2 What is Philosophy?
What is Philosophy? Philosophical Questions Fundamental General Conceptual Analysis Why no Philosophical Labs? Thought experiments The Hand Off No mystic gurus! Plato
What is an argument? A structure of statements designed to prove some point. Premises Conclusion Premises must be relevant to the conclusion. Relevance = the premises must give good reasons to believe the conclusion Aristotle
Sample arguments (?) All New Yorkers are happy. Some people live in New York. Some people are happy. All dogs have four legs. All animals have four legs. All dogs are animals. By reducing the size of the droplets in clouds, thereby making them more reflective, the sulphate particles lowered the temperature of the sea s surface in the northern hemisphere. The result was to shift the Intertropical Convergence Zone southwards. I read the second amendment literally. It says "arms". It doesn't say "guns". Nuclear weapons are arms. If you don't accept a literal interpretation of the second amendment, then you're problem is with the Constitution, not with me. God bless America. If Canada was serious about green house gases it would address forest fire green house gases. Each hectare burned generates around 120 tonnes of CO2. Total area burned in Canada is around 4 million hectare. That is the same magnitude as fossil fuels.
Deductive Arguments Validity Arguments which are supposed to be deductively valid. An argument is deductively valid when: IF the premises are true then the conclusion MUST be true. Like this: If someone lives in Edmonton then they live in Canada. Fred lives in Edmonton. So Fred lives in Canada.
Deductive Arguments Validity Philosophical Interlude: What about this argument? Definition: a sentence is positive if it does not contain any negations. A sentence that contains a negation is negative. Consider this argument: All sentences are positive. Therefore, no sentences are negative.
Deductive Arguments Validity The word valid in logic is ONLY about arguments there are no valid statements or ideas, ONLY arguments. Form versus Content Validity arises from the logical form of an argument (see examples above you could change the words). (Is this really true? What about this argument: This dress is scarlet, therefore this dress is red? Is that valid? What is its logical form?) Logical form might not be obvious. Compare Justin Trudeau is P.M. with Spiderman lives in New York.
Deductive Arguments Validity Is this argument deductively valid: All spiders are dangerous. Therefore, all spiders are dangerous. So what is wrong with it? begging the question Validity and information a valid argument never adds any information that is not already in the premises
Deductive Arguments Invalidity You can deduce what an invalid deductive argument is from the definition of validity. An invalid deductive argument is one where it is possible for the premises to all be true but the conclusion is false. Like this: No philosophers are rich. Some philosophers are happy. Therefore, no rich people are happy.
Deductive Arguments Invalidity How can you tell if an argument is invalid? (you could study logic!?) The method of counterexample. No philosophers are rocks. Some philosophers are employed. No rocks are employed. No even numbers are odd numbers. Some even numbers are greater than 10. No odd numbers are greater than 10.
Deductive Arguments Invalidity Patching invalid arguments. By adding premises, an invalid argument can be made into a valid argument. Fish can swim. Therefore, some women are wealthy. Fish can swim. If any fish can swim, some women are wealthy. Therefore, some women are wealthy. Why is the patched and valid argument worthless?
Deductive Arguments Invalidity Patching invalid arguments. A more realistic example. If Canada adopts an assisted death law, then everyone will get their aged parents killed off. Therefore, Canada should not adopt an assisted death law. If Canada adopts an assisted death law, then everyone will get their aged parents killed off If it wrong to have aged parents killed off. Canada should not adopt any law that leads to wrongdoing. Therefore, Canada should not adopt an assisted death law.
Deductive Arguments Validity and Soundness A valid deductive argument is a sound argument if its premises are all true. You can deduce something about the conclusion of a sound deductive argument. Debates about the quality of a deductive argument can take two forms: Debate about whether the logical form is valid. Debate about whether the premises are true. Nuclear power is safe. Nuclear power emits zero greenhouse gases. Therefore, we should use nuclear power.
Deductive Arguments Conditionals A basic argument structure: Valid versus Invalid Conditionals If X then Y, X; therefore Y. (note we defined validity using a conditional) Four forms: X > Y, X; therefore Y X > Y, Y; therefore X X > Y, not-x; therefore not-y X > Y, not-y; therefore not-x Which are valid? Which are invalid? Necessary and Sufficient Conditions. Given If X then Y, X is a sufficient condition for Y. Given if X then Y, Y is a necessary condition for X.
What is truth? We used the concept of truth to define validity. The nature of truth however is a deep philosophical question. Theories of truth correspondence coherence redundancy theory Alfred Tarski
What is truth? Correspondence Coherence Problem: what is this mysterious relation of correspondence? In what way does the cat is on the mat correspond to the truth of things Problem: more than one system of sentences can be coherent think of possible worlds Redundancy neige est blanc is true just in case snow is white snow is white is true says just snow is white
Truth and Objectivity Objectivity versus Subjectivity Could truth itself be subjective compare 1+2=3 with oranges are the best tasting fruit Maybe true means true for me or true for us [society] Can this be proven? Suppose truth is subjective Is this claim merely subjective or is this supposed to be the objective nature of truth? If it is merely subjective, then it is not proven (I could and do deny it and the subjectivist can t complain). If it is objective, then truth is not subjective after all.
Reductio ad absurdem argument form The argument about truth illustrates a powerful mode of argument. Assume the opposite of what you want to prove, and show that this assumption leads to a clear absurdity (something impossible or obviously false). Example: Prove: the government has a right to limit our freedom. Assume: the government has no right to limit our freedom. Deduce: therefore, I am free to acquire nuclear arms. The conclusion is absurd (isn t it?). So the assumption is wrong and we get our proof.
Reductio ad absurdem argument A most beautiful example: Prove: 2 is irrational. Assume: 2 is rational. Deduce: 2 = a/b (where this fraction is in lowest terms ) Deduce: 2 = a2/b2 Deduce: 2*b2 = a2 Deduce: a2 is an even number, so a is an even number. Deduce: if a is an even number there is a c where a = 2*c Pythagoras 2 Deduce: 2*b = 2*c*2*c Deduce: b2 = 2*c2 Deduce: so b2 is an even number, so b is an even number Deduce: both a and b are even numbers, so they have a common factor Deduce: this contradicts that a/b is in lowest terms!!! So our first assumption is wrong and 2 is irrational.