/16/07 9:17 PM Page 255 6.5 Exposition of the Fifteen Valid Forms of the Categorical Syllogism 255 7. All supporters of popular government are democrats, so all supporters

### Identify the subject and predicate terms in, and name the form of, each of the following propositions.

M05_COPI1396_13_SE_C05.QXD 10/12/07 9:00 PM Page 187 5.4 Quality, Quantity, and Distribution 187 EXERCISES Identify the subject and predicate terms in, and name the form of, each of the following propositions.

### SYLLOGISTIC LOGIC CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

Prof. C. Byrne Dept. of Philosophy SYLLOGISTIC LOGIC Syllogistic logic is the original form in which formal logic was developed; hence it is sometimes also referred to as Aristotelian logic after Aristotle,

### 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

### 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

### Selections from Aristotle s Prior Analytics 41a21 41b5

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

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

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

### Peter L.P. Simpson January, 2015

1 This translation of the Prologue of the Ordinatio of the Venerable Inceptor, William of Ockham, is partial and in progress. The prologue and the first distinction of book one of the Ordinatio fill volume

### b. Use of logic in reasoning; c. Development of cross examination skills; d. Emphasis on reasoning and understanding; e. Moderate rate of delivery;

IV. RULES OF LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE A. General 1. Lincoln-Douglas Debate is a form of two-person debate that focuses on values, their inter-relationships, and their relationship to issues of contemporary

### 5.6.1 Formal validity in categorical deductive arguments

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

### St. Anselm s versions of the ontological argument

St. Anselm s versions of the ontological argument Descartes is not the first philosopher to state this argument. The honor of being the first to present this argument fully and clearly belongs to Saint

### Philosophy 203 History of Modern Western Philosophy. Russell Marcus Hamilton College Spring 2016

Philosophy 203 History of Modern Western Philosophy Russell Marcus Hamilton College Spring 2016 Class #7 Finishing the Meditations Marcus, Modern Philosophy, Slide 1 Business # Today An exercise with your

### 1.5. Argument Forms: Proving Invalidity

18. If inflation heats up, then interest rates will rise. If interest rates rise, then bond prices will decline. Therefore, if inflation heats up, then bond prices will decline. 19. Statistics reveal that

### Chapter 2 Analyzing Arguments

Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University Chapter 2 Analyzing Arguments 2.1 Introduction Now that we have gotten our "mental muscles" warmed up, let's see how well we can put our newly

### BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

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

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

INTRODUCTION TO LOGICAL THINKING Lecture 6: Two types of argument and their role in science: Deduction and induction 1. Deductive arguments Arguments that claim to provide logically conclusive grounds

### David O Connor. Hume on Religion H. O. Mounce Hume Studies Volume XXVIII, Number 2 (November, 2002)

David O Connor. Hume on Religion H. O. Mounce Hume Studies Volume XXVIII, Number 2 (November, 2002) 309-313. Your use of the HUME STUDIES archive indicates your acceptance of HUME STUDIES Terms and Conditions

### TWO APPROACHES TO INSTRUMENTAL RATIONALITY

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

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.

### Logic -type questions

Logic -type questions [For use in the Philosophy Test and the Philosophy section of the MLAT] One of the questions on a test may take the form of a logic exercise, starting with the definition of a key

### Chapter 6. Fate. (F) Fatalism is the belief that whatever happens is unavoidable. (55)

Chapter 6. Fate (F) Fatalism is the belief that whatever happens is unavoidable. (55) The first, and most important thing, to note about Taylor s characterization of fatalism is that it is in modal terms,

### But we may go further: not only Jones, but no actual man, enters into my statement. This becomes obvious when the statement is false, since then

CHAPTER XVI DESCRIPTIONS We dealt in the preceding chapter with the words all and some; in this chapter we shall consider the word the in the singular, and in the next chapter we shall consider the word

### Commentary on Sample Test (May 2005)

National Admissions Test for Law (LNAT) Commentary on Sample Test (May 2005) General There are two alternative strategies which can be employed when answering questions in a multiple-choice test. Some

### Creation & necessity

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

### 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

### Illustrating Deduction. A Didactic Sequence for Secondary School

Illustrating Deduction. A Didactic Sequence for Secondary School Francisco Saurí Universitat de València. Dpt. de Lògica i Filosofia de la Ciència Cuerpo de Profesores de Secundaria. IES Vilamarxant (España)

### The Relationship between the Truth Value of Premises and the Truth Value of Conclusions in Deductive Arguments

The Relationship between the Truth Value of Premises and the Truth Value of Conclusions in Deductive Arguments I. The Issue in Question This document addresses one single question: What are the relationships,

### VERITAS EVANGELICAL SEMINARY

VERITAS EVANGELICAL SEMINARY A research paper, discussing the terms and definitions of inductive and deductive logic, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the certificate in Christian Apologetics

### 1. Immediate inferences embodied in the square of opposition 2. Obversion 3. Conversion

CHAPTER 3: CATEGORICAL INFERENCES Inference is the process by which the truth of one proposition (the conclusion) is affirmed on the basis of the truth of one or more other propositions that serve as its

### 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

### 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

### Philosophy of Science. Ross Arnold, Summer 2014 Lakeside institute of Theology

Philosophy of Science Ross Arnold, Summer 2014 Lakeside institute of Theology Philosophical Theology 1 (TH5) Aug. 15 Intro to Philosophical Theology; Logic Aug. 22 Truth & Epistemology Aug. 29 Metaphysics

### Study Guides. Chapter 1 - Basic Training

Study Guides Chapter 1 - Basic Training Argument: A group of propositions is an argument when one or more of the propositions in the group is/are used to give evidence (or if you like, reasons, or grounds)

### Tutorial A03: Patterns of Valid Arguments By: Jonathan Chan

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

### 10.3 Universal and Existential Quantifiers

M10_COPI1396_13_SE_C10.QXD 10/22/07 8:42 AM Page 441 10.3 Universal and Existential Quantifiers 441 and Wx, and so on. We call these propositional functions simple predicates, to distinguish them from

### In Search of the Ontological Argument. Richard Oxenberg

1 In Search of the Ontological Argument Richard Oxenberg Abstract We can attend to the logic of Anselm's ontological argument, and amuse ourselves for a few hours unraveling its convoluted word-play, or

### Tutorial A02: Validity and Soundness By: Jonathan Chan

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

### Is Epistemic Probability Pascalian?

Is Epistemic Probability Pascalian? James B. Freeman Hunter College of The City University of New York ABSTRACT: What does it mean to say that if the premises of an argument are true, the conclusion is

### The Logic of Uddyotakara The conflict with Buddhist logic and his achievement

1 The Logic of Uddyotakara The conflict with Buddhist logic and his achievement 0 Introduction 1 The Framework of Uddyotakara s Logic 1.1 Nyāya system and Uddyotakara 1.2 The Framework of Uddyotakara s

### Chapter 18 David Hume: Theory of Knowledge

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

### A Romp through the Foothills of Logic: Session 1

A Romp through the Foothills of Logic: Session 1 We re going to get started. We do have rather a lot to work through, I m completely amazed that there are people here who have been to my Philosophy in

### Descartes' Ontological Argument

Descartes' Ontological Argument The essential problem with Anselm's argument is that at the end of it all, the atheist can understand the definition and even have the concept in his or her mind, but still

### Charles Saunders Peirce ( )

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

### Aristotle ( ) His scientific thinking, his physics.

Aristotle (384-322) His scientific thinking, his physics. Aristotle: short biography Aristotle was a Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. He wrote on many different

### SECTION 2 BASIC CONCEPTS

SECTION 2 BASIC CONCEPTS 2.1 Getting Started...9 2.2 Object Language and Metalanguage...10 2.3 Propositions...12 2.4 Arguments...20 2.5 Arguments and Corresponding Conditionals...29 2.6 Valid and Invalid,

### Moore 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

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

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

This article was downloaded by: [Wayne State University] On: 29 August 2011, At: 05:20 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer

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

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