Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, Even further More and yet more, etc., ad infinitum, Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Basic Terms in Logic Michael Jhon M. Tamayao.
Advertisements

Artificial Intelligence
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.
An overview Lecture prepared for MODULE-13 (Western Logic) BY- MINAKSHI PRAMANICK Guest Lecturer, Dept. Of Philosophy.
Deductive Arguments: Categorical Logic
Logic Use mathematical deduction to derive new knowledge.
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.
1 Introduction to Abstract Mathematics Valid AND Invalid Arguments 2.3 Instructor: Hayk Melikya
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 More Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, Even More Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard.
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.
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, even further more, expanded, Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard.
Today’s Topics Introduction to Predicate Logic Venn Diagrams Categorical Syllogisms Venn Diagram tests for validity Rule tests for validity.
Intro to Logic: the tools of the trade You need to be able to: Recognize an argument when you see one (in media, articles, people’s claims). Organize arguments.
CS128 – Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, Even further More and more Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard 2.
LogicandEvidence Scientific argument. Logic Reasoning –Deductive –Inductive.
Discrete Mathematics Lecture 1 Logic of Compound Statements Harper Langston New York University.
Syllabus Every Week: 2 Hourly Exams +Final - as noted on Syllabus
LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Essential Deduction Techniques of Constructing Formal Expressions Evaluating Attempts to Create Valid Arguments.
Proof by Deduction. Deductions and Formal Proofs A deduction is a sequence of logic statements, each of which is known or assumed to be true A formal.
Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual
Harper Langston New York University Summer 2015
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, Even further More and yet more Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard.
CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS, CHP. 8 DEDUCTIVE LOGIC VS INDUCTIVE LOGIC ONE CENTRAL PURPOSE: UNDERSTANDING CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS AS THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF.
Logic and Philosophy Alan Hausman PART ONE Sentential Logic Sentential Logic.
Logical Arguments. Strength 1.A useless argument is one in which the truth of the premisses has no effect at all on the truth of the conclusion. 2.A weak.
Proofs1 Elementary Discrete Mathematics Jim Skon.
1 Sections 1.5 & 3.1 Methods of Proof / Proof Strategy.
Philosophy 148 Chapter 7. AffirmativeNegative UniversalA: All S are PE: No S is P ParticularI: Some S is PO: Some S is not P.
Deductive Arguments.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 3 An introduction to Deductive arguments By David Kelsey.
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, Even further More and yet more, ad infinitum, Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard.
Chapter 3: MAKING SENSE OF ARGUMENTS
INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC Jennifer Wang Fall 2009 Midterm Review Quiz Game.
1 CMSC 250 Discrete Structures CMSC 250 Lecture 1.
Chapter 18: Conversion, Obversion, and Squares of Opposition
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.
Philosophy: Logic and Logical arguments
Philosophical Method  Logic: A Calculus For Good Reason  Clarification, Not Obfuscation  Distinctions and Disambiguation  Examples and Counterexamples.
The construction of a formal argument
Midterm Practice Famous Fallacies, TFTD, Hurley
Practice Quiz 3 Hurley 4.3 – 4.6.
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn to recognize, analyze, and evaluate deductive arguments.
What is Reasoning  Logical reasoning is the process of drawing conclusions from premises using rules of inference.  These inference rules are results.
Syllogisms and Three Types of Hypothetical Syllogisms
Chapter 7. Propositional and Predicate Logic Fall 2013 Comp3710 Artificial Intelligence Computing Science Thompson Rivers University.
Symbolic Logic ⊃ ≡ · v ~ ∴. What is a logical argument? Logic is the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference. Logic allows us to analyze a.
Week 4 - Friday.  What did we talk about last time?  Floor and ceiling  Proof by contradiction.
The Traditional Square of Opposition
Introduction to Categorical Logic PHIL 121: Methods of Reasoning February 18, 2013 Instructor:Karin Howe Binghamton University.
CT214 – Logical Foundations of Computing Darren Doherty Rm. 311 Dept. of Information Technology NUI Galway
Deductive Reasoning. Inductive: premise offers support and evidenceInductive: premise offers support and evidence Deductive: premises offers proof that.
Chapter 1 Logic and proofs
Chapter 7. Propositional and Predicate Logic
Deductive reasoning.
2. The Logic of Compound Statements Summary
Deductive Arguments.
Today’s Topics Introduction to Predicate Logic Venn Diagrams
Chapter 3 Philosophy: Questions and theories
Practice Quiz 3 Hurley
Propositional Logic Defining Propositional Logic
4.1 The Components of Categorical Propositions
Philosophy 1100 Title: Critical Reasoning Instructor: Paul Dickey
4 Categorical Propositions
4 Categorical Propositions
Concise Guide to Critical Thinking
Chapter 6 Categorical Syllogisms
Presentation transcript:

Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, Even further More and yet more, etc., ad infinitum, Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard

Last Time : Venn Diagrams for Propositions Existential Import in Diagramming Traditional Square of Opposition

Plan for Today Review: Venn Diagrams for Propositions Modern Square of Opposition The Existential Fallacy

Today is DAY 10 In 10 Days an embryonic Chick goes from nothing to this: HAVE YOU DEVELOPED AS MUCH IN the LAST 10 Days???

REVIEW: THE 4 TYPES of CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION UNIVERSALPARTICULAR AFFIRMATIVE ALL S is PSOME S is P NEGATIVE NO S is PSOME S is not P

REVIEW: A, E, I, and O TERM Proposition FormQuantityQuality AALL S IS PUNIVERSALAFFIRMATIVE ENO S IS PUNIVERSALNEGATIVE ISOME S IS PPARTICULARAFFIRMATIVE OSOME S IS NOT PPARTICULARNEGATIVE

Review: The Traditional Square of Opposition

Subalternation What is the relation between the UNIVERSAL and the PARTICULAR? If All S is P, what about Some S is P? If No S is P, what about Some S is not P? Subalternation claims that if the Universal is true, then the corresponding Particular is true.

TRADITIONAL A and E In Traditional Logic we need to capture the Existential Assumption: That everything we can name with a category term or description, exists! XX A E

Traditional vs. Modern Categorical Logic The KEY difference between Traditional (Aristotelian) and Modern (Boolean) categorical Logic is that Traditional Logic ASSUMES that category terms all refer to actual objects. Modern Logic does NOT make the Existential Assumption.

Thanks to: George Boole English Mathematician and Grandfather of computer Science. Wrote The Laws of Thought (1854) Invented Boolean Algebra

Boole and the Existential Fallacy Boole recognized that many Syllogistic Arguments assume that every category or class referred to is NON-EMPTY. But it is possible to denote an EMPTY CLASS What Happens to Categorical Logic if EMPTY CLASSES are allowed?

Traditional Square using Venn Diagrams X X The Existential Assumption allows the inference from Universal to Particular

Where is the Fallacy? Basically, the EXISTENTIAL FALLACY is this: 1.Deductive validity requires that it be IMPOSSIBLE to infer a FALSE CONCLUSION from TRUE PREMISES. 2.Reasoning by SUBALTERNATION always requires that the SUBJECT CLASS is non-empty. 3.It is POSSIBLE that a UNIVERSAL Proposition is true but has an empty SUBJECT CLASS 4.Therefore, it is possible to reason from True Premises to a false Conclusion by Subalternation. 5.So Subalternation is INVALID.

BUT Hurley Disagrees with ME!!! The Author of our Logic Text claims that the Existential Fallacy only occurs when the subject is some sort of Mythic or Fictional being. He thinks that traditional logic only sanctions SOME sub-alternations. I disagree: I think Aristotle would not have drawn the line in THAT place. I think that relying upon individuals to decide on what is Mythic or Fictional takes us beyond LOGIC.

Take THAT Patrick J Hurley!

Avoiding the Existential Fallacy In order to avoid the Existential Fallacy we need to modify traditional categorical logic to remove the existential assumption. The Result is Modern or Boolean Categorical Logic

The Modern Square of Opposition Without the Traditional Existential Assumption, ONLY Contradiction is Valid

Modern Square using Venn Diagrams

Contradictories Contradictory Propositions ALWAYS take opposite TRUTH VALUES A and O are Contradictories E and I are Contradictories

Questions?

The Class So FAR (roughly) Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5 Basic Concepts I: 1)Arguments ( Premise/Conc lusion) 2)Propositions (Simple/Comp lex) - Conditional Props. (Antecedent/C onsequent) -Truth values Basic Concepts II : 1)Deductive/Ind uctive 2)Valid/Invalid 3)Strong/Weak 4)Sound 5)Cogent Informal Fallacies: 1)Fallacies of Relevance 2)Fallacies of Weak Induction 3)Fallacies of Meaning and Ambiguity Laws of Thought: Philosophical Issues about the status of logical laws. Meaning 1)Types of Meaning: Cognitive/Em otive 2)Intension vs. Extension 3)Ambiguity and Precision 4)Names vs. Descriptions Definitions 1)Lexical 2)Theoretical 3)Precising 4)Persuasive Logical Form Form and Validity Deductive Forms 1)Modus Ponens 2)Modus Tollens 3)Disjunctive and Hypothetical Syllogism 4)Reductio ad Absurdum Formal Fallacies Counter Example Construction Introduction to Categorical Logic Aristotle’s Categories Leibniz, Concepts, and Identity Analytic – Synthetic Distinction Essence and Accident Necessary and Sufficient Conditions Introduction to Categorical Logic Categorical Propositions 1)Parts and Characteristics 2)Conditional and Conjunctive Equivalents 3)Existential Import Venn Diagrams for Propositions Existential Import in Diagramming Traditional Square of Opposition Modern Square of Opposition The Existential Fallacy

Next Week Tuesday: Mid Term Exam Thursday: Immediate Inferences in Categorical Logic

Test Format The Midterm will be 150 Points Section 1 (30 points) Basic Concepts/Vocabulary Section 2 (30 Points) Fallacies Section 3 (30 Points) Categorical Logic Concepts Section 4 (60 Points) Applications