Categorical Syllogisms Always have two premises Consist entirely of categorical claims May be presented with unstated premise or conclusion May be stated.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Venn Diagram Technique for testing syllogisms
Advertisements

Truth Functional Logic
Introduction to Proofs
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)
Logic & Critical Reasoning
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
Deductive Arguments: Categorical Logic
1 Philosophy 1100 Title:Critical Reasoning Instructor:Paul Dickey Website:
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.
Critical Thinking Lecture 9 The Square of Opposition By David Kelsey.
Philosophy 1100 Today: Hand Back “Nail that Claim” Exercise! & Discuss
CS128 – Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science
Today’s Topics n Review Logical Implication & Truth Table Tests for Validity n Truth Value Analysis n Short Form Validity Tests n Consistency and validity.
Immediate Inference Three Categorical Operations
Chapter 9 Categorical Logic w07
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.
5-3 Elimination Using Addition and Subtraction
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, Even further More and yet more Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard.
1.1 Sets and Logic Set – a collection of objects. Set brackets {} are used to enclose the elements of a set. Example: {1, 2, 5, 9} Elements – objects inside.
CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS, CHP. 8 DEDUCTIVE LOGIC VS INDUCTIVE LOGIC ONE CENTRAL PURPOSE: UNDERSTANDING CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS AS THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF.
Deduction, Proofs, and Inference Rules. Let’s Review What we Know Take a look at your handout and see if you have any questions You should know how to.
MATH 224 – Discrete Mathematics
Chapter 2 The Logic of Quantified Statements. Section 2.4 Arguments with Quantified Statements.
Deductive versus Inductive Reasoning Consider the following two passages: Argument #1 Mr. Jones is a member of the Academy of Scholarly Fellows and only.
Critical Thinking Lecture 10 The Syllogism By David Kelsey.
Philosophy 148 Chapter 7. AffirmativeNegative UniversalA: All S are PE: No S is P ParticularI: Some S is PO: Some S is not P.
2.3Logical Implication: Rules of Inference From the notion of a valid argument, we begin a formal study of what we shall mean by an argument and when such.
Arguments with Quantified Statements M Universal Instantiation If some property is true for everything in a domain, then it is true of any particular.
Chapter Three Truth Tables 1. Computing Truth-Values We can use truth tables to determine the truth-value of any compound sentence containing one of.
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.
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.
Lecture Propositional Equivalences. Compound Propositions Compound propositions are made by combining existing propositions using logical operators.
Chapter 18: Conversion, Obversion, and Squares of Opposition
Strict Logical Entailments of Categorical Propositions
4 Categorical Propositions
Hazırlayan DISCRETE COMPUTATIONAL STRUCTURES Propositional Logic PROF. DR. YUSUF OYSAL.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [INTELLIGENT AGENTS PARADIGM] Professor Janis Grundspenkis Riga Technical University Faculty of Computer Science and Information.
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.
Propositional Logic. Propositions Any statement that is either True (T) or False (F) is a proposition Propositional variables: a variable that can assume.
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS
Critical Thinking Lecture 9 The Square of Opposition
Invitation to Critical Thinking Chapter 6
Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual
Section 2.3: Deductive Reasoning
Critical Thinking Lecture 10 The Syllogism By David Kelsey.
Sound Arguments and Derivations. Topics Sound Arguments Derivations Proofs –Inference rules –Deduction.
SYLLOGISM - FORM & LOGICAL REASONING. WHAT IS A SYLLOGISM? Syllogism – the formal structure of logical argument. Three statements - Major Premise, Minor.
Venn Diagram Technique for testing syllogisms
3. The Logic of Quantified Statements Summary
a valid argument with true premises.
Rationale Behind the Precise Formulation of the Four Quantifier Rules
Deductive Logic, Categorical Syllogism
5 Categorical Syllogisms
Today’s Topics Introduction to Predicate Logic Venn Diagrams
2-2 Conditional Statements
4.1 The Components of Categorical Propositions
Philosophy 1100 Class #8 Title: Critical Reasoning
Critical Thinking Lecture 9 The Square of Opposition
Section 3.5 Symbolic Arguments
3.5 Symbolic Arguments.
Philosophy 1100 Title: Critical Reasoning Instructor: Paul Dickey
Categorical syllogisms
5 Categorical Syllogisms
Chapter 6 Categorical Syllogisms
1.3 Propositional Equivalences
Logic and Reasoning.
Critical Thinking Lecture 11 The Syllogism
Critical Thinking Lecture 10 The Syllogism
3.5 Symbolic Arguments.
Presentation transcript:

Categorical Syllogisms Always have two premises Consist entirely of categorical claims May be presented with unstated premise or conclusion May be stated formally or informally Are intended to be valid

Categorical Syllogisms All P are T Some T are D Some P are D Things to notice: Two premises and a conclusion Three terms, each used twice

All T are Z No Z are F No T are F

All T are Z No Z are F No F are T FT Z

FT Z

Some voters are alcoholics. No alcoholics are happy people. So some voters are not happy people.

V - voters H - happy people A - alcoholics

Some voters are alcoholics. No alcoholics are happy people. So some voters are not happy people. VH A

VH A

Only members may shop here. But only some of our members are professionals. So, some of the people who shop here are non-professionals

First, put the claims into a standard form.

Only members may shop here. But only some of our members are professionals. So, some of the people who shop here are non-professionals First, put the claims into a standard form. All people who may shop here are members.

Only members may shop here. But only some of our members are professionals. So, some of the people who shop here are non-professionals First, put the claims into a standard form. All people who may shop here are members. Some members are professionals.

Only members may shop here. But only some of our members are professionals. So, some of the people who shop here are non-professionals First, put the claims into a standard form. All people who may shop here are members. Some members are professionals. Some people who may shop here are non-professionals.

Only members may shop here. But only some of our members are professionals. So, some of the people who shop here are non-professionals Second, determine the categories. All people who may shop here are members. Some members are professionals. Some people who may shop here are non-professionals.

Only members may shop here. But only some of our members are professionals. So, some of the people who shop here are non-professionals Second, determine the categories. All people who may shop here are members. Some members are professionals. Some people who may shop here are non-professionals.

Only members may shop here. But only some of our members are professionals. So, some of the people who shop here are non-professionals Second, determine the categories. All people who may shop here are members. Some members are professionals. Some people who may shop here are non-professionals.

Only members may shop here. But only some of our members are professionals. So, some of the people who shop here are non-professionals Second, determine the categories. All people who may shop here are members. Some members are professionals. Some people who may shop here are non-professionals.

Only members may shop here. But only some of our members are professionals. So, some of the people who shop here are non-professionals Second, determine the categories. All people who may shop here are members. Some members are professionals. Some people who may shop here are non-professionals.

Only members may shop here. But only some of our members are professionals. So, some of the people who shop here are non-professionals It makes things easier to assign variables to the categories. M - members S - people who may shop here P - professionals non-P - non-professionals

Only members may shop here. But only some of our members are professionals. So, some of the people who shop here are non-professionals. All S are M Some M are P Some S are non-P

Only members may shop here. But only some of our members are professionals. So, some of the people who shop here are non-professionals. All S are M Some M are P Some S are non-P But there is still work to do before validity can be determined. The problem is that there are four categories. At least one claim must be rewritten if this is to become a proper syllogism.

Only members may shop here. But only some of our members are professionals. So, some of the people who shop here are non-professionals. All S are M Some M are P Some S are non-P Rewriting one of these claims requires use of at least one of the forms of immediate inference: conversion, contraposition, or obversion. In this case, either the second premise or the conclusion must be rewritten. Does it matter which one?

Only members may shop here. But only some of our members are professionals. So, some of the people who shop here are non-professionals. All S are M Some M are P Some S are non-P Logically, it makes no difference which claim is rewritten. But since the conclusion states the issue of the argument in a way that someone presumably wants to think about it, let’s leave the conclusion as close to the original statement as possible.

Only members may shop here. But only some of our members are professionals. So, some of the people who shop here are non-professionals. All S are M Some M are P Some S are non-P Only one of the immediate inference rules will change the second premise in the way needed to create a well-formed syllogism.

Only members may shop here. But only some of our members are professionals. So, some of the people who shop here are non-professionals. All S are M Some M are P --> Some M are not non-P Some S are non-P Obversion (valid for all claim types) 1. Move horizontally across the Square of Opposition. 2. Replace the predicate term with its complement.

Obversion (valid for all claim types) 1. Move horizontally across the Square of Opposition. 2. Replace the predicate term with its complement.