Arguments.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Basics of Logical Argument Two Kinds of Argument The Deductive argument: true premises guarantee a true conclusion. e.g. All men are mortal. Socrates.
Advertisements

KEY TERMS Argument: A conclusion together with the premises that support it. Premise: A reason offered as support for another claim. Conclusion: A claim.
Lecture 2: Deduction, Induction, Validity, Soundness.
Chapter 1 Critical Thinking.
DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS Fundamentals of Logic Unit – 1 Chapter – 4 Fundamentals of Logic Unit – 1 Chapter – 4.
Debate. Inductive Reasoning When you start with a probable truth, and seek evidence to support it. Most scientific theories are inductive. Evidence is.
The Problem of Induction Reading: ‘The Problem of Induction’ by W. Salmon.
Other Info on Making Arguments
Analysis of Diagnostic Essay: The Deductive Argument English 102 Argumentation.
BASIC CONCEPTS OF ARGUMENTS
1 Arguments in Philosophy Introduction to Philosophy.
Debate. Inductive Reasoning When you start with a probable truth, and seek evidence to support it. Most scientific theories are inductive. Evidence is.
Part 2 Module 3 Arguments and deductive reasoning Logic is a formal study of the process of reasoning, or using common sense. Deductive reasoning involves.
DEDUCTIVE & INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
Basic Argumentation.
Deduction, Induction, & Truth Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College.
Logic and Philosophy Alan Hausman PART ONE Sentential Logic Sentential Logic.
MA 110: Finite Math Lecture 1/14/2009 Section 1.1 Homework: 5, 9-15, (56 BP)
Reasoning and Critical Thinking Validity and Soundness 1.
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.
2.8 Methods of Proof PHIL 012 1/26/2001.
READING #4 “DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS” By Robert FitzGibbons from Making educational decisions: an introduction to Philosophy of Education (New York & London:
Theory of Knowledge Ms. Bauer
BBI 3420 Critical Reading and Thinking Critical Reading Strategies: Identifying Arguments.
PHIL 2525 Contemporary Moral Issues Lec 2 Arguments are among us…
Propositions and Arguments. What is a proposition? A proposition is a predicative sentence that only contains a subject and a predicate S is P.
Deductive Reasoning. Deductive reasoning The process of logical reasoning from general principles to specific instances based on the assumed truth of.
 Induction is the process of drawing a general conclusion from incomplete evidence.  You consider evidence you have seen or heard to draw a conclusion.
What is an argument? An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch, "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition." Huh? Three.
© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.1 Chapters1 & 2.
Deductive Reasoning. Inductive: premise offers support and evidenceInductive: premise offers support and evidence Deductive: premises offers proof that.
THE NATURE OF ARGUMENT. THE MAIN CONCERN OF LOGIC Basically in logic we deal with ARGUMENTS. Mainly we deal with learning of the principles with which.
Do now Can you make sure that you have finished your Venn diagrams from last lesson. Can you name 5 famous mathematicians (including one that is still.
Part One: Assessing the Inference, Deductive and Inductive Reasoning.
Text Table of Contents #4: What are the Reasons?.
PHIL102 SUM2014, M-F12:00-1:00, SAV 264 Instructor: Benjamin Hole
Deductive vs. Inductive Arguments
Deductive reasoning.
3 Types of Arguments: Ethos- Establishing a reason to listen or believe the speaker. E.g., “that guy is wearing a tie so he must know what he’s saying.”
What makes a Good Argument?
Identifying/ Reconstructing Arguments
Deductive Arguments.
Inductive / Deductive reasoning
Gettier and the analysis of knowledge
Argumentation and Persuasion
Arguments and Proofs Learning Objective:
Chapter 3: Reality Assumptions
The Ontological Argument
Validity and Soundness
Logic, Philosophical Tools Quiz Review…20 minutes 10/31
Reasoning, Logic, and Position Statements
Testing for Validity and Invalidity
The Ontological Argument
Inductive and Deductive Logic
Logical Forms.
From Informal Fallacies to Formal Logic
6.4 Truth Tables for Arguments
Logical Fallacies.
The Persuasive Speech Ch. 24.
“Still I Look to Find a Reason to Believe”
Phil2303 intro to logic.
Argumentation.
Validity.
ID1050– Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning
Evaluating Deductive Arguments
If there is any case in which true premises lead to a false conclusion, the argument is invalid. Therefore this argument is INVALID.
Validity and Soundness, Again
If there is any case in which true premises lead to a false conclusion, the argument is invalid. Therefore this argument is INVALID.
Avoiding Ungrounded Assumptions
Basic Errors in Logic Featured in “Love is a Fallacy” By Max Shulman
Presentation transcript:

Arguments

Argument Set of statements/sentences/propositions, some of which are offered as evidence for others. Conclusion: what the argument tries to prove or establish. Premises: propositions used as evidence for the conclusion. generally, well-accepted starting points Evidence: considerations that make a belief more likely to be true.

Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Deductive argument: intended to render the conclusion certain. truth of the premises would guarantee the truth of the conclusion Inductive argument: intended to render the conclusion probable. possible, even if extremely unlikely for premises to be true and conclusion false

More About Deduction

Good arguments True conclusions (important conclusions?) True premises Strong conditional support probability that conclusion is true if the premises are true

All members of species x have lungs. y is a member of species x. Therefore, y has lungs. y has lungs. Therefore, y is a member of species x.

valid invalid All members of species x have lungs. y is a member of species x. Therefore, y has lungs. y has lungs. Therefore, y is a member of species x. valid invalid

Validity A valid argument is one in which: it is logically impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, together. there are no background assumptions that would make the premises consistent with a false conclusion. even an omnipotent being couldn’t make the premises true and conclusion false.

Validity Is about conditional support. don’t worry about whether the premises are actually true Holds in any context. suspend all your background knowledge about the world, except what’s needed to understand the premises and conclusion

An invalid argument is one that isn’t valid A sound argument: a valid argument with true premises follows that it must have a true conclusion

A valid argument can have: A false premise A false conclusion All false premises and a true conclusion The same sentence as one of its premises and as its conclusion Anything except: all true premises and a false conclusion

Logical terms Validity of an argument often hinges on special, logical terms: “all,” “some,” “and,” “if…then…,” “not,” etc.

valid (P1) All cetaceans are heterotrophs. (P2) Mauyak is a cetacean. (C) Mauyak is a heterotroph. Can’t place Mauyak in the Cetacean circle without putting her in the Heterotroph circle Heterotrophs Cetaceans Mauyak valid

invalid (P1) All cetaceans are heterotrophs. (P2) Mauyak is a heterotroph. (C) Mauyak is a cetacean. Can place Mauyak in the Heterotroph circle without putting her in the Cetacean circle Heterotrophs Cetaceans Mauyak Mauyak invalid

All instances of the form (P1) All Cs are Hs. (P2) m is a C. (C) m is an H. will have to be valid.

Belief Bias

Anything with a motor needs oil. Cars need oil. Therefore, cars have motors. Opprobines need oil. Therefore, opprobines have motors. invalid Arguments whose conclusions you already believe are more likely to seem valid. invalid

Why Demand Validity?

Enthymemes Incompletely stated arguments If we insist on validity, we ensure that all the reasons are made fully explicit.

(P1) The fastest jet from Los Angeles to San Francisco takes 1 hour and 15 minutes. (C) There’s no way to travel from LA to San Francisco in less than 1 hour. (P2) There is no faster way to travel from LA to San Francisco than by jet. presupposes which is currently true, but might not always be Insisting on validity forces us to make our presuppositions explicit.