Philosophy 148 Chapter 7. AffirmativeNegative UniversalA: All S are PE: No S is P ParticularI: Some S is PO: Some S is not P.

Slides:



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

Artificial Intelligence
Venn Diagram Technique for testing syllogisms
Test the validity of this argument: Some lawyers are judges. Some judges are politicians. Therefore, some lawyers are politicians. A. Valid B. Invalid.
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.
Test the validity of this argument: Some lawyers are judges. Some judges are politicians. Therefore, some lawyers are politicians. A. Valid B. Invalid.
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)
An overview Lecture prepared for MODULE-13 (Western Logic) BY- MINAKSHI PRAMANICK Guest Lecturer, Dept. Of Philosophy.
Deductive Arguments: Categorical Logic
1 Philosophy 1100 Title:Critical Reasoning Instructor:Paul Dickey Website:
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 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
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
Chapter 16: Venn Diagrams. Venn Diagrams (pp ) Venn diagrams represent the relationships between classes of objects by way of the relationships.
Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, Even further More and yet more Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard.
Categorical Syllogisms
CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS, CHP. 8 DEDUCTIVE LOGIC VS INDUCTIVE LOGIC ONE CENTRAL PURPOSE: UNDERSTANDING CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS AS THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF.
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.
Testing Validity With Venn Diagrams
Venn Diagrams and Categorical Syllogisms
Critical Thinking Lecture 8 An introduction to Categorical Logic 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 18: Conversion, Obversion, and Squares of Opposition
Strict Logical Entailments of Categorical Propositions
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.
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS
Critical Thinking Lecture 8 An introduction to Categorical Logic
Critical Thinking Lecture 9 The Square of Opposition
Practice Quiz 3 Hurley 4.3 – 4.6.
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
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.
Chapter 6 Evaluating Deductive Arguments 1: Categorical Logic Invitation to Critical Thinking First Canadian Edition.
Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual
Chapter 14: Categorical Syllogisms. Elements of a Categorical Syllogism (pp ) Categorical syllogisms are deductive arguments. Categorical syllogisms.
Critical Thinking Lecture 8 An introduction to Categorical Logic By David Kelsey.
McGraw-Hill ©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Testing Validity With Venn Diagrams The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn.
Categorical Propositions Chapter 5. Deductive Argument A deductive argument is one whose premises are claimed to provide conclusive grounds for the truth.
Venn Diagram Technique for testing syllogisms
VENNS DIAGRAM METHOD FOR TESTING CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
Testing for Validity with Venn Diagrams
Further Immediate Inferences: Categorical Equivalences
5 Categorical Syllogisms
Venn Diagrams 1= s that are not p; 2= s that are p; 3= p that are not s S P.
Today’s Topics Introduction to Predicate Logic Venn Diagrams
5.1 Standard Form, Mood, and Figure
5 Categorical Syllogisms
Chapter 8 Logic Topics
4.1 The Components of Categorical Propositions
Categorical Propositions
Philosophy 1100 Class #8 Title: Critical Reasoning
Critical Thinking Lecture 9 The Square of Opposition
Philosophy 1100 Title: Critical Reasoning Instructor: Paul Dickey
“Only,” Categorical Relationships, logical operators
5 Categorical Syllogisms
Chapter 6 Categorical Syllogisms
Reason and Argument Chapter 7 (2/2).
Philosophy 1100 Class #9 Title: Critical Reasoning
Arguments in Sentential Logic
Critical Thinking Lecture 11 The Syllogism
3.5 Symbolic Arguments.
Practice Quiz 3 Hurley 4.3 – 4.6.
Presentation transcript:

Philosophy 148 Chapter 7

AffirmativeNegative UniversalA: All S are PE: No S is P ParticularI: Some S is PO: Some S is not P

Vocab: We say that two categorical claims are ‘corresponding claims’ if and only if they have the same subject and the same predicate. Do corresponding claims need to have the same meaning or truth value? (no)

Translation into categorical form ‘S’ will generally be short for ‘subject’ and ‘P’ will be short for ‘predicate’. S and P will both have to turn into plural noun phrases so that each circle on our diagrams will represent a class of things. Claims about individuals can be made into plural noun phrases by adding a phrase like “persons identical with” or “things identical with”, etc. Adjectival or verb phrases can be made into noun phrases by addition of phrases like “things that…”. For example, “everything green goes ‘splat’” turns into “All green things are things that go splat.”

Translation into A claims Every S is PAll of these go Any S is Pstraight into the Anyone S is Pform: All S are P Each S is P

Only the only “Only x are y” translates to “All y are x”. ‘Only’ indicates the predicate of an A claim. “x are the only y” translates to “All y are x” because ‘the only’ indicates the subject of an A claim

Contradictories It is easy to see from diagrams that E and I claims contradict one another, that is, they cannot have the same truth value at the same time. The same holds for the A and O claims.

Existential Commitment Since existential commitment doesn’t make a difference to most syllogisms (arguments constructed out of A, E, I, and O claims) we don’t have to make a decision at all in most cases. Where a decision is required, assume that people DO make existential commitments. Otherwise, our Venn diagram system will be an incomplete system.

Square of Opposition

Immediate Inferences Immediate inferences are not really arguments because they have only one premise. The purpose of evaluating inferences is to show whether or not we can get from point A to point B so to speak in a logically acceptable manner. Another way of putting it is that a valid immediate inference is where one thing follows from another. An invalid immediate inference is where one thing does not follow (Latin: non sequitur) from another.

More immediate inferences Before going on to a few types of immediate inference, here’s some vocab: – Complementary class: The class that is outside the class to which you were referring (It is easiest to just use the prefix ‘non-’ to represent the complementary class.) – Quality: Refers to whether the categorical claim is affirmative or negative.

Conversion To convert a claim, switch around its subject and predicate terms. That switched-around claim is called the converse of the original claim. (bad philosophy joke: Converse shoes are shoes made for the wrong feet.) Conversion is a valid inference for E and I claims but not for A or O claims. – Seeing everything you eat is not the same as eating everything you see.

Obversion To find the obverse of any given claim: – 1. Reverse the quality of the proposition (if it is an A, it becomes an E, if it is an I, it becomes an O, etc…) – 2. Replace the predicate with its complementary term (stick a ‘non-’ on it). Obversion is always a valid immediate inference.

Contraposition To find the Contrapositive of a claim: – 1. Convert the claim – 2. Replace both terms with their complementary terms Contraposition is valid for A and O claims, but not for E and I claims.

Syllogism A syllogism is made up entirely of categorical claims There are 2 and only 2 premises and one conclusion – Major premise: contains the predicate term – Minor premise: contains the subject term There are 3 and only 3 terms in a syllogism. – Predicate term: predicate of the conclusion – Subject term: subject of the conclusion – Middle term: term that is not in the conclusion, but is in each premise

Validity for Syllogisms Validity means the same thing it always has. IF the premises are true, then the conclusion must be. To determine if a syllogism is valid, we make a Venn Diagram with three circles and then diagram the premises. If the information given by the conclusion is represented by diagramming the premises, then the premises guarantee the conclusion, and the argument is valid.

Venn Diagram Method: 1.Draw three circles in the appropriate way 2.Label each circle in the appropriate way 3.Diagram the premises 4.If any area is the only un-shaded area of its circle, put a * in it. (existential commitment) After this, put your pen/pencil down. 5.Check if the information given by the conclusion is or is not represented on the diagram. If it is, the argument is valid, if not, the argument is not valid.

Note about the * When the * could go in one of two areas on a three-circle Venn Diagram, it must go on the line between them to indicate that the * is in one of the two areas, but that the premises do not specify which. The information that this conveys is NOT that there is a * in both areas, nor neither, but rather a single * possibly in either area. See p

Just for fun… Medieval students used to have to memorize this chart to determine the validity of syllogisms Figure 1Figure 2Figure 3Figure 4 BarbaraCesareCesareDaraptiBramantip CelarentCamestresDisamisDisamisCamenesCamenes DariiFestinoDatisiDatisiDimarisDimaris FerioBarocoBarocoFelaptonFesapoFesapo BocardoFresison FerisonFerison