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 day-to-day life, we talk about a valid driver s license, or the validation of software serial number. Validity is a technical term in deductive logic. If an argument has an appropriate deductive form, then we say that the argument is valid. Recall: deductive logic is just one mode of reasoning, though it is a very powerful form of reasoning. 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 whirly-gig then smack-gurgle. P2: This is a whirly-gig. C1: This is also a smack-gurgle. This is a valid argument. We recognize the form as being valid. All arguments of this form are valid: P1: If P then Q. P2: P C1: Therefore, Q But, not all arguments of this form necessarily produce true conclusions. In this case, we don t know if the premises are true or false. We only know that argument is valid. We know nothing about its truth!
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 three-sided 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 three-sided 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. 
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 Standardizing and Diagramming In Reason and the Balance we have taken the approach of using a simple outline to standardize short arguments,
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 ------------.
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
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
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
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
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
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
Chapter 6: Categorical Syllogisms Baronett, Logic (4th ed.) Chapter Guide A. Standard-form Categorical Syllogisms A categorical syllogism is an argument containing three categorical propositions: two premises
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,
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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,
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.
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
EXERCISES: (from http://people.umass.edu/klement/100/logic-worksheet.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
Section 3.5 Symbolic Arguments What You Will Learn Symbolic arguments Standard forms of arguments 3.5-2 Symbolic Arguments A symbolic argument consists of a set of premises and a conclusion. It is called
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 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)
[ 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
9.1 Intro to Predicate Logic Practice with symbolizations Today s Lecture 3/30/10 Announcements Tests back today Homework: --Ex 9.1 pgs. 431-432 Part C (1-25) Predicate Logic Consider the argument: All
LOGIC ANTHONY KAPOLKA FYF 101-9/3/2010 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,
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
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
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
HATER 10 VENN DAGRAM NTRODUTON n the nineteenth-century, John Venn developed a technique for determining whether a categorical syllogism is valid or invalid. Although the method he constructed relied on
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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.
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
The Sea-Fight Tomorrow by Aristotle Aristotle, Antiquities Project About the author.... Aristotle (384-322) studied for twenty years at Plato s Academy in Athens. Following Plato s death, Aristotle left
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
ISBN: 0-536-29907-2 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
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
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
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',
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.
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
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
Logic & Philosophy SSB Syllabus Unit-I (Logic: Deductive and Inductive) Truth and Validity, Sentence and Proposition (According To Quality and Quantity), Classification of Propositions, Immediate Inference:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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