4.1 The Components of Categorical Propositions

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Reason and Argument Chapter 7 (1/2).
Advertisements

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
Today’s Topics Introduction to Predicate Logic Venn Diagrams Categorical Syllogisms Venn Diagram tests for validity Rule tests for validity.
Critical Thinking Lecture 9 The Square of Opposition By David Kelsey.
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, Even further More and yet more, etc., ad infinitum, Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard.
Categorical Syllogisms Always have two premises Consist entirely of categorical claims May be presented with unstated premise or conclusion May be stated.
Syllogistic Logic 1. C Categorical Propositions 2. V Venn Diagram 3. The Square of Opposition: Tradition / Modern 4. C Conversion, Obversion, Contraposition.
Chapter 9 Categorical Logic w07
SEVENTH EDITION and EXPANDED SEVENTH EDITION
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Adapted from Discrete Math
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, Even further More and yet more Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard.
Categorical Syllogisms
Categorical Propositions To help us make sense of our experience, we humans constantly group things into classes or categories. These classifications are.
CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS, CHP. 8 DEDUCTIVE LOGIC VS INDUCTIVE LOGIC ONE CENTRAL PURPOSE: UNDERSTANDING CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS AS THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF.
0 Validity & Invalidity (Exercises) December 23, 2005.
Deductive versus Inductive Reasoning Consider the following two passages: Argument #1 Mr. Jones is a member of the Academy of Scholarly Fellows and only.
PART TWO PREDICATE LOGIC. Chapter Seven Predicate Logic Symbolization.
The Science of Good Reasons
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
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, Even further More and yet more, ad infinitum, Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard.
Chapter 18: Conversion, Obversion, and Squares of Opposition
Strict Logical Entailments of Categorical Propositions
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.
4 Categorical Propositions
0 Validity & Invalidity (Exercises) All dogs have two heads. 2. All tigers are dogs. ___________________________________ 3. All tigers have two.
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS
Critical Thinking Lecture 9 The Square of Opposition
Midterm Practice Famous Fallacies, TFTD, Hurley
Chapter 13: Categorical Propositions. Categorical Syllogisms (p. 141) Review of deductive arguments –Form –Valid/Invalid –Soundness Categorical syllogisms.
Practice Quiz 3 Hurley 4.3 – 4.6.
Invitation to Critical Thinking Chapter 6
Fun with Deductive Reasoning
Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual
The Traditional Square of Opposition
Midterm Practice Famous Fallacies, TFTD, Hurley
Discrete Mathematical Structures: Theory and Applications 1 Logic: Learning Objectives  Learn about statements (propositions)  Learn how to use logical.
Philosophy 1504: Language and Logic March 28, 2016.
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.
Logic.
2. The Logic of Compound Statements Summary
Deductive Logic, Categorical Syllogism
Today’s Topics Introduction to Predicate Logic Venn Diagrams
5.1 Standard Form, Mood, and Figure
Famous Fallacies, TFTD, Hurley
5 Categorical Syllogisms
Chapter 3 Philosophy: Questions and theories
Practice Quiz 3 Hurley
Rules and fallacies Formal fallacies.
Famous Fallacies, TFTD, Hurley
Categorical Propositions
Philosophy 1100 Class #8 Title: Critical Reasoning
Critical Thinking Lecture 9 The Square of Opposition
Philosophy 1100 Title: Critical Reasoning Instructor: Paul Dickey
4 Categorical Propositions
Categorical propositions
4 Categorical Propositions
“Only,” Categorical Relationships, logical operators
Chapter 6 Categorical Syllogisms
Evaluating Deductive Arguments
4 Categorical Propositions
Practice Quiz 3 Hurley 4.3 – 4.6.
Presentation transcript:

4.1 The Components of Categorical Propositions Relate subject terms and predicate terms. Either all or part of the class denoted by the subject term is included or excluded from the class denoted by the predicate term.

4.1 Continued Standard Form: Requires the quantifiers “all,” “no,” or “some.” The subject term is a noun or noun phrase. The copula, or links between subject and predicate terms are “are” or “are not.” The predicate term is a noun or noun phrase.

4.2 Quality, Quantity and Distribution Affirmative: All S are P. Some S are P. Negative: No S are P. Some S are not P.

4.2 Continued Quantity Universal: Particular: All S are P. No S are P. Some S are P. Some S are not P.

4.2 Continued Letter Names of Propositions: A: universal affirmative E: universal negative I: particular affirmative O: particular negative

4.2 Continued Distribution: Applies to terms not propositions. Is something being asserted about every member of the s or p class?

4.3 Venn Diagrams and the Modern Square of Opposition Aristotle held that universal propositions about existing things have existential import. George Boole held that no universal propositions have existential import. John Venn (who perfected Boole’s theory) developed a system of diagrams to represent the information they express.

4.3 Continued

4.3 Continued The Modern Square of Opposition: a relationship of mutually contradictory pairs of propositions.

4.3 Continued Immediate Inferences have only one premise, which proceeds immediately to the conclusion. Some trade spies are not masters of bribery. Therefore it is false that all trade spies are masters of bribery.

4.3 Continued Unconditionally Valid arguments are valid from the Boolean standpoint, regardless of whether they refer to existing things. Testing immediate inferences for validity: It is false that all A are B. It is false that some A are B. We diagram the following way:

4.3 Continued Some T are not M. Therefore, it is false that some T are M. We diagram the following way: It is false that all M are C. Therefore, no M are C. And finally, All S are W. Some S are W.

4.3 Continued The Existential Fallacy is a formal fallacy that occurs whenever an argument is invalid merely because the premise lacks existential import. All A are B. Therefore some A are B. It is false that some A are not B. Therefore it is false that no A are B.

4.4 Conversion, Obversion and Contraposition Subject and predicate switch places. No cats are dogs; no dogs are cats.

4.4 Continued Obversion: Change quality, not quality. Replace predicate with its term complement. All horses are animals, no horses are non-animals.

4.4 Continued Contraposition: Subject and predicate switch places. Replace each with its term complement. All horses are animals; all non-animals are non-horses.

4.5 The Traditional Square of Opposition Adopts the Aristotelian standpoint that universal propositions about existing things have existential import. Contradictory = opposite truth value. Contradictories: A-O and E-I (same as modern square). Contrary = at least one is false. Contraries: A-E.

4.5 Continued Subcontrary = at least one is true. Subalternation: Subcontraries: I-O. Subalternation: Truth “Flows Down” from A-I and E-O. Falsity “Flows Up” from I-A and O-E.

4.5 Continued Testing Immediate Inferences: All Swiss watches are true works of art. Therefore it is false that no Swiss watches are works of art. The Existential Fallacy: from the Aristotelian standpoint, committed only when contrary, sub- contrary and subalternation are correctly used to draw inferences about things that do not exist.

4.5 Continued Conditionally Valid applies to an argument from the Aristotelian standpoint, when we are not certain whether the subject term of the premise actually denotes an existing thing.

4.6 Venn Diagrams and the Traditional Standpoint Symbolize Universal categorical propositions from the Aristotelian standpoint. The Aristotelian standpoint is that universal propositions have existential import when they refer to existing things.

4.6 Continued Proving the Traditional Square of Opposition Through the Use of Venn Diagrams

4.6 Continued Testing Immediate Inferences from the Aristotelian Standpoint If inferences are valid, they are valid from both Aristotelian and Boolean standpoints. Invalid Boolean references may be valid from the Aristotelian standpoint. Test an inference form for validity from the Boolean Standpoint. Then adopt the Aristotelian standpoint (above).

4.6 Continued Test a complete inference form for validity from the Boolean Standpoint. Then, since it is invalid from the Boolean standpoint, adopt the Aristotelian standpoint.

4.7 Translating Ordinary Language Statements into Categorical Form Terms Without Nouns If a term consists only of an adjective, a plural noun or pronoun should be introduced to make the term genuinely denotative. Some roses are red. Some roses are red flowers.

4.7 Continued Nonstandard Verbs Statements in ordinary usage often incorporate forms of the verb “to be” rather than “are” and “are not.” Some college students will become educated. Some college students are people who will become educated.

4.7 Continued Singular Propositions and the Use of Parameters This proposition makes an assertion about a specific noun, while the parameter affects the form, not the meaning. George went home. All people identical to George are people who went home.

4.7 Continued Adverbs and Pronouns Spatial and temporal adverbs may be respectively translated in terms of places and times. He is always clean shaven. All times are times he is clean shaven.

4.7 Continued Unexpressed Quantifiers Be guided by the most probable quantifier. Emeralds are green gems. All emeralds are green gems. Or There are lions in the zoo. Some lions are animals in the zoo.

4.7 Continued Nonstandard quantifiers Other than “All”, “Some” or “No.” Standard quantifier: Some soldiers are heroic. Nonstandard quantifier: A few soldiers are heroes.

4.7 Continued Conditional Statements If it is a mouse then it is a mammal. All mice are mammals. If it is a turkey, then it is not a mammal. No turkeys are mammals.

4.7 Continued Exclusive Propositions “Only,” “None but,” “None except,” None but the brave deserve the fair. All people who deserve the fair are brave people.

4.7 Continued The Only”: Statements beginning with “the only” are translated differently than those that begin with “only.” The only animals that live in this canyon are skunks. All animals that live in this canyon are skunks.

4.7 Continued Exceptive Propositions Take the forms, “All except S are P” and “All but S are P.” All except students are invited. No students are invited people and all non-students are invited people.