Only fuzzy animals are bears. Whoever is logical is clever. One or more. bears are not mean. Wolverines are ferocious. Wolverines are not vegetarians.

Similar documents
Only fuzzy animals are bears. Whoever is logical is clever. One or more. bears are not mean. Wolverines are ferocious. Wolverines are not vegetarians.

Fallacies are deceptive errors of thinking.

Belief Logic = = = = You believe that A. You accept A. Believe that A. Accept A. u:a. u:a

Workbook Unit 17: Negated Categorical Propositions

LOGIC. Inductive Reasoning. Wednesday, April 20, 16

Transition to Quantified Predicate Logic

10.7 Asyllogistic Inference

Essential Logic Ronald C. Pine

The Field of Logical Reasoning: (& The back 40 of Bad Arguments)

Unit. Categorical Syllogism. What is a syllogism? Types of Syllogism

Philosophical Logic. LECTURE SEVEN MICHAELMAS 2017 Dr Maarten Steenhagen

G. H. von Wright Deontic Logic

1 Chapter 6 (Part 2): Assessing Truth Claims

Revisiting the Socrates Example

9.1 Intro to Predicate Logic Practice with symbolizations. Today s Lecture 3/30/10

14.6 Speaking Ethically and Avoiding Fallacies L E A R N I N G O B JE C T I V E S

Study Guides. Chapter 1 - Basic Training

LOGICAL FALLACIES/ERRORS OF ARGUMENT

How Gödelian Ontological Arguments Fail

Bellwork Friday November 18th

Deontic Logic. G. H. von Wright. Mind, New Series, Vol. 60, No (Jan., 1951), pp

Philosophy of Love, Sex, and Friendship WESTON. Arguments General Points. Arguments are sets of reasons in support of a conclusion.

Reading Comprehension Fallacies in Reading

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

A red herring is a dead fish. Dog trainers used to use red herrings to train their tracking dogs and try to get them off the trail.

Unit 4. Reason as a way of knowing. Tuesday, March 4, 14

In view of the fact that IN CLASS LOGIC EXERCISES

Class #37 - Translation Using Identity I ( 8.7)

LOGICAL FALLACIES. Common Mistakes in Weak Arguments. (these are bad don t use them ) AP English Language & Composition

10.3 Universal and Existential Quantifiers

Nature of Necessity Chapter IV

Chapter 6: Relevance Fallacies

ARGUMENTS. Arguments. arguments

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

Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics. Critical Thinking Lecture 1. Background Material for the Exercise on Validity

The distinction between truth-functional and non-truth-functional logical and linguistic

Fallacies in logic. Hasty Generalization. Post Hoc (Faulty cause) Slippery Slope

Argument. What is it? How do I make a good one?

What is an argument? PHIL 110. Is this an argument? Is this an argument? What about this? And what about this?

Facts and Free Logic. R. M. Sainsbury

The Problem with Complete States: Freedom, Chance and the Luck Argument

CHAPTER THREE Philosophical Argument

Purdue OWL Logic in Argumentative Writing

The Argumentative Essay

Questions for Critically Reading an Argument

Venn Diagrams and Categorical Syllogisms. Unit 5

10 CERTAINTY G.E. MOORE: SELECTED WRITINGS

Definite Descriptions: From Symbolic Logic to Metaphysics. The previous president of the United States is left handed.

2/21/2014. FOUR WAYS OF KNOWING (Justifiable True Belief) 1. Sensory input; 2. Authoritative knowledge; 3. Logic and reason; 4. Faith and intuition

SOME RADICAL CONSEQUENCES OF GEACH'S LOGICAL THEORIES

Announcements. CS243: Discrete Structures. First Order Logic, Rules of Inference. Review of Last Lecture. Translating English into First-Order Logic

CRITICAL THINKING. Formal v Informal Fallacies

Debate Vocabulary 203 terms by mdhamilton25

Facts and Free Logic R. M. Sainsbury

Varsity LD: It s All About Clash. 1:15 pm 2:30 pm TUESDAY, June 26

x Philosophic Thoughts: Essays on Logic and Philosophy

Free will and the necessity of the past

Lemon Bay High School AP Language and Composition ENC 1102 Mr. Hertz

Full file at

USING LOGOS WISELY. AP Language and Composition

Imprint A PUZZLE FOR MODAL REALISM. Dan Marshall. volume 16, no. 19 november Lingnan University. Philosophers

APPENDIX A CRITICAL THINKING MISTAKES

Let s explore a controversial topic DHMO. (aka Dihydrogen monoxide)

Scholasticism In the 1100s, scholars and monks rediscovered the ancient Greek texts that had been lost for so long. Scholasticism was a revival of

Russell on Descriptions

On Possibly Nonexistent Propositions

Logic in Argumentative Writing

William Ockham on Universals

Toward a Legal Deontic Logic

PHI 1700: Global Ethics

Possibility and Necessity

What are Truth-Tables and What Are They For?

Logic I, Fall 2009 Final Exam

Plato s Allegory of the Cave

5: Preliminaries to the Argument

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

All About Arguments. I. What is an Argument? II. Identifying an Author s Argument

Announcements. CS311H: Discrete Mathematics. First Order Logic, Rules of Inference. Satisfiability, Validity in FOL. Example.

Aristotle on the Principle of Contradiction :

Other Logics: What Nonclassical Reasoning Is All About Dr. Michael A. Covington Associate Director Artificial Intelligence Center

Logical (formal) fallacies

Video: How does understanding whether or not an argument is inductive or deductive help me?

Pastor-teacher Don Hargrove Faith Bible Church September 8, 2011

PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS & THE ANALYSIS OF LANGUAGE

Do you really know? Is Knowledge Possible? Skepticism and Fideism. Skepticism sounds like

Puzzles for Divine Omnipotence & Divine Freedom

I. What is an Argument?

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

Logic. A Primer with Addendum

Fatalism and Truth at a Time Chad Marxen

A Logical Approach to Metametaphysics

TABLE OF CONTENTS PERSONAL STATEMENT... 2 TEACHING STATEMENT... 3 CV... 5 TEACHING EXPERIENCE & REFLECTIONS... 9 TEACHING MATERIALS...

A Note on a Remark of Evans *

Durham Research Online

13.6 Euler Diagrams and Syllogistic Arguments

The Philosophy of Logic

How To Recognize and Avoid Them. Joseph M Conlon Technical Advisor, AMCA

On possibly nonexistent propositions

Logical Fallacies. Define the following logical fallacies and provide an example for each.

Is Innate Foreknowledge Possible to a Temporal God?

Transcription:

Syllogistic logic (Section 2.4) front of flash card None but mean animals are bears. Only fuzzy animals are bears. It is not true that some bears are mean. Only rich people are happy. Not all people are happy. It is not true that all bears are mean. An animal is not a bear unless it is furry. It is false that some bears are not dangerous. Not every bear is furry. Any bear likes to eat raspberries. Whoever is logical is clever. One or more bears are not mean. Wolverines are ferocious. Wolverines are not vegetarians. Bears are fuzzy. Whoever is thin is not jolly. Nothing is a bear unless it likes to eat raspberries. One or more wolverines are mean. Only bears are fuzzy animals. Not all steaks are well done. There is at least one bear that is mean. Every bear likes to eat fish. It is false that some logicians are not intelligent. Only bears like to eat raspberries.

Syllogistic logic (Section 2.4) back of flash card no B is M all B is F all B is M some W is M all L is C all H is R all F is B some B is not M some P is not H some S is not W all W is F some B is not M some B is M no W is V all B is F all B is L all B is F all B is D all L is I no T is J some B is not F all L is B all B is L all B is L

Propositional logic (Sections 3.1 & 3.8) front of flash card Not either A or B. Not both A and B. Not if A then B. Either not A or B. Both not A and B. If not A then B. If A, then B and C. If A then B, and C. Either A, or B and C. A but B. A just if B. A only if B. Only if A, B. A unless B. Unless A, B. A if B. Provided that A, B. A, provided that B. A is sufficient for B. A is necessary for B. A is necessary and sufficient for B.

Propositional logic (Sections 3.1 & 3.8) back of flash card À(A Ä B) À(A Â B) À(A Ã B) (ÀA Ä B) (ÀA Â B) (ÀA Ã B) (A Ã (B Â C)) ((A Ä B) Â C) (A Ä (B Â C)) (A Ä B) (A Å B) (A Â B) (A Ã B) (A Ã B) (B Ä A) (B Ä A) (A Ä B) (B Ä A) (A Å B) (ÀA Ä ÀB) (A Ä B)

S- and I-rules (Sections 3.10, 3.11, & 4.2) front of flash card (A Â B) (A Ã B) (A Ä B) À(A Â B) À(A Ã B) À(A Ä B) À(A Â B) A (A Ã B) A (A Ä B) A À(A Â B) B (A Ã B) B (A Ä B) B À(A Â B) ÀA À(A Â B) ÀB (A Ã B) ÀA (A Ã B) ÀB (A Ä B) ÀA (A Ä B) ÀB ÀÀA (A Å B) À(A Å B)

S- and I-rules (Sections 3.10, 3.11, & 4.2) back of flash card A, B A, ÀB ÀA, ÀB B ÀB ÀA B ÀA A (A Ã B), À(A Â B) (A Ä B), (B Ä A) A

Quantificational logic (Sections 5.1 & 5.4) front of flash card All bears are furry. Nothing is a mean bear. No old bear is mean. Some bears are mean. No bears are mean. Some bears are not mean. Some bears who aren t old are mean. Not anyone is rich. If anyone is good, it will snow. Fido is a dog. Not every furry bear is mean. Some old bears are mean. All old bears are furry. All bears who aren t old are mean. Not everyone is rich. If someone is good, it will snow. If everything is a dog, then everything barks. Every bear who is old is mean. No old bears are mean. Some animals are not old bears. Not all bears are mean. If everyone is inside, then no one is outside. If everyone is good, it will snow. If all dogs bark, then Fido barks.

Quantificational logic (Sections 5.1 & 5.4) back of flash card À(Æx)((Ox  Bx)  Mx) À(Æx)(Mx  Bx) (x)(bx Ä Fx) (x)((bx  Ox) Ä Mx) À(x)((Fx  Bx) Ä Mx) (Æx)(Bx  Mx) À(Æx)((Ox  Bx)  Mx) (Æx)((Ox  Bx)  Mx) À(Æx)(Bx  Mx) (Æx)(Ax  À(Ox  Bx)) (x)((ox  Bx) Ä Fx) (Æx)(Bx  ÀMx) À(x)(Bx Ä Mx) (x)((bx  ÀOx) Ä Mx) (Æx)((Bx  ÀOx)  Mx) ((x)ix Ä À(Æx)Ox) À(x)Rx (x)àrx ((x)gx Ä S) ((Æx)Gx Ä S) (x)(gx Ä S) ((x)(dx Ä Bx) Ä Bf) ((x)dx Ä (x)bx) Df

Identity and relations (Sections 6.1 & 6.3) front of flash card There are at least two philosophers. Aristotle is the first logician. There is exactly one philosopher. Someone besides Aristotle is a philosopher. Aristotle knows Socrates. Someone knows Aristotle. Someone knows someone. There is someone that everyone knows. There is some philosopher that everyone knows. Everyone who knows Aristotle knows someone. Everyone except Aristotle is illogical. Aristotle knows someone. Aristotle knows everyone. Everyone knows everyone. Everyone knows someone or other. Everyone knows some philosopher or other. Everyone who knows everyone knows Aristotle. Aristotle alone is a philosopher. Socrates knows himself. Everyone knows Aristotle. Everyone knows himself or herself. Everyone knows someone besides himself or herself. There is some philosopher that no one knows. Every philosopher besides Aristotle knows Aristotle.

Identity and relations (Sections 6.1 & 6.3) back of flash card (Æx)(Px  À(Æy)(Ày=x  Py)) a=f (Æx)(Æy)(Àx=y  (Px  Py)) (Pa  À(Æx)(Àx=a  Px)) (x)(àx=a Ä Ix) (Æx)(Àx=a  Px) Kss (Æx)Kax Kas (x)kxa (x)kax (Æx)Kxa (x)kxx (x)(y)kxy (Æx)(Æy)Kxy (x)(æy)(ày=x  Kxy) (x)(æy)kxy (Æy)(x)Kxy (Æx)(Px  À(Æy)Kyx) (x)(æy)(py  Kxy) (Æy)(Py  (x)kxy) (x)((px  Àx=a) Ä Kxa) (x)((y)kxy Ä Kxa) (x)(kxa Ä (Æy)Kxy)

Modal logic (Section 7.1) front of flash card A entails B. If A, then it can t be that B. Not-A is logically possible. A does not entail B. A entails not-b. A is a contingent statement. A is a contingent truth. If A, then it is necessary that B. If A, then it must be that B. A is true in all possible worlds. If A, then it is impossible that B. A is consistent with B. A is inconsistent with B. A is not logically necessary. Not-A is logically necessary. A is not logically possible. A is true in some possible worlds. If A, then B (taken by itself) is necessary. If A, then B (taken by itself) is impossible. A and B entails C. A is true. If A then B. A is incompatible with not-b. A is true in the actual world.

Modal logic (Section 7.1) back of flash card ÇÀA (A Ä ÈÀB), or È(A Ä ÀB) È(A Ä B) (A Ä ÈB) (A Ä ÈÀB), or È(A Ä ÀB) ÀÈ(A Ä B) (A Ä ÈÀB) Ç(A Â B) È(A Ä ÀB) È((A Â B) Ä C) ÀÇ(A Â B) (ÇA Â ÇÀA) A ÀÈA (A Â ÇÀA) (A Ä B) ÈÀA (A Ä ÈB), or È(A Ä B) ÀÇ(A Â ÀB) ÀÇA (A Ä ÈB), or È(A Ä B) A ÇA ÈA

Deontic logic (Section 9.3) front of flash card You do A. It is obligatory that someone who does A do B. If you do A, then you ought to do B. Do A. You ought to do A. A is permissible. It is obligatory that someone do both A and B. You ought not to combine doing A with doing B. Don t combine doing A with failing to do B. You ought to do A or B. There is someone who has a duty to do A. It is obligatory that someone do A. A is obligatory. A is wrong. X ought to hit Y. If you do A, then do B. It is not obligatory that everyone do A. Let everyone who is A do B. It is not possible that everyone do A. If X hits you, then hit X. If you ought to do A, then do A.

Deontic logic (Section 9.3) back of flash card (Au Ä OBu) O(Æx)(Ax  Bx) Au O(Au à Bu) O(Æx)(Ax  Bx) Au (Æx)OAx OÀ(Au  Bu) OAu O(Æx)Ax À(A  ÀB) RA OHxy OÀA OA (Hxu Ä Hux) (x)(ax Ä Bx) (Au Ä Bu) (OAu Ä Au) ÀÇ(x)Ax ÀO(x)Ax

Belief logic (Section 10.5) front of flash card You believe that A. You do A. You ought to want A to be done. Believe that A. You ought to believe that A. It would be reasonable for you to believe that A. A is evident to you. A would be unreasonable for you to believe. You do not believe that A. Do A. You act to do A. Act to do A. You want A to be done. Want A to be done. You know that A. (???) You believe that A ought to be done. You believe that A is evident to you. You want X to do A to you. You believe that everyone ought to do A. Everyone believes that you ought to do A. It is evident to you that if A then B.

Belief logic (Section 10.5) back of flash card Ou:A Au u:a u:oa Au u:a u:ou:a u:au Ou:A u:axu u:au Ru:A u:(x)oax u:a Ou:A (x)x:oau u:a ÀRu:A Ou:(A Ä B) (Ou:A Â (A Â u:a)) Àu:A

Informal Fallacies (Sections 15.1 & 15.2) front of flash card appeal to authority ambiguity false stereotype appeal to the crowd beside the point genetic fallacy appeal to emotion black and white opposition appeal to force circularity pro-con ad hominem complex question post hoc appeal to ignorance division-composition straw man

Informal Fallacies (Sections 15.1 & 15.2) back of flash card Assuming that the members of a certain group are more alike than they are. Changing the meaning of a term or phrase within the argument. Appealing in an improper way to expert opinion. Arguing that your view must be false because we can explain why you hold it. Arguing for a conclusion irrelevant to the issue at hand. Arguing that a view must be true because most people believe it. Arguing that a view must be false because our opponents believe it. Oversimplifying by assuming that one of two extremes views must be true. Stirring up emotions instead of arguing in a logical manner. A one-sided appeal to advantages and disadvantages. Assuming the truth of what has to be proved or using A to prove B and then B to prove A. Using threats or intimidation to get a conclusion accepted. Arguing that, since A happened after B, thus A was caused by B. Asking a question that assumes the truth of something false or doubtful. Improperly attacking the person instead of the view. Misrepresenting an opponent s views. Arguing that what applies to the parts must apply to the whole or vice versa. Arguing that a view must be false because no one has proved it.

Informal Fallacies big (Sections 15.1 & 15.2) front of flash card appeal to authority ambiguity false stereotype appeal to the crowd beside the point genetic fallacy appeal to emotion black and white opposition appeal to force circularity pro-con ad hominem complex question post hoc appeal to ignorance divisioncomposition straw man

Informal Fallacies big (Sections 15.1 & 15.2) back of flash card Assuming that the members of a certain group are more alike than they are. Changing the meaning of a term or phrase within the argument. Appealing in an improper way to expert opinion. Arguing that your view must be false because we can explain why you hold it. Arguing for a conclusion irrelevant to the issue at hand. Arguing that a view must be true because most people believe it. Arguing that a view must be false because our opponents believe it. Oversimplifying by assuming that one of two extremes views must be true. Stirring up emotions instead of arguing in a logical manner. A one-sided appeal to advantages and disadvantages. Assuming the truth of what has to be proved or using A to prove B and then B to prove A. Using threats or intimidation to get a conclusion accepted. Arguing that, since A happened after B, thus A was caused by B. Asking a question that assumes the truth of something false or doubtful. Improperly attacking the person instead of the view. Misrepresenting an opponent s views. Arguing that what applies to the parts must apply to the whole or vice versa. Arguing that a view must be false because no one has proved it.