Deduction. Of all the modes of reasoning, deductive arguments have the strongest relationship between the premises


 Silvester Chapman
 3 years ago
 Views:
Transcription
1 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 a formidable form of reasoning. Deductive reasoning is common in the imperial disciplines. Deductive reasoning is prized because deductive arguments have the highest standards of cogency. Of all the modes of reasoning, deductive arguments have the strongest relationship between the premises Recall: we reserve the term sound to describe good deductive arguments.
2 Recall: Validity In daytoday life, we talk about a valid driver s license, or the validation of software serial number. Validity is a technical term in deductive logic. If an argument has an appropriate deductive form, then we say that the argument is valid. Recall: deductive logic is just one mode of reasoning, though it is a very powerful form of reasoning. A deductive argument is either valid or invalid. When we say that an argument is invalid we mean that we are rejecting the argument because it doesn t have the right deductive form. When we say this, we don t care about the content of the premises. That is, we don t care what the premises are about.
3 Recall: Validity (more) If an argument has a valid form and the premises are true, then the conclusion of the argument must be true. The conclusion is deductively entailed. But, an argument may be valid (have the right form or structure) but not be true. It s premises could be false. Important: Committing to the validity of an argument, does not necessarily commit you to the truth conclusion. Likewise, asserting the invalidity of an argument, does not necessarily commit you to rejecting the conclusion. (You might accept the conclusion, but reject the form of the argument given for the conclusion.)
4 Validity Illustrated P1: If it s whirlygig then smackgurgle. P2: This is a whirlygig. C1: This is also a smackgurgle. This is a valid argument. We recognize the form as being valid. All arguments of this form are valid: P1: If P then Q. P2: P C1: Therefore, Q But, not all arguments of this form necessarily produce true conclusions. In this case, we don t know if the premises are true or false. We only know that argument is valid. We know nothing about its truth!
5 An example of validity Premise: All apples are fruit. Premise: All fruit contain antioxidants. Conclusion: All apples contain antioxidants. Premise: All aardvarks have long noses. Premise: Anything with a long nose has an acute sense of smell. Conclusion: All aardvarks have an acute sense of smell. Logical form: All As are Bs. All Bs are Cs. Therefore, all As are Cs.
6 A Valid But Untrue Syllogism Consider this syllogism again: P1: All men are purple. P2: Socrates is a man. C1: Socrates is purple. This syllogism also has the form: P1: All S are P P2: M is S C1: M is P Recall: Truth and Validity are different things. Validity guarantees (and only guarantees) that if the premises are true the conclusion will be true. In this case, P1 is false. So, the conclusion is false. Nonetheless, the form of the syllogism is valid.
7 Important! Validity and Truth are Different. Example 1: P1: All men are mortal. P2: Socrates is a man. C1: Socrates is mortal. (Valid and True) Example 2: P1: All men are purple. P2: Socrates is a man. C1: Socrates is purple. (Valid but false) Note: Example 1 and Example 2 have exactly the same form or structure of argument. This is one valid form of deductive argument. Common Form: All S are P M is an S. Therefore, M is P
8 Valid Deductive Arguments are Truth Preserving Look at Example 2 again: P1: All men are purple. P2: Socrates is a man. C1: Socrates is purple. (Valid but false) What went wrong? Clearly, P1 is false. It is not true that All men are purple. Hypothetically, if P1 were true, then C1 would be true too! Valid deductive arguments are truth preserving. That s a fancy way of saying that: in valid deductive arguments are machines the gobble up true premises and split out true conclusions.
9 Why we deduction In deductive arguments, the premises entail the conclusion. This is because valid deductive arguments are truth preserving. And so, it is not possible for the premises of a deductive argument to be true and the conclusion false. In more detail: If (1) the premises are true, And (2) the form of the deductive argument is valid, Then (3) the conclusion must be true always and forever which is why imperial disciplines love deduction!
10 Deductive Logic Often when people say logic they mean deductive logic There are other logics, notably, inductive logic. Deductive logic is studies the valid forms of deductive argument. It looks at the forms of argument that preserve truth. It looks at ways of testing arguments to see if they are valid (truth preserving). Important: Form NOT Content! Deductive logic is concerned purely with forms of argument, not the content. It is not concerned with truth. It is only concerned with figuring out the arguments that preserve truth.
11 Scope of Course Concern There are many types of deductive logic. We will be looking briefly at one: categorical logic The aim is to understand what deductive arguments look likes so you know when you are dealing with a situation involving deductive entailment. Shameless advertisement: If you want deductive logic, take PHIL2210 and then PHIL3110.
12 Categorical Logic Aristotle ( BCE), an Ancient Greek philosopher, showed that some good arguments have common shapes, forms or patterns. Aristotle thought of logic as a tool or organon for inquiry. We call Aristotle s tool categorical logic, or syllogistic logic, or simply syllogism.
13 Four Categorical Statements 1) Universal Affirmative All S is P All men are mortal Every man is an island 2) Universal Negative No S is P No conservatives are fiscally responsible. No penguins are flying birds. 3) Particular Affirmative Some S is P Some guinea pigs have long hair. Some Tories are good people 4) Particular Negative Some S is not P Some people are not generous Some rocks are not sedimentary.
14 Variables The four forms of the syllogism are: All S are P; No S are P; Some S are P; Some S are not P. We use S and P to stand for the specific content of the statements. We do this because we are only interested in the form of the statements. The use of variables helps us achieve generality. We say that S and P are variables. The specific content of S and P may change or vary.
15 Categories We use S to stand for the subject of the statement (what the statement is about) and P to stand for the predicate of the statement (what is begin said about the subject.) The choice of S and P as variables is entirely conventional. We could use any letter or other symbol Categorical logic is the logic of categories. The subject and predicate will always be categories. Any category can include only one thing, five things, or everything. Likewise, a category can exclude only one thing, five things, or everything.
16 Examples All robins are birds. Every thing in the category robin is a member of the category birds. No elephants are reptiles. Everything in the category elephant is not a member of the category reptile. Some mammals are marsupials. Some of the things in the category of mammals are members of the category or marsuplials. Some animals are not viviparous. Some of the things that are animals are not things that are viviparous.
17 Categorical Form We make many assertions about categories, but most of the time the sentences that we utter are not exactly in categorical form. Nevertheless, it is still plausible to represent their content in the categorical form. That is, we can translate many different kinds of sentences into sentences with one of the four categorical forms.
18 Everyday sentences can be translated into categorical sentences and categorical sentences can be translated into standard form Every robin is a bird. All robins are birds. All S are P Every elephant is not a reptile. No elephants are reptiles. No S are P There are a few mammals that are marsupials Some mammals are marsupials. Some S are P You can find animals that are not viviparous. Some animals are not viviparous. Some S are not P
19 Translation into Categorical Form (1) Stylistic variants: many different sentences can assert exactly the same categorical relation. All Texans are ornery, Every single Texan is ornery, Any Texan is ornery, There is no Texan who is not ornery. (2) A and The are ambiguous between a particular and a universal (or generic) sense. A lion is a mammal makes a different claim that A lion just escaped from the zoo (3) Any is generally universal, but is particular when inside the scope of a not. Compare Amy can solve any problem and Amy cannot solve any problem. (4) Only : Like all, only asserts a universal affirmative, but it asserts the opposite inclusion relation. Only Ss are P translates into Categorical form as All Ps are S.
20 Syllogism Syllogisms are a basic form of argument. Syllogisms have three lines; two premises and one conclusion. You see lots of syllogisms. Here are two you have seen in the course: P1: All men are mortal. P2: Socrates is a man. C1: Socrates is mortal. P1: All threesided figures are triangles. P2: This figure has three sides. C1: This figure is a triangle.
21 Anatomy of a Syllogism A syllogism consists of three sentences. Two premises and one conclusion. Each sentence is made up of two terms. Every term occurs twice in a syllogism. Count the terms in the following syllogism P1: All S are M P2: No M are P C1: No S are P Each unique term that makes up the syllogism has a particular name. The predicate, P, of the conclusion is the major term. The subject, S, of the conclusion is the minor term. The term that appears in both premises but not the conclusion is the middle term.
22 Translating Syllogisms into Categorical Form P1: All men are mortal. P2: Socrates is a man. C1: Socrates is mortal. P1: All S are P P2: M is S C1: M is P P1: All threesided figures are triangles. P2: This figure has three sides. C1: This figure is a triangle. P1: All S are P P2: M is S C1: M is P These syllogisms have different contents but the same logical form! They are valid for the same reason.
23 Translate Syllogism into Categorical Form No lawyers are golfers, but some golfers are doctors. Therefore, no lawyers are doctors. No L are G. Some G are D. Therefore, no L are D.
24 Translation Only doctors are golfers, and any golfer has good turf shoes. So, all doctors have good turf shoes. All G are D. All G are S. Therefore, all D are S.
25 Venn Diagrams In Symbolic Logic (1881), English mathematician John Venn ( ) invented a way to pictorially represent categorical statements, and to test syllogisms for validity. Every category is represented by a circle. We overlap the circles, so that we can represent inclusion and exclusion relations between categories.
26 One Category
27 One Category
28 Two Categories Lawyers Golfers
29 Two Categories Golfers only Lawyers Golfers Lawyers only Lawyers who are also golfers.
30 Picturing Categorical Statements We can use Venn diagrams to picture categorical statements and syllogisms. We use Venn diagrams to picture logical space. [In Venn diagrams] logical space is represented in circles and parts of circles. To indicate that there is nothing in an area of logical space, we shade in the area. To indicate that there is something, we put an x in the space. [216]
31 Universal Affirmative All lawyers are golfers. All S are P. S lawyers P golfers
32 Universal Negative No lawyers are golfers. No S are P. S lawyers P golfers
33 Particular Affirmative Some lawyers are golfers. Some S are P. S lawyers P golfers X
34 Particular Negative Some lawyers are not golfers. Some S are not P. S lawyers P golfers X
35 Venn Diagrams and Syllogisms We can use Venn diagrams to picture syllogisms, AND to check whether or not the syllogism is valid or invalid. Consider the syllogism: All S are P No P is M Therefore, no S is M. Every categorical statement has two terms, and so we pictured categorical statements with two circles, one for each term. Since a syllogism has three terms, we will need three circles to picture the syllogism, again one for each term.
36 Venn Diagram for a Syllogism S P M
37 An Example Consider the syllogism: All liberals are Keynesians. No Keynesians are monetarists. Therefore, no liberal is a monetarist. The syllogism has the form: All S are M No M are P Therefore, no S are P. We can picture this syllogism in a Venn diagram.
38 P1: All S are M P2: No M are P C1: No S are P S P M
39 ** P1: All S are M ** P2: No M are P C1: No S are P S P M
40 ** P1: All S are M ** P2: No M are P C1: No S are P S P M
41 P1: All S are M ** P2: No M is P ** C1: No S is P S P M
42 Validity and Invalidity In valid deductions, the conclusion states no more information than has already been stated in the premises. This is why valid deductive arguments are truth preserving. They simply preserve whatever truth happens to have been stated in the premises. If the conclusion states more than has been stated in the premises, then the conclusion is invalid. To see if a conclusion is valid or invalid, we simply check to see if the information in the conclusion is already pictured in the Venn diagram. If the information is already on the diagram, then the syllogism is valid. If the information is not already on the diagram if something new has been stated in the conclusion then the syllogism is invalid.
43 P1: All S are M P2: No M is P ** C1: No S is P ** S P Valid! The area in green picturing No S is P was already shaded black and red. So, all the information in the conclusion is information already in the premises. M
44 Another Example P1: Some people who smoke also drink. P2: Some people who drink take risks. C1: Some people who smoke take risks. P1: Some S are M P2: Some M are P C1: Some S are P
45 ** P1: Some S are M ** P2: Some M are P C1: Some S are P S P X M
46 ** P1: Some S are M ** P2: Some M are P C1: Some S are P S P X X M
47 P1: Some S are M ** P2: Some M are P ** C1: Some S are P S P X X X M
48 P1: Some S are M P2: Some M are P ** C1: Some S are P ** S P X (!) X X X Invalid! Note that the X marked with an exclamation point was not information included in either of the premises. M
49 Like forms have like properties of validity and invalidity We began with examples that included content. We replaced the content with variables. This allows us to achieve generality. The specific content of an argument does not affect its validity or invalidity. From the first example, all syllogisms are valid if they have the form: P1: All S are M P2: No M are P P3: No S are P. From the second example, all syllogisms are invalid if they have the form: P1: Some S are M P2: Some M are P C1: Some S are P Keep in mind, these are just specific examples. There are, of course, many other valid syllogism forms. We will need to test each to see if it is a valid or invalid form.
50 Last Example P1: All fuzzies are dolittles. P2: Some dolittles are mugwumps. C1: No fuzzies are mugwumps. P1: All S are M P2: Some M are P C1: No S are P We are going to do this example in a single diagram.
51 P1: All S are M P2: Some M are P C1: No S are P S P X X Invalid! Note the shading and the X in the very center section indicates a contradiction. M
52 Summary of Some Key Points All categorical statements have one of four forms. Each has a unique Venn diagram with two circles. We can use a Venn diagram with three circles to represent a syllogism and test whether the syllogism is valid or invalid. Remember that validity and invalidity has nothing to do with truth and falsity. Valid arguments preserve truth. In a valid argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion will be true. Valid deductive arguments provide the strongest relationship between premises and conclusion. Such arguments are sound; i.e., possess the highest standard of cogency.
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,
More informationPhilosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics. Critical Thinking Lecture 1. Background Material for the Exercise on Validity
Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics Critical Thinking Lecture 1 Background Material for the Exercise on Validity Reasons, Arguments, and the Concept of Validity 1. The Concept of Validity Consider
More informationMCQ IN TRADITIONAL LOGIC. 1. Logic is the science of A) Thought. B) Beauty. C) Mind. D) Goodness
MCQ IN TRADITIONAL LOGIC FOR PRIVATE REGISTRATION TO BA PHILOSOPHY PROGRAMME 1. Logic is the science of. A) Thought B) Beauty C) Mind D) Goodness 2. Aesthetics is the science of .
More informationComplications for Categorical Syllogisms. PHIL 121: Methods of Reasoning February 27, 2013 Instructor:Karin Howe Binghamton University
Complications for Categorical Syllogisms PHIL 121: Methods of Reasoning February 27, 2013 Instructor:Karin Howe Binghamton University Overall Plan First, I will present some problematic propositions and
More information5.3 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
More informationPastorteacher Don Hargrove Faith Bible Church September 8, 2011
Pastorteacher Don Hargrove Faith Bible Church http://www.fbcweb.org/doctrines.html September 8, 2011 Building Mental Muscle & Growing the Mind through Logic Exercises: Lesson 4a The Three Acts of the
More informationVenn Diagrams and Categorical Syllogisms. Unit 5
Venn Diagrams and Categorical Syllogisms Unit 5 John Venn 1834 1923 English logician and philosopher noted for introducing the Venn diagram Used in set theory, probability, logic, statistics, and computer
More informationPart 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 informationArgument Basics. When an argument shows that its conclusion is worth accepting we say that the argument is good.
Argument Basics When an argument shows that its conclusion is worth accepting we say that the argument is good. When an argument fails to do so we say that the argument is bad. But there are different
More informationTo better understand VALIDITY, we now turn to the topic of logical form.
LOGIC GUIDE 2 To better understand VALIDITY, we now turn to the topic of logical form. LOGICAL FORM The logical form of a statement or argument is the skeleton, or structure. If you retain only the words
More informationELEMENTS 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
More informationBaronett, Logic (4th ed.) Chapter Guide
Chapter 6: Categorical Syllogisms Baronett, Logic (4th ed.) Chapter Guide A. Standardform Categorical Syllogisms A categorical syllogism is an argument containing three categorical propositions: two premises
More informationSYLLOGISTIC 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,
More informationSHORT 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 informationIntro Viewed from a certain angle, philosophy is about what, if anything, we ought to believe.
Overview Philosophy & logic 1.2 What is philosophy? 1.3 nature of philosophy Why philosophy Rules of engagement Punctuality and regularity is of the essence You should be active in class It is good to
More informationWhat is a logical argument? What is deductive reasoning? Fundamentals of Academic Writing
What is a logical argument? What is deductive reasoning? Fundamentals of Academic Writing Logical relations Deductive logic Claims to provide conclusive support for the truth of a conclusion Inductive
More informationPhilosophy 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 informationUnit 4. Reason as a way of knowing. Tuesday, March 4, 14
Unit 4 Reason as a way of knowing I. Reasoning At its core, reasoning is using what is known as building blocks to create new knowledge I use the words logic and reasoning interchangeably. Technically,
More informationUnit. Categorical Syllogism. What is a syllogism? Types of Syllogism
Unit 8 Categorical yllogism What is a syllogism? Inference or reasoning is the process of passing from one or more propositions to another with some justification. This inference when expressed in language
More informationPHI 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
More informationLogic 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
More informationA 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
More informationLecture 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.
More informationPart 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 informationSelections from Aristotle s Prior Analytics 41a21 41b5
Lesson Seventeen The Conditional Syllogism Selections from Aristotle s Prior Analytics 41a21 41b5 It is clear then that the ostensive syllogisms are effected by means of the aforesaid figures; these considerations
More information7.1. Unit. Terms and Propositions. Nature of propositions. Types of proposition. Classification of propositions
Unit 7.1 Terms and Propositions Nature of propositions A proposition is a unit of reasoning or logical thinking. Both premises and conclusion of reasoning are propositions. Since propositions are so important,
More informationIntroduction to Philosophy
Introduction to Philosophy Philosophy 110W Russell Marcus Hamilton College, Fall 2013 Class 1  Introduction to Introduction to Philosophy My name is Russell. My office is 202 College Hill Road, Room 210.
More informationJohn Buridan. Summulae de Dialectica IX Sophismata
John Buridan John Buridan (c. 1295 c. 1359) was born in Picardy (France). He was educated in Paris and taught there. He wrote a number of works focusing on exposition and discussion of issues in Aristotle
More informationEXERCISES: (from
EXERCISES: (from http://people.umass.edu/klement/100/logicworksheet.html) A. 2. Jane has a cat 3. Therefore, Jane has a pet B. 2. Jane has a pet 3. Therefore, Jane has a cat C. 2. It is not the case that
More information6.5 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
More informationSection 3.5. Symbolic Arguments. Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.
Section 3.5 Symbolic Arguments What You Will Learn Symbolic arguments Standard forms of arguments 3.52 Symbolic Arguments A symbolic argument consists of a set of premises and a conclusion. It is called
More information1.5. 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
More informationRecall. 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
More informationStudy 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)
More informationLogic: Deductive and Inductive by Carveth Read M.A. CHAPTER IX CHAPTER IX FORMAL CONDITIONS OF MEDIATE INFERENCE
CHAPTER IX CHAPTER IX FORMAL CONDITIONS OF MEDIATE INFERENCE Section 1. A Mediate Inference is a proposition that depends for proof upon two or more other propositions, so connected together by one or
More informationAnthony P. Andres. The Place of Conversion in Aristotelian Logic. Anthony P. Andres
[ Loyola Book Comp., run.tex: 0 AQR Vol. W rev. 0, 17 Jun 2009 ] [The Aquinas Review Vol. W rev. 0: 1 The Place of Conversion in Aristotelian Logic From at least the time of John of St. Thomas, scholastic
More informationThe Appeal to Reason. Introductory Logic pt. 1
The Appeal to Reason Introductory Logic pt. 1 Argument vs. Argumentation The difference is important as demonstrated by these famous philosophers. The Origins of Logic: (highlights) Aristotle (385322
More informationDr. 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
More informationA s a contracts professional, from
18 Contract Management June 2015 Contract Management June 2015 19 A s a contracts professional, from time to time you must answer a question, resolve an issue, explain something, or make a decision based
More informationL4: Reasoning. Dani Navarro
L4: Reasoning Dani Navarro Deductive reasoning Inductive reasoning Informal reasoning WE talk of man* being the rational animal; and the traditional intellectualist philosophy has always made a great point
More informationSection 3.5. Symbolic Arguments. Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.
Section 3.5 Symbolic Arguments INB able of Contents Date opic Page # July 28, 2014 Section 3.5 Examples 84 July 28, 2014 Section 3.5 Notes 85 July 28, 2014 Section 3.6 Examples 86 July 28, 2014 Section
More informationRichard L. W. Clarke, Notes REASONING
1 REASONING Reasoning is, broadly speaking, the cognitive process of establishing reasons to justify beliefs, conclusions, actions or feelings. It also refers, more specifically, to the act or process
More informationA 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 informationBASIC 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
More informationLecture 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 informationIn this section you will learn three basic aspects of logic. When you are done, you will understand the following:
Basic Principles of Deductive Logic Part One: In this section you will learn three basic aspects of logic. When you are done, you will understand the following: Mental Act Simple Apprehension Judgment
More information1. 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.
More informationPHI 1500: Major Issues in Philosophy
PHI 1500: Major Issues in Philosophy Session 3 September 9 th, 2015 All About Arguments (Part II) 1 A common theme linking many fallacies is that they make unwarranted assumptions. An assumption is a claim
More information5.6.1 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
More informationThe Problem of Major Premise in Buddhist Logic
The Problem of Major Premise in Buddhist Logic TANG Mingjun The Institute of Philosophy Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Shanghai, P.R. China Abstract: This paper is a preliminary inquiry into the main
More information9.1 Intro to Predicate Logic Practice with symbolizations. Today s Lecture 3/30/10
9.1 Intro to Predicate Logic Practice with symbolizations Today s Lecture 3/30/10 Announcements Tests back today Homework: Ex 9.1 pgs. 431432 Part C (125) Predicate Logic Consider the argument: All
More informationCritical Thinking is:
Logic: Day 1 Critical Thinking is: Thinking clearly and following rules of logic and rationality It s not being argumentative just for the sake of arguing Academics disagree about which departments do
More informationLOGIC ANTHONY KAPOLKA FYF 1019/3/2010
LOGIC ANTHONY KAPOLKA FYF 1019/3/2010 LIBERALLY EDUCATED PEOPLE......RESPECT RIGOR NOT SO MUCH FOR ITS OWN SAKE BUT AS A WAY OF SEEKING TRUTH. LOGIC PUZZLE COOPER IS MURDERED. 3 SUSPECTS: SMITH, JONES,
More information13.6 Euler Diagrams and Syllogistic Arguments
EulerDiagrams.nb 1 13.6 Euler Diagrams and Syllogistic rguments In the preceding section, we showed how to determine the validity of symbolic arguments using truth tables and comparing the arguments to
More informationIntroduction to Philosophy
Introduction to Philosophy PHIL 2000Call # 41480 Kent Baldner Teaching Assistant: Mitchell Winget Discussion sections ( Labs ) meet on Wednesdays, starting next Wednesday, Sept. 5 th. 10:0010:50, 1115
More informationREASONING SYLLOGISM. Subject Predicate Distributed Not Distributed Distributed Distributed
REASONING SYLLOGISM DISTRIBUTION OF THE TERMS The word "Distrlbution" is meant to characterise the ways in which terrns can occur in Categorical Propositions. A Proposition distributes a terrn if it refers
More informationTopics and Posterior Analytics. Philosophy 21 Fall, 2004 G. J. Mattey
Topics and Posterior Analytics Philosophy 21 Fall, 2004 G. J. Mattey Logic Aristotle is the first philosopher to study systematically what we call logic Specifically, Aristotle investigated what we now
More informationCHAPTER 10 VENN DIAGRAMS
HATER 10 VENN DAGRAM NTRODUTON n the nineteenthcentury, John Venn developed a technique for determining whether a categorical syllogism is valid or invalid. Although the method he constructed relied on
More informationTransition to Quantified Predicate Logic
Transition to Quantified Predicate Logic Predicates You may remember (but of course you do!) during the first class period, I introduced the notion of validity with an argument much like (with the same
More information7. 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
More informationIntroduction to Philosophy Crito. Instructor: Jason Sheley
Introduction to Philosophy Crito Instructor: Jason Sheley Recall again our steps for doing philosophy 1) What is the question? 2) What is the basic answer to the question? 3) What reasons are given for
More informationUnit 4. Reason as a way of knowing
Unit 4 Reason as a way of knowing Zendo The Master will present two Koans  one that follows the rule and one that does not. Teams will take turns presenting their own koans to the master to see if they
More informationPRACTICE EXAM The state of Israel was in a state of mourning today because of the assassination of Yztzak Rabin.
PRACTICE EXAM 1 I. Decide which of the following are arguments. For those that are, identify the premises and conclusions in them by CIRCLING them and labeling them with a P for the premises or a C for
More informationCategorical Logic Handout Logic: Spring Sound: Any valid argument with true premises.
Categorical Logic Handout Logic: Spring 2017 Deductive argument: An argument whose premises are claimed to provide conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion. Validity: A characteristic of any
More informationChapter 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 informationBASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC
BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC 1. What is Logic?...2 2. Inferences and Arguments...2 3. Deductive Logic versus Inductive Logic...5 4. Statements versus Propositions...6 5. Form versus Content...7 6. Preliminary
More informationInstructor s Manual 1
Instructor s Manual 1 PREFACE This instructor s manual will help instructors prepare to teach logic using the 14th edition of Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen, and Kenneth McMahon s Introduction to Logic. The
More informationArgument 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
More informationPHILOSOPHY 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
More informationThree Kinds of Arguments
Chapter 27 Three Kinds of Arguments Arguments in general We ve been focusing on Moleculananalyzable arguments for several chapters, but now we want to take a step back and look at the big picture, at
More informationWhat would count as Ibn Sīnā (11th century Persia) having first order logic?
1 2 What would count as Ibn Sīnā (11th century Persia) having first order logic? Wilfrid Hodges Herons Brook, Sticklepath, Okehampton March 2012 http://wilfridhodges.co.uk Ibn Sina, 980 1037 3 4 Ibn Sīnā
More informationGeometry TEST Review Chapter 2  Logic
Geometry TEST Review Chapter 2  Logic Name Period Date Symbolic notation: 1. Define the following symbols. a b ~ c d e g a b c d a b c d 2. Consider the following legend: Let p = You love bananas. Let
More informationGeometry 2.3.notebook October 02, 2015
Do Now Write the converse of each true statement. If true, combine the statements to write a true biconditional. If the converse is false, give a counterexample. a) If an angle measures 30 o, then it is
More informationRelevance. 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
More informationCriticizing Arguments
Kareem Khalifa Criticizing Arguments 1 Criticizing Arguments Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College Written August, 2012 Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Step 1: Initial Evaluation
More informationBasic Concepts and Skills!
Basic Concepts and Skills! Critical Thinking tests rationales,! i.e., reasons connected to conclusions by justifying or explaining principles! Why do CT?! Answer: Opinions without logical or evidential
More informationThe 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
More informationThe 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
More informationProofs of Nonexistence
The Problem of Evil Proofs of Nonexistence Proofs of nonexistence are strange; strange enough in fact that some have claimed that they cannot be done. One problem is with even stating nonexistence claims:
More informationCRITICAL 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 informationIdentify 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.
More information1.5 Deductive and Inductive Arguments
M01_COPI1396_13_SE_C01.QXD 10/10/07 9:48 PM Page 26 26 CHAPTER 1 Basic Logical Concepts 19. All ethnic movements are twoedged swords. Beginning benignly, and sometimes necessary to repair injured collective
More informationAristotle ( ) His scientific thinking, his physics.
Aristotle (384322) 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
More informationThe SeaFight Tomorrow by Aristotle
The SeaFight Tomorrow by Aristotle Aristotle, Antiquities Project About the author.... Aristotle (384322) studied for twenty years at Plato s Academy in Athens. Following Plato s death, Aristotle left
More informationEthics and Science. Obstacles to search for truth. Ethics: Basic Concepts 1
So far (from class and course pack) Moral dilemmas: e.g., euthanasia (class), Churchill decision in World War 2 Ethics ultimately concerned with how to live well. One part of that involves choice of actions
More informationLOGICAL THINKING CHAPTER DEDUCTIVE THINKING: THE SYLLOGISM. If we reason it is not because we like to, but because we must.
ISBN: 0536299072 CHAPTER 9 LOGICAL THINKING If we reason it is not because we like to, but because we must. WILL DURANT, THE MANSIONS OF PHILOSOPHY Thinking logically and identifying reasoning fallacies
More information1.6 Validity and Truth
M01_COPI1396_13_SE_C01.QXD 10/10/07 9:48 PM Page 30 30 CHAPTER 1 Basic Logical Concepts deductive arguments about probabilities themselves, in which the probability of a certain combination of events is
More information1. 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
More informationBased 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',
More informationWhat is an argument? PHIL 110. Is this an argument? Is this an argument? What about this? And what about this?
What is an argument? PHIL 110 Lecture on Chapter 3 of How to think about weird things An argument is a collection of two or more claims, one of which is the conclusion and the rest of which are the premises.
More informationIntroduction to Analyzing and Evaluating Arguments
Introduction to Analyzing and Evaluating Arguments 1. HOW TO ANALYZE AN ARGUMENT Example 1. Socrates must be mortal. After all, all humans are mortal, and Socrates is a human. What does the author of this
More information1 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 informationLogic & Philosophy. SSB Syllabus
Logic & Philosophy SSB Syllabus UnitI (Logic: Deductive and Inductive) Truth and Validity, Sentence and Proposition (According To Quality and Quantity), Classification of Propositions, Immediate Inference:
More informationEpistemology. Diogenes: Master Cynic. The Ancient Greek Skeptics 4/6/2011. But is it really possible to claim knowledge of anything?
Epistemology a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge (Dictionary.com v 1.1). Epistemology attempts to answer the question how do we know what
More informationLecture 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 informationMoon s Day, March 23: Elementary Reasoning
Moon s Day, March 23: Elementary Reasoning EQ: What are INDUCTIVE and DEDUCTIVE arguments? Welcome! Gather pen/cil, paper, wits! Lecture/Discussion: Inductive vs. Deductive Activity/Homework: Inductive
More informationCritical Thinking 5.7 Validity in inductive, conductive, and abductive arguments
5.7 Validity in inductive, conductive, and abductive arguments REMEMBER as explained in an earlier section formal language is used for expressing relations in abstract form, based on clear and unambiguous
More informationWhat 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
More informationPhil 3304 Introduction to Logic Dr. David Naugle. Identifying Arguments i
Phil 3304 Introduction to Logic Dr. David Naugle Identifying Arguments Dallas Baptist University Introduction Identifying Arguments i Any kid who has played with tinker toys and Lincoln logs knows that
More informationA R G U M E N T S I N A C T I O N
ARGUMENTS IN ACTION Descriptions: creates a textual/verbal account of what something is, was, or could be (shape, size, colour, etc.) Used to give you or your audience a mental picture of the world around
More information