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

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Reason and Argument Chapter 7 (1/2).
Advertisements

Basic Terms in Logic Michael Jhon M. Tamayao.
Formal Criteria for Evaluating Arguments
An overview Lecture prepared for MODULE-13 (Western Logic) BY- MINAKSHI PRAMANICK Guest Lecturer, Dept. Of Philosophy.
Deductive Arguments: Categorical Logic
Categorical Logic Categorical statements
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, even further more, expanded, Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard.
Valid Arguments An argument is a sequence of propositions. All but the final proposition are called premises. The last statement is the conclusion. The.
Today’s Topics Introduction to Predicate Logic Venn Diagrams Categorical Syllogisms Venn Diagram tests for validity Rule tests for validity.
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, Even further More and yet more, etc., ad infinitum, Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard.
Philosophy 1100 Today: Hand Back “Nail that Claim” Exercise! & Discuss
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.
2.2 Conditional Statements. Goals Identify statements which are conditional Identify the antecedent and consequent of a conditional statement Negate conditional.
Categorical Syllogisms Always have two premises Consist entirely of categorical claims May be presented with unstated premise or conclusion May be stated.
Syllogistic Logic 1. C Categorical Propositions 2. V Venn Diagram 3. The Square of Opposition: Tradition / Modern 4. C Conversion, Obversion, Contraposition.
Immediate Inference Three Categorical Operations
Chapter 9 Categorical Logic w07
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual
Adapted from Discrete Math
Predicates and Quantifiers
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.
Chapter 3 Section 4 – Slide 1 Copyright © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. AND.
CSCI 115 Chapter 2 Logic. CSCI 115 §2.1 Propositions and Logical Operations.
CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS, CHP. 8 DEDUCTIVE LOGIC VS INDUCTIVE LOGIC ONE CENTRAL PURPOSE: UNDERSTANDING CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS AS THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF.
Categorical Propositions All S is P No S is P Some S is P Some S is not P.
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.
Deduction, Validity, Soundness Lecture II – 01/25/11.
1 Sections 1.5 & 3.1 Methods of Proof / Proof Strategy.
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.
Venn Diagrams and Categorical Syllogisms
Critical Thinking Lecture 8 An introduction to Categorical Logic By David Kelsey.
Barnett/Ziegler/Byleen Finite Mathematics 11e1 Chapter 7 Review Important Terms, Symbols, Concepts 7.1. Logic A proposition is a statement (not a question.
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, Even further More and yet more, ad infinitum, Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard.
Chapter 18: Conversion, Obversion, and Squares of Opposition
Strict Logical Entailments of 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 Introduction to Computational Linguistics Eleni Miltsakaki AUTH Spring 2006-Lecture 8.
Hazırlayan DISCRETE COMPUTATIONAL STRUCTURES Propositional Logic PROF. DR. YUSUF OYSAL.
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.
Chapter 2 The Logic of Quantified Statements. Section 2.1 Intro to Predicates & Quantified Statements.
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS
The construction of a formal argument
Midterm Practice Famous Fallacies, TFTD, Hurley
Chapter 13: Categorical Propositions. Categorical Syllogisms (p. 141) Review of deductive arguments –Form –Valid/Invalid –Soundness Categorical syllogisms.
Practice Quiz 3 Hurley 4.3 – 4.6.
Invitation to Critical Thinking Chapter 6
Chapter 6 Evaluating Deductive Arguments 1: Categorical Logic Invitation to Critical Thinking First Canadian Edition.
Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual
2004/9/15fuzzy set theory chap02.ppt1 Classical Logic the forms of correct reasoning - formal logic.
Introduction to Categorical Logic PHIL 121: Methods of Reasoning February 18, 2013 Instructor:Karin Howe Binghamton University.
Discrete Mathematical Structures: Theory and Applications 1 Logic: Learning Objectives  Learn about statements (propositions)  Learn how to use logical.
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.
2. The Logic of Compound Statements Summary
3. The Logic of Quantified Statements Summary
Deductive Arguments.
Today’s Topics Introduction to Predicate Logic Venn Diagrams
6.1 Symbols and Translation
Chapter 8 Logic Topics
Practice Quiz 3 Hurley
Rules and fallacies Formal fallacies.
4.1 The Components of Categorical Propositions
(1.4) An Introduction to Logic
Inference Rules: Tautologies
Chapter 6 Categorical Syllogisms
Introduction to Computational Linguistics
Practice Quiz 3 Hurley 4.3 – 4.6.
Presentation transcript:

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

Last Time : Introduction to Categorical Logic Aristotle’s Categories Leibniz, Concepts, and Identity Analytic – Synthetic Distinction Essence and Accident Necessary and Sufficient Conditions

Plan for Today Categorical Propositions – Parts and Characteristics – Conditional and Conjunctive Equivalents – Existential Import

Reminder !!!!! Thursday, September 13, :00 PM Bryant 209 Philosophy Forum Talk – “Einstein on the Role of History and Philosophy of Science in Physics” Dr. Don Howard – University of Notre Dame Extra Credit: 1 page reaction, due in 2 weeks (9/27)

Categorical Propositions Categorical Propositions relate one category (in whole or part) as indicated by the SUBJECT TERM to another category, indicated by the PREDICATE TERM (either affirmatively or negatively): All houses have roofs Some buildings are houses No eggs are shatterproof Some people are not paying attention

UNIVERSAL CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS A Categorical Proposition that makes a claim about the entire SUBJECT CLASS is called a UNIVERSAL CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION All Toys… No Fish… All Bugs… No people from Georgia…

PARTICULAR CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS A Categorical Proposition that makes a claim about one or more members of the SUBJECT CLASS is called a PARTICULAR CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION Some Eggs… Some men… Some Lithuanians…

QUANTITY All categorical propositions are either: UNIVERSAL or PARTICULAR We call this the QUANTITY of the proposition.

AFFIRMATIVE AND NEGATIVE PROPOSITIONS When a categorical proposition asserts the existence of a relationship between the Subject term and the Predicate term we say that the proposition is AFFIRMATIVE. When a categorical proposition denies the relationship between the Subject term and the Predicate term we say that the proposition is NEGATIVE

QUALITY All categorical propositions are either: AFFIRMATIVE or NEGATIVE We call this the QUALITY of the proposition.

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

Questions?

THE UNIVERSAL AFFIRMATIVE ALL S is P TYPE A If (x is S) then (x is P) Conceptual Claim

THE UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE No S is P TYPE E If (x is S) then (x is not P) Conceptual Claim

PROPOSITIONS ABOUT INDIVIDUALS In CATEGORICAL LOGIC a proper name denotes a class with one member. Socrates: the class containing Socrates Al Gore: the class of Al Gore Brad Pitt: The class containing Brad Pitt …etc… SO, a proposition like ‘Socrates is a man’ is really about the whole class Socrates, so… It is a UNIVERSAL proposition!!!

Universal Propositions 1.All Dogs are Brown 2.All Houses are residences 3.No Pigs have wings 4.No Cars are Airships 5.No Humans have quills 6.All Wisdom is not Folly 7.John Jay was the first Chief Justice

THE PARTICULAR AFFIRMATIVE Some S is P TYPE I At least one thing X is Both S and P For at least one x (x is S) and (x is P) Existential Claim

THE PARTICULAR NEGATIVE Some S is not P TYPE O At least one thing X is S and not P For at least one x (x is S) and (x is not P) Existential Claim

Particular Propositions 1.Some Cats are red. 2.Some Pigs are not Sows 3.Some lettuce is not endive. 4.Some Men are not Women 5.Some Flowers are plants. 6.Some Presidents of the United States served two terms 7.Some Ole Miss coaches used to win games.

EXISTENTIAL IMPORT ONLY a proposition with EXISTENTIAL IMPORT requires that there be an instance of the SUBJECT TERM in reality for the proposition to be true. All Dogs have 4 Legs (Conceptual – no EI) Some Fish are Red (Existential – EI)

QUANTIFIER AND QUALIFIER The Term which determines the QUANTITY of the proposition is called THE QUANTIFIER ALL – NO -- SOME The term that determines the QUALITY of the proposition is called the QUALIFIER ALL – NO – IS – IS NOT

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

COPULATION!!!! Every Categorical Proposition has a Quantity and Quality, a Subject term and a Predicate Term. There is one more part: THE COPULA All S is P No S is P Some S is P Some S is not P

Questions?

Week - Categorical Propositions Conditional and Conjunctive equivalents Existential Import Traditional Square of Opposition Modern Square of Opposition Existential Fallacy Venn Diagrams for Propositions

Week- Immediate Inferences Conversion Contraposition Obversion

Week- Syllogistic Logic Form- Mood- Figure Medieval Logic Venn Diagrams for Syllogisms (Modern)

Week - Venn Diagrams for Syllogisms (traditional) Limits of Syllogistic Logic Review of Counter-Example Method

Week - Logic of Propositions Decision Problem for Propositional Logic Symbolization and Definition Translation Basics

Week - Truth Tables for Propositions Tautology Contingency Self-Contradiction

Week - Truth Tables for Propositions II Consistency Inconsistency Equivalence

Week - Truth Table for Arguments Validity / Invalidity Soundness

Week - Indirect Truth Tables Formal Construction of Counter-Examples

Week - Logical Truths Necessity Possibility Impossibility