Dr. Carlo Alvaro Reasoning and Argumentation Distribution & Opposition DISTRIBUTION

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

Unit 7.3. Contraries E. Contradictories. Sub-contraries

1 Clarion Logic Notes Chapter 4

In this section you will learn three basic aspects of logic. When you are done, you will understand the following:

Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic

5.6 Further Immediate Inferences

SYLLOGISTIC LOGIC CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

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

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

CHAPTER III. Of Opposition.

Complications for Categorical Syllogisms. PHIL 121: Methods of Reasoning February 27, 2013 Instructor:Karin Howe Binghamton University

Venn Diagrams and Categorical Syllogisms. Unit 5

Ethical Terminology Keith Burgess-Jackson 27 December 2017

1.6 Validity and Truth

5.3 The Four Kinds of Categorical Propositions

Baronett, Logic (4th ed.) Chapter Guide

Reasoning SYLLOGISM. follows.

The Sea-Fight Tomorrow by Aristotle

UNIT 1 TYPES OF CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS: A, E, I, AND O; SQUARE OF OPPOSITION

10.3 Universal and Existential Quantifiers

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

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

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

On Interpretation. Section 1. Aristotle Translated by E. M. Edghill. Part 1

Am I free? Freedom vs. Fate

THE PROBLEM OF CONTRARY-TO-FACT CONDITIONALS. By JOHN WATLING

Logic Primer. Elihu Carranza, Ph.D. Inky Publication Napa, California

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

Part 2 Module 4: Categorical Syllogisms

Introduction to Philosophy Practice Exam Two. True or False A = True, B= False

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

John Buridan. Summulae de Dialectica IX Sophismata

REASONING SYLLOGISM. Subject Predicate Distributed Not Distributed Distributed Distributed

Syllogism. Exam Importance Exam Importance. CAT Very Important IBPS/Bank PO Very Important. XAT Very Important BANK Clerk Very Important

GENERAL NOTES ON THIS CLASS

7.1. Unit. Terms and Propositions. Nature of propositions. Types of proposition. Classification of propositions

4.7 Constructing Categorical Propositions

Logic: Deductive and Inductive by Carveth Read M.A. CHAPTER VIII

6.5 Exposition of the Fifteen Valid Forms of the Categorical Syllogism

LOGICAL THINKING CHAPTER DEDUCTIVE THINKING: THE SYLLOGISM. If we reason it is not because we like to, but because we must.

PRACTICE EXAM The state of Israel was in a state of mourning today because of the assassination of Yztzak Rabin.

Selections from Aristotle s Prior Analytics 41a21 41b5

Part II: How to Evaluate Deductive Arguments

Logic: Deductive and Inductive by Carveth Read M.A. Questions

Logic: A Brief Introduction. Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University

Study Guides. Chapter 1 - Basic Training

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

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

Categories and On Interpretation. Philosophy 21 Fall, 2004 G. J. Mattey

LOGICAL FALLACIES/ERRORS OF ARGUMENT

Pearson Education Limited Edinburgh Gate Harlow Essex CM20 2JE England and Associated Companies throughout the world

Ling 98a: The Meaning of Negation (Week 1)

Since Michael so neatly summarized his objections in the form of three questions, all I need to do now is to answer these questions.

Logic Book Part 1! by Skylar Ruloff!

Logic: Deductive and Inductive by Carveth Read M.A. CHAPTER VI CONDITIONS OF IMMEDIATE INFERENCE

Russell: On Denoting

HW3- Sets & Arguments (solutions) Due: Tuesday April 5, 2011

An Altogether Too Brief Introduction to Logic for Students of Rhetoric

VERITAS EVANGELICAL SEMINARY

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

Chadwick Prize Winner: Christian Michel THE LIAR PARADOX OUTSIDE-IN

CHAPTER 10 VENN DIAGRAMS

Philosophy 57 Day 10

EXERCISES: (from

Figure 1 Figure 2 U S S. non-p P P

Chapter 1. Introduction. 1.1 Deductive and Plausible Reasoning Strong Syllogism

1.5. Argument Forms: Proving Invalidity

Formal Logic. Mind your Ps and Qs!

Anthony P. Andres. The Place of Conversion in Aristotelian Logic. Anthony P. Andres

Bertrand Russell Proper Names, Adjectives and Verbs 1

Philosophy 57 Day 10. Chapter 4: Categorical Statements Conversion, Obversion & Contraposition II

A Priori Knowledge: Analytic? Synthetic A Priori (again) Is All A Priori Knowledge Analytic?

Russell on Descriptions

Artificial Intelligence I

2. Refutations can be stronger or weaker.

(1) A phrase may be denoting, and yet not denote anything; e.g., 'the present King of France'.

C. Exam #1 comments on difficult spots; if you have questions about this, please let me know. D. Discussion of extra credit opportunities

Fortunately, the greatest detective was doing some. Categorical Logic. Students will learn to...

Transition to Quantified Predicate Logic

Ramsey s belief > action > truth theory.

Pearson Education Limited Edinburgh Gate Harlow Essex CM20 2JE England and Associated Companies throughout the world

(Refer Slide Time 03:00)

BENEDIKT PAUL GÖCKE. Ruhr-Universität Bochum

Practice Test Three Fall True or False True = A, False = B

A R G U M E N T S I N A C T I O N

THE RELATION BETWEEN THE GENERAL MAXIM OF CAUSALITY AND THE PRINCIPLE OF UNIFORMITY IN HUME S THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE

LOGIC ANTHONY KAPOLKA FYF 101-9/3/2010

Alice E. Fischer. CSCI 1166 Discrete Mathematics for Computing February, 2018

Revisiting the Socrates Example

The Birth of Logic in Ancient Greek.

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

Workbook Unit 3: Symbolizations

Workbook Unit 17: Negated Categorical Propositions

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

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

A Brief Introduction to Key Terms

Time, Self and Mind (ATS1835) Introduc;on to Philosophy B Semester 2, Dr Ron Gallagher Week 5: Can Machines Think?

Proofs of Non-existence

Philosophy 1100: Ethics

On the Aristotelian Square of Opposition

Transcription:

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 (birds, light bulbs, desks, etc.) Categorical statements describe the ways in which things are related. For example, the categorical statement All screwdrivers are tools, says that if we look into the class of tools, we will see that all screwdrivers in the world are inside it. A proposition may refer to classes in different ways: to all members or some members. The proposition All senators are citizens refers to all senators, but not to all citizens: All senators are citizens, but not all citizens are senators! Notice that this proposition does not affirm that all citizens are senators, but it does not deny it either. To characterize the way in which terms occur in categorical propositions, we use the term Distribution. Distribution of a term: A distributed term is a term of a categorical proposition that is used with reference to every member of a class. An undistributed term is a term of a categorical proposition that is not being used to refer to each and every member of a class.

Subject A: All Birds are winged creatures. Subject refers to all birds. All birds are part of the predicate class. Predicate Predicate does not refer to every member, e.g., bats, flying fish. Not all member of the predicate class are members of subject class. All birds are winged creatures. S is distributed Birds, Bats, flying fish P is undistributed Birds Winged Creatures E: No birds are wingless creatures. Subject refers to all birds by indicating that they (All) are not part of the predicate class. Predicate refers to all wingless creatures by indicating that they (all) are not part of the subject class All birds are winged creatures. S is distributed Birds No birds here! Ants, turtles P is distributed Wingless Creatures I: Some birds are black things. Subject refers only to some birds as being part of the predicate class. Predicate refers only to some black things, being part of subject class. Those that are birds S is undistributed P is undistributed Black Birds Black Birds Birds Black Things O: Some birds are not black things. Subject refers only to some birds, not all of them. Predicate refers to all members of the class! Not one of them is in the class referred to by "some birds" Black Birds. No black things here! S is undistributed Birds Black Birds P is distributed Black Things

Distribution Name Form Quantity Quality Subject Predicate A All S is P Universal Affirmative Distributed Undistributed E No S is P Universal Negative Distributed Distributed I Some S is P Particular Affirmative Undistributed Undistributed O Some S is not P Particular Negative Undistributed Distributed

OPPOSITIONS Let s apply our knowledge of Venn diagrams to describe the relations among propositions. The way categorical propositions relate is called OPPOSITION. OPPOSITION is the logical relation between any two categorical propositions. There are 5 ways in which they relate (They are opposed): 1. CONTRADICTORIES Two propositions are said to be contradictories if one is the denial of the other they cannot both be true or both false. Two categorical propositions that have the same subject and predicate but differ in quantity and quality are contradictories. The A proposition All judges are lawyers and O Some judges are not lawyers are contradictories. They are opposed in quality: A affirms of the subject, O denies it. They are opposed in quantity: A refers to all, O refers to some. They cannot both be true: Is it possible that all judges are lawyers but some aren t? These statements cannot both be true. Also, if it is false that all judges are lawyers, then it is true that some judges are not lawyers cannot both be false. --------CONTRADICTORIES------- A Cannot both be true, cannot both be false. O

Similarly, E and I are contradictories: E No politicians are liberal and I, Some politicians are liberal, are opposed in both quality and quantity. If it is the case that no politicians are liberal then it is impossible that some politicians are liberal cannot both be true. If it is false that no politicians are liberal, then it cannot be false that some politician are cannot both be false. That is, if you deny that no politicians are liberal, you affirm that at least one is liberal, which is what I affirms. ---------CONTRADICTORIES------- E More examples: Cannot both be true, cannot both be false. I A: All books are good reads true! O: Some books are not good reads false! O: Some books are not good reads True! A: All books are good reads false! E: No cats are brown true! I: Some cats are brown false! I: Some cats are brown true! E: No cats are brown false!

2. CONTRARIES Two propositions are said to be contraries if they cannot both be true, but both can be false: An A proposition All judges are lawyers and E, No judges are lawyers, are contraries. It s not possible that all judges are lawyers but none are! If one is true the other is false. However, it is possible that both statements are false: Think about it! Some judges are lawyers and some judges are not lawyers. So, if some are and some are not, it is false that all are and it is false that none are. -----------CONTRARIES---------- A Cannot both be true, may both be false. E More examples: A: All cats are grey true! E: No cats are grey false! E: No cats are grey true! A: All cats are grey false! But as we know, in the world some cats are grey and some cats are not grey. So, A: All cats are grey false! E: No cats are grey false!

3. SUBCONTRARIES Two propositions are said to be subcontraries if they cannot both be false but may both be true: An I proposition, Some judges are lawyers and O, Some judges are not lawyers are subcontraries. This is evident: Since some judges are lawyers and some are not, I and O are both true. However, if it is false that some judges are lawyers, then it follows that some judges are not lawyers which is what O affirms! So, if I is false O must be true. In other words, I and O can both be true but cannot both be false. I: Some judges are lawyers true! O: Some judges are not lawyers true! Since in the world, in fact, some judges are lawyers and some aren t, if it is false that some judges are lawyers, what does it mean? If you deny that some are, you affirm that some are not. So if I is false, O is not false. However, if we deny that some judges are lawyers, automatically we affirm that some are not, which is what proposition O affirms. ------------SUBCONTRARIES--------- I Cannot both be false, may both be true. O More examples: I: Some sandwiches are good true! O: Some sandwiches are not good true! This is obvious, right? Some are good, some are not. But if it is false that some are good (False I), then by definition some are not good (True O).

4. SUPERALTERNATES When two propositions have the same subject and predicate and agree in quality (Both affirms or both deny) but differ in quantity (One universal the other particular) they are said to be CORRESPONDING propositions. An A, All spiders are eight-legged animals has a corresponding proposition, I Some spiders are eight-legged animals. Both affirm = same quality; One is universal the other particular = differ in quantity. Propositions A and I are said to be superalternates. Superalternation is the relationship between the universal statements A and E and their corresponding particular statements E and O. in this relationship, the truth of the universal statements implies the truth of the particular statements, but not the other way around. So, All spiders are eight-legged animals (A) implies that some spiders are eight legged animals (I). If it is true that all spiders in the world have 8 legs, obviously it must be true that some spiders have 8 legs. Remember that some means at least one. However, the other way around does not work: Some spiders are eight-legged animals does not imply that all spiders are eight-legged animals. This is obvious: if you take some spiders, say 10, and see that they have 8 legs, can you declare that all spiders in the world have 8 legs? No! So, superalternation says that any true universal and affirmative statement A implies that its corresponding particular and affirmative statement I is true. But a true I statement does not imply an A statement. --------SUPERALTERNATES--------- A Superalternation: A implies I but I does not imply A I More examples: If all shoes are comfortable (True A) then it is true that some shoes are comfortable (True I). But if you take some shoes, say, 5 pairs, and they all are comfortable (True I), it does not follow that all shoes in the world are comfortable (? A). If all teachers are good, it follows that some teachers are good. But if some teachers are good, it does not mean all are.

Similarly E and O propositions are in a relation of superalternation. E E implies O but O does not imply E O So No spiders are eight-legged animals (E) implies that Some spiders are not eight-legged animals (O). However, I take some spiders, say, 10, and 7 of them have 8 legs and 3 of them have 6 legs. I declare that some spiders are not eight-legged animals. But obviously I may not assume that none are. More Examples: If no socks are made of cottons, it follows that some socks are not made of cottons. But if some socks are not made of cottons, I may not assume none are. If no music is good, some music is not good. But if some music is not good, it does not mean that none is.

5. SUBALTERNATES If superalternation is the relationship between the universal statements A and E and their corresponding particular statements E and O, SUBALTERNATION is the relationship between the particular statements I and O and their corresponding universal statements A and E. In the relationship of subalternation, the falsity of the particular statements I and O implies the falsity of the corresponding universal statements A and E, but not the other way around. So, a false I implies a false A: If it is false that some people are blond, it must be false that all people are blond. However, a false A does not imply a false I: if it s false that all people are blond, it does not imply that it s false that some are. More Examples: If it s false that some days are holidays, then it must be false that all days are holidays. But if it s false that all days are holidays, this does not imply the falsity that some days may be holidays.

Summary: 1. Contradictories: A and O are contradictories. E and I are contradictories. 2. Contraries: A and E are contraries. They have exact opposite truth-value. Cannot both be true, may both be false. 3. Subcontraries: I and O are subcontraries. Cannot both be false, may both be true. 4. Superalternation: A implies I. I doesn t imply A. E implies O. O doesn t imply E. Truth goes down. 5. Subalternation: False I implies false A, but not the reverse. False O implies false E, but not the reverse. Falsehood goes up.

The Traditional Square of Oppositions False C o n t r a r i e s False True (Cannot both be true may both be false) True Subalternation S u p e r a l t e r n a t i o n C o n t r a d i c t o r i e s A: All S are P E: No S are P C o n t r a d c t o r i e s S u p e r a l t e r n a t i o n S u b c o n t r a r i e s False True (Cannot both be false may both be true) I: Some S are P O: Some S are Not P True False

INFERENCES ON THE TRADITIONAL SQUARE OF OPPOSITION A number of immediate inferences may be drawn from any of the four categorical forms: Let A = All cats are grey. If A is true: E is false, I is true, O is false. If E is true: A is false, I is false, O is true. If I is true: E is false, A and O are undetermined. (A and E, are contraries: Cannot both be true, may both be false. So if either one is true, its corresponding contrary must be false. But if either one is false since they both may be false, the other is undetermined. If O is true: A is false, E and I are undetermined. If A is false: O is true, E and I are undetermined. (I and O, are subcontraries: Cannot both be false, may both be true. So if either One is true its corresponding subcontrary May be true, and so it is undetermined) If E is false: I is true, A and O are undetermined. If I is false: A is false, E is true, O is true. If O is false: A is true, E is false, I is true.