Philosophical Reasoning Introduction to Elementary Logic I. Deduction / Induction Distinction Murali Ramachandran University of Sussex.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Reason and Argument Induction (Part of Ch. 9 and part of Ch. 10)
Advertisements

Types of Arguments Inductive Argument: An argument in which the truth of the premises is supposed to prove that the conclusion is probably true. Strong.
1 Valid and Invalid arguments. 2 Definition of Argument Sequence of statements: Statement 1; Statement 2; Therefore, Statement 3. Statements 1 and 2 are.
1.4 Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength and Cogency Goal: Learn the terms used to evaluate inductive and deductive arguments.
Today’s Outline Hume’s Problem of Induction Two Kinds of Skepticism
Chapter 1 Critical Thinking.
DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS Fundamentals of Logic Unit – 1 Chapter – 4 Fundamentals of Logic Unit – 1 Chapter – 4.
LESSON 3: PRACTICE WITH VALID/INVALID; MORE ON INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS Logic.
Other Info on Making Arguments
Deduction and Induction
This is Introductory Logic PHI 120 Get a syllabus online, if you don't already have one Presentation: "Good Arguments"
So far we have learned about:
PHIL 120: Jan 8 Basic notions of logic
BASIC CONCEPTS OF ARGUMENTS
1 Arguments in Philosophy Introduction to Philosophy.
DEDUCTIVE & INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
Basic Argumentation.
1.5 Rules of Inference.
The ubiquity of logic One common example of reasoning  If I take an umbrella, I can prevent getting wet by rain  I don’t want to get myself wet by rain.
Deduction, Induction, & Truth Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College.
Logic and Philosophy Alan Hausman PART ONE Sentential Logic Sentential Logic.
0 Validity & Invalidity (Exercises) December 23, 2005.
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.
Time 2 hr No choice 1st six week course will be for the paper (including teasers) The 1st six week outlines attached in form of slides.
FALSE PREMISE.
Deductive versus Inductive Reasoning Consider the following two passages: Argument #1 Mr. Jones is a member of the Academy of Scholarly Fellows and only.
Chapter 1 Logic Section 1-1 Statements Open your book to page 1 and read the section titled “To the Student” Now turn to page 3 where we will read the.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 5 The Ontological Argument By David Kelsey.
Deductive vs. Inductive Logic This course is about deductive logic. But it is important to know something about inductive logic.
Reasoning and Critical Thinking Validity and Soundness 1.
DEDUCTIVE REASONING MOVES FROM A GENERALIZATION THAT IS TRUE OR SELF-EVIDENT TO A MORE SPECIFIC CONCLUSION DEDUCTIVE REASONING.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 1-b What is Philosophy? (Part 2) By David Kelsey.
Chapter 3: MAKING SENSE OF ARGUMENTS
READING #4 “DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS” By Robert FitzGibbons from Making educational decisions: an introduction to Philosophy of Education (New York & London:
0 Validity & Invalidity (Exercises) All dogs have two heads. 2. All tigers are dogs. ___________________________________ 3. All tigers have two.
Critical Thinking. Critical thinkers use reasons to back up their claims. What is a claim? ◦ A claim is a statement that is either true or false. It must.
Today’s Topics Introduction to Proofs Rules of Inference Rules of Equivalence.
LECTURE 19 THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CONTINUED. THE QUANTUM MECHANICAL OBJECTION DEPENDS UPON A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION WE MIGHT REASONABLY SUSPEND.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 5 The Ontological Argument By David Kelsey.
The construction of a formal argument
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 1-b What is Philosophy? (Part 2) By David Kelsey.
Philosophy 104 Chapter 8 Notes (Part 1). Induction vs Deduction Fogelin and Sinnott-Armstrong describe the difference between induction and deduction.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 1-b What is Philosophy? (Part 2) By David Kelsey.
What is an argument? An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch, "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition." Huh? Three.
Introduction to Proofs. The use of Reasoning and Logic in proofs Inductive Reasoning- “reasoning from detailed facts to general principles” – Specific.
THE NATURE OF ARGUMENT. THE MAIN CONCERN OF LOGIC Basically in logic we deal with ARGUMENTS. Mainly we deal with learning of the principles with which.
Chapter 7: Induction.
Types of Arguments Inductive Argument: An argument in which the truth of the premises is supposed to prove that the conclusion is probably true. Strong.
a valid argument with true premises.
FALSE PREMISE.
Inductive / Deductive reasoning
Formal Versus Informal Logic
Chapter 3 Philosophy: Questions and theories
Formal Versus Informal Logic
Formal Versus Informal Logic
Introduction to Logic PHIL 240 Sections
The Ontological Argument
Deductive & Inductive Forms of Reasoning
Validity and Soundness
Arguments.
The Ontological Argument
Inductive and Deductive Logic
Logic Problems and Questions
6.4 Truth Tables for Arguments
Validity.
ID1050– Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning
Evaluating Deductive Arguments
If there is any case in which true premises lead to a false conclusion, the argument is invalid. Therefore this argument is INVALID.
If there is any case in which true premises lead to a false conclusion, the argument is invalid. Therefore this argument is INVALID.
Presentation transcript:

Philosophical Reasoning Introduction to Elementary Logic I. Deduction / Induction Distinction Murali Ramachandran University of Sussex

Definition An argument is a collection of propositions, one of whichthe conclusionis putatively supported (backed-up) by the othersthe premises.

Definitions A deductively valid argument is one where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false; i.e. is one which could not have true premises and false conclusion. When an argument is valid, we say the premises entail the conclusion.

Argument A 1) Singh and Patel went to the party. 2) The party was a success if Patel or Jones went. 3)Hence, the party was a success. Valid

Argument B 1) Vince is a nerd if Brian is. 2) Brian isnt a nerd unless he supports United. 3) Brian doesnt support United. 4)Hence, Vince is a nerd. Invalid

Propositions p and q are logically equivalent if p entails q and q entails p. So e.g. the following two statements are logically equivalent: 1) Hillary is in New York or in London. 2) If Hillary isnt in NY, she is in London, and if she isnt in London, she is in NY.

Inductive Arguments An inductively strong argument is one whose premises would provide positive support for the conclusion if they were true the premises render the conclusion more likely. An invalid argument that is not even inductively strong is called inductively weak.

Argument C 1) Kev is an animal-rights activist and Beth is a butcher. 2) So, if either is a vegetarian, Kev is. Invalid but inductively strong

Argument D 1) Malcolm is an accountant. 2) Beth was nearly bored to death by some accountants at a party once. 3) So, Beth will find Malcolm boring too. Invalid and inductively weak

Important point An argument may be (deductively) valid or inductively strong even if some (or all) of its premises are false! To say an argment is valid (or inductively strong) is to make a claim about how the premises are related to the conclusion; one is not thereby claiming the premises or conclusion to be true.

1) All vegetarians are healthy. 2) Babette is a vegetarian. 3) So, Babette is healthy. Valid argument, but premise (1) is false.

1) Most violinists are vegetarians. 2) Yehudi is a violinist. 3) So, Yehudi is a vegetarian. Inductively strong, but premise (1) false.

Difference between valid arguments and inductively strong ones Whether an argument is valid or invalid is knowable a priori; but whether an argument is inductively strong or weak often depends on background knowledge. Consider e.g. Arguments A and C; the latters strength stems from our knowledge of butchers and animal-rights activists.

Defeasibility of inductive strength Inductively strong arguments can be made weaker by adding further premises (and vice versa). Their strength is defeasible. E.g. suppose we added the premise that Beth comes from a long line of vegetarian butchers to argument C. The conclusion does not seem as compelling as before. Thus, inductive strength, unlike validity, admits of degrees.

Given our definition of validity, adding further premises to a valid argument cannot make it invalid. WHY???

1) All vegetarians are healthy. 2) Babette is a vegetarian. 3) Babette has cancer. 4) Therefore, Babette is healthy. Question: why is this still a valid argument?

1) 90% of children born in South India, have brown eyes. 2) R was born in South India. 3) Hence, it is likely that R has brown eyes. Is this a valid argument or merely inductively strong?

1) 90% of children born in South India, have brown eyes. 2) R was born in South India. 3) Most children born in Ambattur, S. India, have green eyes. 4) R was born in Ambattur. 5) Hence, it is likely that R has brown eyes.

1) Singh and Patel went to the party. (S and P) 2) The party was a success if Patel or Jones went. (Q if P or J) 3) Hence, the party was a success. (Q) Any argument with the same shape will be valid: S and P, Q if P or J; hence, Q

So, some valid arguments are valid purely in virue of their shape. They are said to have a valid logical form. Formal logic is the study of logical form and it is this we shall be concerned with for the remainder of the course, since it provides a fundamental and comparatively easy starting point.