5.1 Standard Form, Mood, and Figure

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.
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)
An overview Lecture prepared for MODULE-13 (Western Logic) BY- MINAKSHI PRAMANICK Guest Lecturer, Dept. Of Philosophy.
Deductive Arguments: Categorical Logic
Categorical Logic Categorical statements
1 Philosophy 1100 Title:Critical Reasoning Instructor:Paul Dickey Website:
Categorical Reasoning
Deduction: the categorical syllogism - 1 Logic: evaluating deductive arguments - the syllogism 4 A 5th pattern of deductive argument –the categorical syllogism.
Today’s Topics Introduction to Predicate Logic Venn Diagrams Categorical Syllogisms Venn Diagram tests for validity Rule tests for validity.
Rules for Valid Syllogisms
Philosophy 1100 Today: Hand Back “Nail that Claim” Exercise! & Discuss
Syllogistic Logic 1. C Categorical Propositions 2. V Venn Diagram 3. The Square of Opposition: Tradition / Modern 4. C Conversion, Obversion, Contraposition.
Chapter 16: Venn Diagrams. Venn Diagrams (pp ) Venn diagrams represent the relationships between classes of objects by way of the relationships.
Categorical Syllogisms

Testing Validity With Venn Diagrams
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
Night 2 Presented by Eric Douma
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?
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.
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.
Logic – Basic Terms Logic: the study of how to reason well. Validity: Valid thinking is thinking in conformity with the rules. If the premises are true.
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS
Practice Quiz 3 Hurley 4.3 – 4.6.
Diagramming Universal-Particular arguments The simplest style of nontrivial argument is called a Universal-Particular argument. Earlier in Part 2 Module.
Chapter 17: Missing Premises and Conclusions. Enthymemes (p. 168) An enthymeme is an argument with an unstated premise or conclusion. There are systematic.
Invitation to Critical Thinking Chapter 6
Fun with Deductive Reasoning
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.
McGraw-Hill ©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Testing Validity With Venn Diagrams The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn.
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.
Aristotelian Logic.
Truth Tables, Continued 6.3 and 6.4 March 14th. 6.3 Truth tables for propositions Remember: a truth table gives the truth value of a compound proposition.
Venn Diagram Technique for testing syllogisms
Rules for Valid Syllogisms
a valid argument with true premises.
Testing Validity With Venn Diagrams
Deductive Logic, Categorical Syllogism
THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
5 Categorical Syllogisms
Venn Diagrams 1= s that are not p; 2= s that are p; 3= p that are not s S P.
Today’s Topics Introduction to Predicate Logic Venn Diagrams
Famous Fallacies, TFTD, Hurley
5 Categorical Syllogisms
Rules for Valid Syllogisms
Practice Quiz 3 Hurley
Rules and fallacies Formal fallacies.
5 Categorical Syllogisms
4.1 The Components of Categorical Propositions
Argument in Ordinary Language
Philosophy 1100 Class #8 Title: Critical Reasoning
Diagramming Universal-Particular arguments
Philosophy 1100 Title: Critical Reasoning Instructor: Paul Dickey
Categorical syllogisms
5 Categorical Syllogisms
Section 3.6 Euler Diagrams and Syllogistic Arguments
Chapter 6 Categorical Syllogisms
Reason and Argument Chapter 7 (2/2).
Philosophy 1100 Class #9 Title: Critical Reasoning
Evaluating Deductive Arguments
3.5 Symbolic Arguments.
Practice Quiz 3 Hurley 4.3 – 4.6.
Presentation transcript:

5.1 Standard Form, Mood, and Figure An Example of a Categorical Syllogism All soldiers are patriots. No traitors are patriots. Therefore no traitors are soldiers. The Four Conditions of Standard Form All three statements are standard-form categorical propositions. The two occurrences of each term are identical.

5.1 Continued Each term is used in the same sense throughout the argument. The major premise is listed first, the minor premise second, and the conclusion last.

5.1 Continued The Mood of a Categorical Syllogism consists of the letter names that make it up. S = subject of the conclusion (minor term) P = predicate of the conclusion (minor term) M = middle term

5.1 Continued The Figure of a Categorical Syllogism Unconditional Validity Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 AAA EAE IAI AEE AII AIA EIO OAO AOO

5.1 Continued Conditional Validity Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Required Condition AAI EAO AEO S exists M exists P exists

5.2 Venn Diagrams Constructing Venn Diagrams for Categorical Syllogisms: Seven “Pointers” Most intuitive and easiest-to-remember technique for testing the validity of categorical syllogisms.

5.2 Continued Testing for Validity from the Boolean Standpoint Do shading first Never enter the conclusion If the conclusion is already represented on the diagram the syllogism is valid

5.2 Continued Testing for Validity from the Aristotelian Standpoint: Reduce the syllogism to its form and test from the Boolean standpoint. If invalid from the Boolean standpoint, and there is a circle completely shaded except for one region, enter a circled “X” in that region and retest the form. If the form is syllogistically valid and the circled “X” represents something that exists, the syllogism is valid from the Aristotelian standpoint.

5.3 Rules and Fallacies The Boolean Standpoint Rule 1: the middle term must be distributed at least once. All sharks are fish. All salmon are fish. All salmon are sharks.

5.3 Continued Rule 2: If a term is distributed in the conclusion, then it must be distributed in a premise. All horses are animals. Some dogs are not horses. Some dogs are not animals.

5.3 Continued Rule 3. Two negative premises are not allowed. No fish are mammals. Some dogs are not fish. Some dogs are not mammals.

5.3 Continued Rule 4. A negative premise requires a negative conclusion, and a negative conclusion requires a negative premise. All crows are birds. Some wolves are not crows. Some wolves are birds.

5.3 Continued Rule 5. If both premises are universal, the conclusion cannot be particular. All mammals are animals. All tigers are mammals. Some tigers are animals.

5.3 Continued The Aristotelian Standpoint Proving the Rules Any Categorical Syllogism that breaks any of the first 4 rules is invalid. However, if a syllogism breaks rule number five, but at least one of its terms refers to something existing, it is valid from the Aristotelian standpoint on condition. Proving the Rules If a syllogism breaks none of these rules, it is valid, but there is no quick way to prove it.

5.4 Reducing the Number of Terms Testing Categorical Syllogisms in ordinary language requires that the number of terms be “reduced” through the use of conversion, obversion, and contraposition. Example: Ordinary Language Symbolized Argument Reduced Argument All photographers are non-writers. All P are non-W No P are W Some editors are writers. Some E are W Therefore, some non-photographers are not non-editors. Some non-P are not non-E Some E are not P

5.5 Ordinary Language Arguments Translating ordinary language arguments into standard form. All times people delay marriage, the divorce rate decreases. All present times are times people delay marriage. Therefore all present times are time the divorce rate decreases.

5.5 Continued Symbolizing After Translating M = times people delay marriage D = times the divorce rate decreases P = present times All M are D All P are M All P are D

5.6 Enthymemes Enthymeme: an argument expressed as a categorical syllogism that is missing a premise or conclusion. The corporate income tax should be abolished; it encourages waste and high prices. The missing premise is below; translate into standard form: Whatever encourages waste and high prices should be abolished.

5.7 Sorites Sorites: A chain of Categorical Syllogism in which the intermediate conclusions have been left out All bloodhounds are dogs. All dogs are mammals. No fish are mammals. Therefore no fish are bloodhounds.

5.7 Continued Testing Sorites for validity Put the Sorites into standard form. Introduce the intermediate conclusions. Test each component for validity.