# Basic Concepts and Skills!

Size: px
Start display at page:

Transcription

1 Basic Concepts and Skills!

2 Critical Thinking tests rationales,! i.e., reasons connected to conclusions by justifying or explaining principles! Why do CT?! Answer: Opinions without logical or evidential support are worthless.!

3 Top 10 Critical Thinking Skills!! 1. How to define a good argument! 2. How to recognize an argument! 3. How to identify premises and conclusions! 4. How to distinguish an argument from an explanation! 5. How to distinguish deduction from induction! 6. How to understand logical implication 7. How to tell whether an argument form is valid! 8. How to show that a deductive argument is invalid! 9. How to tell whether an argument is good! 10. How to prove that any argument is bad!

4 Section 1.1: Identify arguments, premises and conclusions!

5 An argument is a collection of claims intended to establish the truth of a specific claim!

6 1. How to define a good argument! An argument is GOOD if and only if it is either SOUND or COGENT.! Thus, an argument is good if and only if it is either deductively valid plus all of its premises are true, i.e., SOUND, or, it is inductively strong plus all of its premises are true, i.e., COGENT.! an argument is VALID if and only if it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when all of its assumptions are true! an argument is STRONG if and only if is improbable that the conclusion is false when all of its assumptions are true! Understand, memorize, apply this definition - it will help you every day!

7 How the text relates to the skills! Section 1.1: Identify arguments, premises and conclusions! Section 1.2: Recognizing arguments and explanations! Section 1.3: Discern deductive from inductive arguments! Section 1.4: Validity, soundness, strength and cogency! Section 1.5: Argument forms, proving invalidity! You should complete all exercises assigned from each of these sections according to the syllabus schedule.!

8 What undermines critical thinking?!

9 There are only two kinds of good argument!

10 Overview!

11 2. How to recognize an argument! arguments present rational reasons for belief (rational = reasonable, non-emotional, non-personal, non-historical)! argument disagreement! argument = proof, some arguments are good and some are bad, but all arguments must cite evidence! does the set of claims aim to justify/prove a conclusion about a specific issue (the main subject of controversy)? if not, it is a non-argument, e.g., these are not arguments: an exposition, a report, an illustration, an explanation, a conditional statement, or any statement of belief! the conclusion is the one precise claim which all other claims (premises) support there can only be one conclusion! premises (evidence) must present reasons which justify accepting the conclusion!

12 3. How to identify premises and conclusions! look for indicator words because, since, for, therefore, so, given that, we may infer that, it follows that! check support relations which claim needs the most support, which claims seem to be supporting another! eliminate alternatives when you can t distinguish premises from the conclusion, just choose one claim at a time as the conclusion and decide whether the rest support it, if not, keep reconstructing these until you get the most charitable reconstruction! reconstruct using a charitable interpretation presume that other people, like yourself, are lovers of the good and believers of truths, so when more than one interpretation of an argument is possible, interpret the argument so that the premises provide the strongest support for the conclusion!

13 3. How to identify premises and conclusions - Examples! Students should complete every online quiz in the course. Each student loses 10 points or five percent of the total points available in the course for every online quiz that they do not complete.! Students cannot re-take or make-up any quiz, absolutely, no exceptions. There isn't time for this and there are plenty of points available so that one can miss a quiz and still do well in the course.!

14 3. How to identify premises and conclusions - Examples! Students should complete every online quiz in the course. Each student loses 10 points or five percent of the total points available in the course for every online quiz that they do not complete.! Students cannot re-take or make-up any quiz, absolutely, no exceptions. There isn't time for this and there are plenty of points available so that one can miss a quiz and still do well in the course.!

15 Section 1.2: Recognizing arguments and explanations!

16 4. How to distinguish an argument from an explanation! what are the reasons doing? use the diagram! notice arguments and explanations both have conclusions and reasons... but only explanations describe what causes a conclusion to be true! justifying explaining! if reasons are justifying belief in the conclusion, then it's an argument! if reasons are specifying cause(s) of truth of the conclusion, then it's an explanation!

17 Arguments vs. Explanations!

18 Examples of Explanations!

19

20 Section 1.3: Discern deductive from inductive arguments!

21 5. How to distinguish deduction from induction! reconstruct using a charitable interpretation - when more than one interpretation of an argument is possible, interpret the argument so that the premises provide the strongest support for the conclusion! if the conclusion seems necessary, then it is deduction! if the conclusion seems probable, then it is induction! conclusions of inductive arguments assert more than what is contained in the premises, but conclusions of deductive arguments do not - the conclusion of a deductive argument is not supposed to contain more information than the premises! if the conclusion of an argument could be false when all of the premises are true, then the argument is not deductive!

22 Deductive vs. Inductive reasoning!

23

24

25 6. How to understand (and test) logical implication! implication = conditional = hypothetical! To say that "P implies Q" means that whenever P is true Q is also true.! P implies Q = if P then Q = all P are Q = the only P are Q = P only if Q! P does not imply Q when P is true and Q is not.! P only if Q is the best way to read if P then Q or! P implies Q statements. Why? P only if Q is logically equivalent to P implies Q and makes our brains see two things: (1) that P is only sufficient for Q it is not necessary, and (2) that Q is necessary for P P can t be true without Q also being true.!

26 Every conditional has two components! the antecedent condition implies the consequent condition!

27 How to test logical implications! implication = conditional = hypothetical! Conditionals are false only when their antecedents are true and their consequent is false. We test a conditional for truth by thinking of a counter-example to it which shows that it is false.! The implication fails when P does not imply Q,! i.e., when P is true and Q is not.! Suppose someone says:! If you love me, then you buy me a diamond ring.! When is this clearly false?! Answer: Whenever the antecedent is true and the consequent is false. That is, in any case where it is plausible that one both loves someone and one does not buy that someone a diamond ring.!

28 Section 1.4: Validity, soundness, strength and cogency!

29 7. How to tell whether an argument form is valid! Ask: Can the conclusion be false when all assumptions true?! an argument is VALID if and only if it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when all of its assumptions are true! Is the form same as known valid forms? examples! consider counter-examples to the form to test it! an argument is SOUND if and only if it is valid plus all assumptions are true! valid true, valid good, only arguments can be valid!

30 Overview!

31 Section 1.5: Argument forms, proving invalidity!

32 8. How to show that a deductive argument is invalid! show it is NOT valid by showing how conclusion can be true when all assumptions false! reveal the pattern, then consider counter-examples to the logical form itself! construct a substitution instance (using all true premises and a false conclusion) with the counter-example method to test whether a form is valid or invalid! How to do this: (1) STATE the argument. (2) EXTRACT its logical form. (3) SUBSTITUTE terms. (4) EVALUATE - does your example show that the conclusion could be false when all of the premises are true? If yes, the argument is invalid. If no, try again, but at some point you have to consider that it might be valid, or you are unable to think of a counter-example but it really is invalid.! every substitution instance of a valid form is a valid argument but it is not the case that every substitution instance of an invalid form is an invalid argument - this is rare!

33 One way to show that an argument form is invalid!

34 9. How to tell whether an argument is good! An argument is GOOD if and only if it is either SOUND or COGENT.! restate it using a charitable interpretation! reconstruct/check its form (logic check)! clarify/check its assumptions (fact check)! the argument is good only if its reconstruction passes logic check and fact check! only assumptions are true or false, arguments are not true or false! When evaluating an argument with unstated premises, find a claim that would make the argument valid or strong and evaluate the argument as if this claim had been included.!

35 10. How to prove that any argument is bad! Show that its form is illogical, because it is either not truthpreserving (deductively valid) or not truth-generating (inductively strong). Call this the form test or the logic check.! Or, show that its content - at least one of its assumptions - is incredible, because it is either demonstrably false or improbable.! Good arguments, by comparison, are less vulnerable to these problems than are bad arguments. Call this the fact check or reality check. This is a test of soundness for deductive arguments, and a test of cogency for inductive arguments.! An argument is bad, i.e., fails to justify its conclusion, if and only if it fails either the logic check or the reality check.! In other words, an argument is bad it is neither sound nor cogent. Such arguments fail either the logic check or the reality check.!

36 There are only two kinds of good argument!

37 So, a BAD argument is one which is not sound and not cogent.!

38 BAD = not GOOD! A lot of good arguments are spoiled! by some fool who knows what he is talking about.! - Miguel de Unamuno!

39 Summary: Two ways arguments go bad! 1. An argument is BAD if it fails the logic check, that is, if it is possible or probable that its conclusion is false when all of it premises are true.! Jane got straight As in high-school, so Jane will probably get straight As in college.! OR! 2. An argument is BAD if if fails the reality check, that is, if at least one of its assumptions is false or dubious.! Jack completed all of the quizzes, because Jack passed the course.!

40 Which are the BAD arguments?!

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

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.

### Conditionals II: no truth conditions?

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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### Also, in Argument #1 (Lecture 11, Slide 11), the inference from steps 2 and 3 to 4 is stated as:

by SALVATORE - 5 September 2009, 10:44 PM I`m having difficulty understanding what steps to take in applying valid argument forms to do a proof. What determines which given premises one should select to

### 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

### 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

### 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

### Proofs 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:

### 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

### 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)

### 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

### 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.

### A Judgmental Formulation of Modal Logic

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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### Argument and Persuasion. Stating Opinions and Proposals

Argument and Persuasion Stating Opinions and Proposals The Method It all starts with an opinion - something that people can agree or disagree with. The Method Move to action Speak your mind Convince someone

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

### A 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

### Recall. Validity: If the premises are true the conclusion must be true. Soundness. Valid; and. Premises are true

Recall Validity: If the premises are true the conclusion must be true Soundness Valid; and Premises are true Validity In order to determine if an argument is valid, we must evaluate all of the sets of

### 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

### The antecendent always a expresses a sufficient condition for the consequent

Critical Thinking Lecture Four October 5, 2012 Chapter 3 Deductive Argument Patterns Diagramming Arguments Deductive Argument Patterns - There are some common patterns shared by many deductive arguments

### 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

### 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

### Truth and Molinism * Trenton Merricks. Molinism: The Contemporary Debate edited by Ken Perszyk. Oxford University Press, 2011.

Truth and Molinism * Trenton Merricks Molinism: The Contemporary Debate edited by Ken Perszyk. Oxford University Press, 2011. According to Luis de Molina, God knows what each and every possible human would

### 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

### 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.

### 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

### 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

### 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

### Introducing Our New Faculty

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

### I think, therefore I am. - Rene Descartes

CRITICAL THINKING Sitting on top of your shoulders is one of the finest computers on the earth. But, like any other muscle in your body, it needs to be exercised to work its best. That exercise is called

### Argumentation. 2. What should we consider when making (or testing) an argument?

. What is the purpose of argumentation? Argumentation 2. What should we consider when making (or testing) an argument? According to Toulmin (964), the checking list can be outlined as follows: () The Claim

### 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

### Christ-Centered Critical Thinking. Lesson 6: Evaluating Thinking

Christ-Centered Critical Thinking Lesson 6: Evaluating Thinking 1 In this lesson we will learn: To evaluate our thinking and the thinking of others using the Intellectual Standards Two approaches to evaluating

### Critical 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

### 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

### 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

### Reason 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:

### 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

### 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

### Semantic Entailment and Natural Deduction

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

### Evaluating 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

### T. Parent. I shall explain these steps in turn. Let s consider the following passage to illustrate the process:

Reconstructing Arguments Argument reconstruction is where we take a written argument, and re-write it to make the logic of the argument as obvious as possible. I have broken down this task into six steps:

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

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

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

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

### 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.

### Introduction to Logic

University of Notre Dame Spring, 2017 Arguments Philosophy has two main methods for trying to answer questions: analysis and arguments Logic is the the study of arguments An argument is a set of sentences,

### 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

### Critical Thinking - Wk 3. Instructor: Jason Sheley

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

### Coordination Problems

Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol. LXXXI No. 2, September 2010 Ó 2010 Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LLC Coordination Problems scott soames

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

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

### AN EPISTEMIC PARADOX. Byron KALDIS

AN EPISTEMIC PARADOX Byron KALDIS Consider the following statement made by R. Aron: "It can no doubt be maintained, in the spirit of philosophical exactness, that every historical fact is a construct,

### !Validity!Soundness. Today s Lecture 1//21/10

!Validity!Soundness Today s Lecture 1//21/10 Announcements -- The syllabus (pdf) and Tuesday s lecture are posted on-line. See www.csun.edu/~jdblair/ -- Homework: Exercise 1.1: Part A (odds), Part C (odds).

### 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

### 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

### Suppressed premises in real life. Philosophy and Logic Section 4.3 & Some Exercises

Suppressed premises in real life Philosophy and Logic Section 4.3 & Some Exercises Analyzing inferences: finale Suppressed premises: from mechanical solutions to elegant ones Practicing on some real-life

### Exercise Sets. KS Philosophical Logic: Modality, Conditionals Vagueness. Dirk Kindermann University of Graz July 2014

Exercise Sets KS Philosophical Logic: Modality, Conditionals Vagueness Dirk Kindermann University of Graz July 2014 1 Exercise Set 1 Propositional and Predicate Logic 1. Use Definition 1.1 (Handout I Propositional

### Follow 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

### IN DEFENCE OF CLOSURE

IN DEFENCE OF CLOSURE IN DEFENCE OF CLOSURE By RICHARD FELDMAN Closure principles for epistemic justification hold that one is justified in believing the logical consequences, perhaps of a specified sort,

### Does 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

### Logic and Thought Experiments. 9th September Carnegie Mellon University. Introduction to Philosophy. Evaluating Arguments. Thought Experiments

Introduction Logic and Carnegie Mellon University 9th September 2015 Writing Assignments and Readings In this course we re going to be doing a lot of reading. As per the syllabus, you should be sure to

### Introduction to Logic. Instructor: Jason Sheley

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

### 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

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

### Lecture Notes on Classical Logic

Lecture Notes on Classical Logic 15-317: Constructive Logic William Lovas Lecture 7 September 15, 2009 1 Introduction In this lecture, we design a judgmental formulation of classical logic To gain an intuition,

### 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?

### 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

### Learning from Mistakes Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn

chapter 36 Learning from Mistakes Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn In 1666 a young scientist was sitting in a garden when an apple fell to the ground. This made him wonder why apples fall straight down, rather

### Philosophy 220. Truth Functional Properties Expressed in terms of Consistency

Philosophy 220 Truth Functional Properties Expressed in terms of Consistency The concepts of truth-functional logic: Truth-functional: Truth Falsity Indeterminacy Entailment Validity Equivalence Consistency

### 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

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

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

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

### Lecture 1 The Concept of Inductive Probability

Lecture 1 The Concept of Inductive Probability Patrick Maher Philosophy 517 Spring 2007 Two concepts of probability Example 1 You know that a coin is either two-headed or two-tailed but you have no information

### GENERAL NOTES ON THIS CLASS

PRACTICAL LOGIC Bryan Rennie GENERAL NOTES ON THE CLASS EXPLANATION OF GRADES AND POINTS, ETC. SAMPLE QUIZZES SCHEDULE OF CLASSES THE SIX RULES OF SYLLOGISMS (and corresponding fallacies) SYMBOLS USED

### 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

### 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,

### Explanatory 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

### Logic Book Part 1! by Skylar Ruloff!

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

### 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

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

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

### PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE AND META-ETHICS

The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 217 October 2004 ISSN 0031 8094 PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE AND META-ETHICS BY IRA M. SCHNALL Meta-ethical discussions commonly distinguish subjectivism from emotivism,

### QCAA Study of Religion 2019 v1.1 General Senior Syllabus

QCAA Study of Religion 2019 v1.1 General Senior Syllabus Considerations supporting the development of Learning Intentions, Success Criteria, Feedback & Reporting Where are Syllabus objectives taught (in

### 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

### 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

### Realism and the success of science argument. Leplin:

Realism and the success of science argument Leplin: 1) Realism is the default position. 2) The arguments for anti-realism are indecisive. In particular, antirealism offers no serious rival to realism in

### Overview of Today s Lecture

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

### A 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