Your name Mediate Inference. your name Mediate Inference Commonly called as argument Has two major types: –Deduction/Deductive Arg./Syllogism Categorical.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Venn Diagram Technique for testing syllogisms
Advertisements

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)
Rules of Inferences Section 1.5. Definitions Argument: is a sequence of propositions (premises) that end with a proposition called conclusion. Valid Argument:
An overview Lecture prepared for MODULE-13 (Western Logic) BY- MINAKSHI PRAMANICK Guest Lecturer, Dept. Of Philosophy.
Deductive Arguments: Categorical Logic
1 Introduction to Abstract Mathematics Valid AND Invalid Arguments 2.3 Instructor: Hayk Melikya
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.
Review: Logic. Fallacy: Appeal to Novelty New is better.
Philosophy 1100 Today: Hand Back “Nail that Claim” Exercise! & Discuss
This is Introductory Logic PHI 120 Get a syllabus online, if you don't already have one Presentation: "Good Arguments"
Categorical Syllogisms Always have two premises Consist entirely of categorical claims May be presented with unstated premise or conclusion May be stated.
Deduction CIS308 Dr Harry Erwin. Syllogism A syllogism consists of three parts: the major premise, the minor premise, and the conclusion. In Aristotle,
Syllogistic Logic 1. C Categorical Propositions 2. V Venn Diagram 3. The Square of Opposition: Tradition / Modern 4. C Conversion, Obversion, Contraposition.
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.
Patterns of Deductive Thinking
Categorical Syllogisms
Date Variations of Syllogisms. 2 2 Enthymeme -an enthymeme is an abridged form of syllogism in which a premise or a conclusion is missing. -there are.

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.
Critical Thinking Lecture 10 The Syllogism By David Kelsey.
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.
Night 2 Presented by Eric Douma
Logic A: Capital punishment is immoral. B: No it isn’t! A: Yes it is! B: Well, what do you know about it? A: I know more about it then you do! B: Oh yeah?
Reasoning. Inductive and Deductive reasoning Inductive reasoning is concerned with reasoning from “specific instances to some general conclusion.” Deductive.
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.
Chapter 18: Conversion, Obversion, and Squares of Opposition
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.
1 DISJUNCTIVE AND HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISMS DISJUNCTIVE PROPOSITIONS: E.G EITHER WHALES ARE MAMMALS OR THEY ARE VERY LARGE FISH. DISJUNCTS: WHALES ARE MAMMALS.(P)
Logic – Basic Terms Logic: the study of how to reason well. Validity: Valid thinking is thinking in conformity with the rules. If the premises are true.
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS
Syllogisms and Visual Rhetoric Danna Prather. Syllogistic form puts an argument into three statements in order to illustrate the data, claim, and warrant,
The construction of a formal argument
Chapter 13: Categorical Propositions. Categorical Syllogisms (p. 141) Review of deductive arguments –Form –Valid/Invalid –Soundness Categorical syllogisms.
Chapter 17: Missing Premises and Conclusions. Enthymemes (p. 168) An enthymeme is an argument with an unstated premise or conclusion. There are systematic.
Invitation to Critical Thinking Chapter 6
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn to recognize, analyze, and evaluate deductive arguments.
Fun with Deductive Reasoning
Syllogisms and Three Types of Hypothetical Syllogisms
Chapter 19: Living in the Real World. Introductory Remarks (p. 190) The joy and misery of ordinary English is that you can say the same thing in many.
SYLLOGISTIC REASONING PART 2 Properties and Rules PART 2 Properties and Rules.
Chapter 7 Evaluating Deductive Arguments II: Truth Functional Logic Invitation to Critical Thinking First Canadian Edition.
Chapter 6 Evaluating Deductive Arguments 1: Categorical Logic Invitation to Critical Thinking First Canadian Edition.
Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual
Invitation to Critical Thinking Chapter 7 Lecture Notes Chapter 7.
Chapter 14: Categorical Syllogisms. Elements of a Categorical Syllogism (pp ) Categorical syllogisms are deductive arguments. Categorical syllogisms.
 Induction is the process of drawing a general conclusion from incomplete evidence.  You consider evidence you have seen or heard to draw a conclusion.
Critical Thinking Lecture 10 The Syllogism By David Kelsey.
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.
Deductive Logic, Categorical Syllogism
THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
5 Categorical Syllogisms
Today’s Topics Introduction to Predicate Logic Venn Diagrams
5.1 Standard Form, Mood, and Figure
Rules and fallacies Formal fallacies.
5 Categorical Syllogisms
Philosophy 1100 Class #8 Title: Critical Reasoning
Reasoning, Logic, and Position Statements
Philosophy 1100 Title: Critical Reasoning Instructor: Paul Dickey
Logical Forms.
Chapter 6 Categorical Syllogisms
Reason and Argument Chapter 7 (2/2).
Syllogisms.
Critical Thinking Lecture 11 The Syllogism
Critical Thinking Lecture 10 The Syllogism
Presentation transcript:

your name Mediate Inference

your name Mediate Inference Commonly called as argument Has two major types: –Deduction/Deductive Arg./Syllogism Categorical Syllogism Hypothetical Syllogism

your name Mediate Inference –I–Induction Induction by complete enumeration Induction incomplete enumeration Induction by analogy

your name Categorical Syllogism is an argument which proceeds from statements concerning the relationship of two terms, to a conclusion concerning the relationship of two terms to each other. All its propositions are categorical propositions (A,E,I,O).

your name Example All poets are creative. M P Some artists are poets. S M Ergo, some artists are creative. S P

your name Ordinary language arguments No, that girl is not Leyla because she has short hair, while Leyla has long hair. Di lagi na modagan nga sakyanan kay way gasolina Where there’s smoke there’s fire; there’s no fire in the warehouse because there’s no smoke there.

your name Ordinary language arguments No, that girl is not Leyla because she has short hair, while Leyla has long hair. No person identical to Leyla is a person who has short hair. All persons identical to that girl are persons who have short hair So, no person identical to that girl is a person identical to Leyla.

your name Ordinary language arguments Di lagi na modagan nga sakyanan kay way gasolina. (The car won’t run because it has no gas) All cars without gas are cars that won’t run. All cars identical to that car are cars without gas. So, all cars identical to that car are cars that won’t run.

your name Ordinary language arguments Arguments in the ordinary language can be translated to the basic categorical or hypothetical syllogism. Syllogisms (categorical or hypothetical) are basic forms of arguments Hence, the analysis of categorical syllogism

your name Example All poets are creative. M u + Pp Some artists are poets. Sp + Mp Ergo, some artists are creative. Sp + Pp

your name Example Since most 18-year-old lads registered for the Barangay polls and all who are registered for the Barangay polls are voters, then most 18- year-old lads are voters. All who are registered for the Barangay polls are voters. Most 18-year-old lads registered for the Barangay polls. Ergo, most 18-year-old lads are voters. Mu + Pp Sp + Mp Sp + Pp

your name For Analysis No legislator has judiciary power. Thus, no senator has judiciary power because they are legislators No legislator has judiciary power. Every senator is a legislator. Thus, no senator has judiciary power. Mu – Pu Su + Mp Su – Pu

your name For Analysis Not all religious movements are Christians. Thus, some fundamentalists are Christians because some religious movements are fundamentalists. Not all religious movements are Christians. Some religious movements are fundamentalists. Thus, some fundamentalists are Christians. Mp – Pu Mp + Sp Sp + Pp

your name Rules of valid syllogism 1. There must be three and only three terms 2. The middle term must not occur in the conclusion 3. The major or minor term may not be universal in the conclusion if it is only particular in the premises 4. The middle term must be used as a universal at least once. 5. Two negative premises yield no valid conclusion

your name Rules of valid syllogism 6. If both premises are affirmative the conclusion must be affirmative 7. If one premise is negative the conclusion must be negative 8. If one premise is particular the conclusion must be particular 9. From two particular premises no valid conclusion can be draw

your name Rules of valid syllogism There must be three and only three terms possible violation: Addition: four or more terms Mandaue is next to Cebu Consolacion is next to Mandaue Ergo, Consolacion is next to Cebu Change in supposition Man begins with M. Joseph is a man. So, Joseph begins with M.

your name Rules of valid syllogism Equivocation A Pail holds water. This argument holds water. So, this argument is a pail. Rule 2. The middle term must not occur in the conclusion Misplaced middle term Rule 3. The major or minor term may not be universal in the conclusion if it is only particular in the premise

your name Rules of Valid syllogism Illicit Minor; Illicit Major Rule 4. The middle term must be used as a universal at least once. -Undistributed middle term Rule 5. Two negative premises yield no valid conclusion -Exclusive premises Rule 6. If both premises are affirmative the conclusion must be affirmative

your name Rules of Valid syllogism negative conclusion out of affirmative premises Rule 7. If one premise is negative the conclusion must be negative affirmative conclusion out of a negative premise Rule 8. If one premise is particular the conclusion must be particular -universal conclusion out of a particular premise

your name Rules of Valid syllogism Rule 9. From two particular premises no valid conclusion can be drawn particular premises