5 Categorical Syllogisms

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
Advertisements

Venn Diagram Technique for testing syllogisms
Test the validity of this argument: Some lawyers are judges. Some judges are politicians. Therefore, some lawyers are politicians. A. Valid B. Invalid.
Four Rules of Aristotelian Logic 1. Rule of Identity: A is A 2. Rule of Non-Contradiction: A is not (-A) 3. Rule of Excluded Middle: Either A or (-A)
1 Valid and Invalid arguments. 2 Definition of Argument Sequence of statements: Statement 1; Statement 2; Therefore, Statement 3. Statements 1 and 2 are.
An overview Lecture prepared for MODULE-13 (Western Logic) BY- MINAKSHI PRAMANICK Guest Lecturer, Dept. Of Philosophy.
Deductive Arguments: Categorical Logic
1 Philosophy 1100 Title:Critical Reasoning Instructor:Paul Dickey Website:
Deduction: the categorical syllogism - 1 Logic: evaluating deductive arguments - the syllogism 4 A 5th pattern of deductive argument –the categorical syllogism.
Rules for Valid Syllogisms
Philosophy 1100 Today: Hand Back “Nail that Claim” Exercise! & Discuss
Categorical Syllogisms Always have two premises Consist entirely of categorical claims May be presented with unstated premise or conclusion May be stated.
Essential Deduction Techniques of Constructing Formal Expressions and Evaluating Attempts to Create Valid Arguments.
Syllogistic Logic 1. C Categorical Propositions 2. V Venn Diagram 3. The Square of Opposition: Tradition / Modern 4. C Conversion, Obversion, Contraposition.
Categorical Syllogisms
Critical Thinking Lecture 10 The Syllogism By David Kelsey.
Philosophy 148 Chapter 7. AffirmativeNegative UniversalA: All S are PE: No S is P ParticularI: Some S is PO: Some S is not P.
Venn Diagrams and Categorical Syllogisms
Ch. 4 DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT Reasoning from the General to the Specific.
Logic A: Capital punishment is immoral. B: No it isn’t! A: Yes it is! B: Well, what do you know about it? A: I know more about it then you do! B: Oh yeah?
Question of the Day!  We shared a lot of examples of illogical arguments!  But how do you make a LOGICAL argument? What does your argument need? What.
DEDUCTIVE REASONING MOVES FROM A GENERALIZATION THAT IS TRUE OR SELF-EVIDENT TO A MORE SPECIFIC CONCLUSION DEDUCTIVE REASONING.
Chapter 15: Rules for Judging Validity. Distribution (p. 152) Several of the rules use the notion of distribution. A term is distributed if it refers.
Deductive Reasoning Rules for Valid Syllogisms. Rules for a valid categorical syllogism 1.A valid syllogism must possess three, and only three, unambiguous.
4 Categorical Propositions
MLS 570 Critical Thinking Reading Notes for Fogelin: Categorical Syllogisms We will go over diagramming Arguments in class. Fall Term 2006 North Central.
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS
Thinking Mathematically Arguments and Truth Tables.
Chapter 13: Categorical Propositions. Categorical Syllogisms (p. 141) Review of deductive arguments –Form –Valid/Invalid –Soundness Categorical syllogisms.
Invitation to Critical Thinking Chapter 6
Fun with Deductive Reasoning
Syllogisms and Three Types of Hypothetical Syllogisms
Chapter 6 Evaluating Deductive Arguments 1: Categorical Logic Invitation to Critical Thinking First Canadian Edition.
Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual
Chapter 14: Categorical Syllogisms. Elements of a Categorical Syllogism (pp ) Categorical syllogisms are deductive arguments. Categorical syllogisms.
Elements of Argument Logic vs. Rhetoric. Syllogism Major Premise: Advertising of things harmful to our health should be legally banned. Minor Premise:
Critical Thinking Lecture 10 The Syllogism By David Kelsey.
Categorical Propositions Chapter 5. Deductive Argument A deductive argument is one whose premises are claimed to provide conclusive grounds for the truth.
Deductive Reasoning. Inductive: premise offers support and evidenceInductive: premise offers support and evidence Deductive: premises offers proof that.
Venn Diagram Technique for testing syllogisms
Rules for Valid Syllogisms
Deductive reasoning.
PHIL 151 Week 8.
a valid argument with true premises.
Subjects and Predicates
Deductive Logic, Categorical Syllogism
Disjunctive Syllogism
Demonstrating the validity of an argument using syllogisms.
THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
Today’s Topics Introduction to Predicate Logic Venn Diagrams
5.1 Standard Form, Mood, and Figure
The second Meeting Basic Terms in Logic.
Chapter 3 Philosophy: Questions and theories
Rules for Valid Syllogisms
5 Categorical Syllogisms
3 Logic The Study of What’s True or False or Somewhere in Between.
Philosophy 1100 Class #8 Title: Critical Reasoning
Diagramming Universal-Particular arguments
B. Complete Subject The complete subject tells us who or what the sentence is about. Example: All people change their environment All people is the complete.
Philosophy 1100 Title: Critical Reasoning Instructor: Paul Dickey
Categorical syllogisms
5 Categorical Syllogisms
Chapter 6 Categorical Syllogisms
The Simple Sentence Kansas Writing System.
Reason and Argument Chapter 7 (2/2).
6.4 Truth Tables for Arguments
Critical Thinking Lecture 11 The Syllogism
Critical Thinking Lecture 10 The Syllogism
If there is any case in which true premises lead to a false conclusion, the argument is invalid. Therefore this argument is INVALID.
If there is any case in which true premises lead to a false conclusion, the argument is invalid. Therefore this argument is INVALID.
Presentation transcript:

5 Categorical Syllogisms 5.1 Standard Form, Mood, and Figure

Standard Form A Categorical Syllogism is a deductive argument (what makes it deductive?) that always has: Three categorical statements Three different terms All A are B All B are C All A are C In all categorical syllogisms, the term shared between the premises is called the middle term. The predicate of the conclusion is called the major term, and the subject of the conclusion is called the minor term.

Standard Form (continued) All A are B All B are C All A are C The major premise is the premise containing the major term. The minor premise contains the minor term. So, we can now define ‘Standard Form’: All three statements are standard form categorical propositions The two occurrences of each term are identical Each term is used in the same sense throughout The major premise is listed first, the minor second, conclusion last

Standard Form (continued) How about: Some A are B No B are non-C Some A are not non-C Is this a categorical syllogism? (Yes, but it is not in standard form until its statements are)

Standard Form (continued) Some A are B All B are C (by obversion) Some A are C (by obversion) Is this standard form now? (No. What’s wrong?) All the statements are categorical and in standard form There are only three terms (they’re identical and for all we can tell, non-equivocal) The middle term doesn’t appear in the conclusion The major premise is first … oh, wait.

Standard Form (continued) All B are C Some A are B Some A are C Now we have a Standard Form Categorical Syllogism What mood and figure is it?

Mood and Figure All B are C Some A are B Some A are C We can tell if this argument is valid or invalid by identifying its mood and figure. Mood is simple: it is just the letter names of the propositions in order of appearance: (A) All B are C (I) Some A are B (I) Some A are C Mood = AII

Mood and Figure (continued) All B are C Some A are B Some A are C Figure is determined by the arrangement of the appearances of the middle term Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 M P P M M P P M S M S M M S M S S P S P S P S P

Mood and Figure (continued) So our syllogism All B are C Some A are B Some A are C is AII-1 To determine validity or invalidity we have to look at a list of valid forms to see if AII-1 appears.