Previously on THG… April, 1985 A train from Paddington to Bodmin…

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Artificial Intelligence
Advertisements

Chapter 3 Introduction to Logic © 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley.
Necessary & Sufficient Conditions Law, Science, Life & Logic.
a cura della prof.ssa Domitilla Gerini
Support For Morality As A Social Contract
Rules of Inferences Section 1.5. Definitions Argument: is a sequence of propositions (premises) that end with a proposition called conclusion. Valid Argument:
PHILOSOPHY 101 Maymester 2007 Day 2 Logic and Knowledge.
Using Tag Questions BY G. Javier Burgos.
Question tags (made by Carmen Luisa).
Reliabilism and virtue epistemology
Loneliness ‘Of Mice and Men’. Why is loneliness a strong theme in the novel? At the time (1830s America) everyone was lonely because of the Great Depression.
The Revolutionary.. ‘If’ Victor Howard Dudman.
First Assessment Feedback
/lectures /logic.
Higher / Int.2 Philosophy 5. ” All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher.” Ambrose Bierce “ Those who lack the courage.
Reason & Argument Lecture 3. Lecture Synopsis 1. Recap: validity, soundness & counter- examples, induction. 2. Arguing for a should conclusion. 3. Complications.
Euler’s circles Some A are not B. All B are C. Some A are not C. Algorithm = a method of solution guaranteed to give the right answer.
Conditional Statements Geometry Chapter 2, Section 1.
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, even further more, expanded, Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard.
Philosophy 148 Chapter 6. Truth-Functional Logic Chapter 6 introduces a formal means to determine whether arguments are valid, so that there is never.
Uses for Truth Tables Determine the truth conditions for any compound statementDetermine the truth conditions for any compound statement Determine whether.
Chapter 3 Introduction to Logic © 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley.
Logic and Proof. Argument An argument is a sequence of statements. All statements but the first one are called assumptions or hypothesis. The final statement.
Essential Deduction Techniques of Constructing Formal Expressions and Evaluating Attempts to Create Valid Arguments.
Essential Deduction Techniques of Constructing Formal Expressions Evaluating Attempts to Create Valid Arguments.
Conditional Statements & Material Implication Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College.
The Computational Theory of Mind. COMPUTATION Functions.
Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual
Reason and Argument Chapter 6 (2/3). A symbol for the exclusive ‘or’ We will use ұ for the exclusive ‘or’ Strictly speaking, this connective is not necessary.
Proofs1 Elementary Discrete Mathematics Jim Skon.
Deductive versus Inductive Reasoning Consider the following two passages: Argument #1 Mr. Jones is a member of the Academy of Scholarly Fellows and only.
/lectures /logic.
Warm Up Underline the hypothesis and circle the conclusion of each conditional. 1. A mapping that is a reflection is a type of transformation. 2. The quotient.
Deductive Arguments.
Holt McDougal Geometry 2-3 Using Deductive Reasoning to Verify Conjectures Determine if each conjecture is true or false. If false, provide a counterexample.
Unit 1D Analyzing Arguments. TWO TYPES OF ARGUMENTS Inductive Deductive Arguments come in two basic types:
Deductive Reasoning.  Conditional Statements can be written using symbolic notation  p represents hypothesis  q represents conclusion  is read as.
Chapter 3: MAKING SENSE OF ARGUMENTS
Chapter 3: Introduction to Logic. Logic Main goal: use logic to analyze arguments (claims) to see if they are valid or invalid. This is useful for math.
Philosophical Method  Logic: A Calculus For Good Reason  Clarification, Not Obfuscation  Distinctions and Disambiguation  Examples and Counterexamples.
The construction of a formal argument
Conditional Statements Geometry Chapter 2, Section 1.
Propositional Logic A symbolic representation of deductive inference. Use upper case letters to represent simple propositions. E.g. Friday class rocks.
Logic The Lost Art of Argument. Logic - Review Proposition – A statement that is either true or false (but not both) Conjunction – And Disjunction – Or.
Chapter 7 Evaluating Deductive Arguments II: Truth Functional Logic Invitation to Critical Thinking First Canadian Edition.
Essential Deduction Techniques of Constructing Formal Expressions Evaluating Attempts to Create Valid Arguments.
Arguments Arguments: premises provide grounds for the truth of the conclusion Two different ways a conclusion may be supported by premises. Deductive Arguments.
Validity, Soundness, Strength, Cogency Jason Chang Critical Thinking.
MATHEMATICAL REASONING MATHEMATICAL REASONING. STATEMENT A SENTENCE EITHER TRUE OR FALSE BUT NOT BOTH A SENTENCE EITHER TRUE OR FALSE BUT NOT BOTH.
Invitation to Critical Thinking Chapter 7 Lecture Notes Chapter 7.
Logic: The Language of Philosophy. What is Logic? Logic is the study of argumentation o In Philosophy, there are no right or wrong opinions, but there.
BHS Methods in Behavioral Sciences I April 7, 2003 Chapter 2 – Introduction to the Methods of Science.
Compound Claims.  Suppose your neighbour says:  “I’ll return your lawn mower or I’ll buy you a new one.”  Has he promised to return your lawn mower?
Deductive and Inductive reasoning
Conditionals: If __________ [then] __________ statements
Counterfactuals.
a valid argument with true premises.
WEEK 3 VALIDITY OF ARGUMENTS Valid argument: A deductive argument is valid if its conclusion is necessarily and logically drawn from the premises. The.
Chapter 8 Logic Topics
Chapter 3 Introduction to Logic 2012 Pearson Education, Inc.
Logical Forms.
Thinking Critically Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc.
Drill: Wednesday, 11/1 Determine if the conditional “If x is a number then |x| > 0” is true. If false, give a counterexample. Write the contrapositive.
Notes 2.3 Deductive Reasoning.
Conditionals: If __________ [then] __________ statements
Conditionals: If __________ [then] __________ statements
Philosophy 1100 Class #9 Title: Critical Reasoning
Critical Thinking Lecture 2 Arguments
Arguments in Sentential Logic
Chapter 3 Introduction to Logic © 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley.
Presentation transcript:

Previously on THG…

April, 1985 A train from Paddington to Bodmin…

The Mystery of…. Modus Ponens

Lewis Carroll

Achilles and the Tortoise

[A] Someone shot Kennedy [B] Oswald didn’t [C] If A and B, then Z [D] If A and B and C, then Z [E] If A and B and C and D, then Z [F] If A and ……oh, forget it!

m c : m d *, m i

Compound Messages cannot be True (or False)

The Independent message is affirmed outright, unless there is rational reason to think otherwise

Selection of ‘if’ accords the dependent message the status of an hypothesis

Which means: It is being treated as true… …whether or not it really is.

Logic

IfIf Oswald didn’t shoot Kennedy, somebody else did

Hypothetical ‘if’- message

Logical ‘if’- message

Stand Alone If P, then Q There is an Antecedent And a Consequent

If Oswald didn’t shoot Kennedy, somebody else did whines, we beat him Oswald didn’t shoot Kennedy (YES)

Contraposition If P, then Q If not Q, then not P

If Oswald didn’t shoot Kennedy, somebody else did whines, we beat him If nobody else shot Kennedy, then Oswald did (YES)

Time and Tense Tense: time registered by form Time: time the message is about

If Oswald didn’t shoot Kennedy, somebody else did whines, we beat him Tense: Past Time: Past (Tense = Time)

Logical ‘if’-messages Pass Stand-Alone Contrapose Tense = Time

Logical ‘if’-messages … … are condensed arguments

If P, then Q P. So Q

If Oswald didn’t shoot Kennedy …then somebody else did

Oswald didn’t shoot Kennedy So: Somebody else did

Logical ‘if’-messages Cannot have Truth-values Are condensed Arguments Their standard is Deductive validity

Non-logical hypothetical messages The dog – if it was a dog – ran off If it rained, it didn’t rain hard If the Mayor is married, his wife did not accompany him

Non-logical hypothetical messages If it didn’t run off, it wasn’t a dog If it rained hard, it didn’t rain If his wife did accompany him, the Mayor is not married

Non-logical hypothetical messages The dog – if it was a dog – ran off If it rained, it didn’t rain hard If the Mayor is married, his wife did not accompany him

Non-logical hypothetical messages Affirm the Consequent Are not condensed Arguments Pass Stand-Alone Don’t Contrapose Tense = Time

The Mystery of…. Modus Ponens

P If P, then Q So: Q

Oswald didn’t shoot Kennedy… And if Oswald didn’t shoot Kennedy… …then somebody else did. So: Somebody else did.

If, as we now know, Oswald didn’t shoot Kennedy… …then somebody else did.

[A] Someone shot Kennedy [B] Oswald didn’t [C] If A and B, then Z [D] If A and B and C, then Z [E] If A and B and C and D, then Z [F] If A and ……oh, forget it!

October 1932

?

What the fuck?

I mean, er.. what the fucking fuck?

We are young men and women of high spirit and noble ideals. We are philosophers, interested in the semantics of English ‘if’. What in God’s name are we doing here?

We’re going to watch a high-stakes Poker-game

Achtung!

Four Threes

Four Nines

Achtung!

Gondorff knows what Lonnegan holds.

Experiment 1

If Gondorff calls …… ……he will win.

If Gondorff calls …… ……he will lose.

Experiment 2

If Gondorff had called.. …he would have won.

If Gondorff had called.. …he would have lost.

Gibbardian Stand-offs Alan Gibbard

Henry Gondorff is …..

Sly Pete

Achtung!

Gondorff knows what Lonnegan holds.

If Gondorff calls, he will lose Gondorff holds a losing hand. So if he calls, he will lose.

If Gondorff calls, he will win. Gondorff wants to win. He knows what Lonnegan holds. He will not call with what he knows to be a losing hand. So if he calls, it will be with a winning hand.

If Gondorff had called, he would have lost. Gondorff held a losing hand. So if he had called, he would have lost.

If Gondorff had called, he would have won. Gondorff wanted to win. He knew what Lonnegan held. He would not have called with what he knew to be a losing hand. So if he had called, it would have been with a winning hand.

Curious Incidents Two people could quite reasonably come to opposite verdicts Does-will and had-would differ only in tense – and so does the reasoning The reasoning is inductive – it involves an exercise of the imagination The reasoning supports the verdict – it isn’t part of the message

Fantasy ‘if’- messages

Stand Alone If P, then Q There is no Antecedent And so no Consequent

If Gondorff calls, he will win whines, we beat him Gondorff calls (NO)

If Gondorff had called, he would have won whines, we beat him Gondorff had called (NO)

Contraposition If P, then Q If not Q, then not P

If Gondorff calls, he will win If Gondorff will not win, he doesn’t call (NO)

If Gondorff had called, he would have won If Gondorff would not have won, he hadn’t called (NO)

Time and Tense Tense: time registered by form Time: time the message is about

If Gondorff calls, he will win whines, we beat him Tense: Present Time: Future (Tense < Time)

If Gondorff had called, he would have won whines, we beat him Tense: Past Past Time: Past (Tense < Time)

Henry Gondorff was played by Paul Newman

Doyle Lonnegan was played by Robert Shaw

Waistcoat by Sally Bayley

Fin