The construction of a formal argument

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Basic Terms in Logic Michael Jhon M. Tamayao.
Advertisements

Hypotheticals: The If/Then Form Hypothetical arguments are usually more obvious than categorical ones. A hypothetical argument has an “if/then” pattern.
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:
1 Section 1.5 Rules of Inference. 2 Definitions Theorem: a statement that can be shown to be true Proof: demonstration of truth of theorem –consists of.
What is an Argument? What does Monty Python have to say? A philosophical argument is not a disagreement. A philosophical argument is not a dispute. A philosophical.
Higher / Int.2 Philosophy 5. ” All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher.” Ambrose Bierce “ Those who lack the courage.
Euler’s circles Some A are not B. All B are C. Some A are not C. Algorithm = a method of solution guaranteed to give the right answer.
Deductive Validity Truth preserving: The conclusion logically follows from the premises. It is logically impossible for the premises to be true and the.
2 Basic Types of Reasoning Deductive Deductive Inductive Inductive.
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.
2 Basic Types of Reasoning Deductive Deductive Inductive Inductive.
Deductive Arguments and Inference Rules Terminology: Valid Argument: – truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion – It would be contradictory.
Intro to Logic: the tools of the trade You need to be able to: Recognize an argument when you see one (in media, articles, people’s claims). Organize arguments.
Logos Formal Logic.
This is Introductory Logic PHI 120 Get a syllabus online, if you don't already have one Presentation: "Good Arguments"
Essential Deduction Techniques of Constructing Formal Expressions and Evaluating Attempts to Create Valid Arguments.
Essential Deduction Techniques of Constructing Formal Expressions Evaluating Attempts to Create Valid Arguments.
Copyright © Peter Cappello Logical Inferences Goals for propositional logic 1.Introduce notion of a valid argument & rules of inference. 2.Use inference.
1 Arguments in Philosophy Introduction to Philosophy.
Deductive reasoning.
Basic Argumentation.
Persuasion Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific. Sometimes this is informally called a "top-down" approach. Inductive reasoning.
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.
Formal Operations and Rationality. Formal Operations Using the real vs. the possible Inductive vs. deductive reasoning –Inductive: Specific to general,
The Science of Good Reasons
Deductive Arguments.
Unit 1D Analyzing Arguments. TWO TYPES OF ARGUMENTS Inductive Deductive Arguments come in two basic types:
Logic in Everyday Life.
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.
Logic. What is logic? Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logike) is the use and study of valid reasoning. The study of logic features most prominently.
REASONING AS PROBLEM SOLVING DEDUCTIVE REASONING: –what, if any, conclusions necessarily follow? INDUCTIVE REASONING: –what is the probability that those.
Chapter 3: MAKING SENSE OF ARGUMENTS
1 DISJUNCTIVE AND HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISMS DISJUNCTIVE PROPOSITIONS: E.G EITHER WHALES ARE MAMMALS OR THEY ARE VERY LARGE FISH. DISJUNCTS: WHALES ARE MAMMALS.(P)
Philosophy: Logic and Logical arguments
Philosophical Method  Logic: A Calculus For Good Reason  Clarification, Not Obfuscation  Distinctions and Disambiguation  Examples and Counterexamples.
Deductive vs. Inductive Arguments
6.6 Argument Forms and Fallacies
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn to recognize, analyze, and evaluate deductive arguments.
CHAPTER 9 CONSTRUCTING ARGUMENTS. ARGUMENTS A form of thinking in which certain reasons are offered to support conclusion Arguments are Inferences - Decide.
Fun with Deductive Reasoning
Syllogisms and Three Types of Hypothetical Syllogisms
Deductive Reasoning. Deductive reasoning The process of logical reasoning from general principles to specific instances based on the assumed truth of.
Cognitive Processes PSY 334 Chapter 10 – Reasoning.
 Induction is the process of drawing a general conclusion from incomplete evidence.  You consider evidence you have seen or heard to draw a conclusion.
Logic: The Language of Philosophy. What is Logic? Logic is the study of argumentation o In Philosophy, there are no right or wrong opinions, but there.
What is an Argument? What does Monty Python have to say? A philosophical argument is not a disagreement. … is not a dispute. … is not a quarrel. … is not.
Deductive Reasoning. Inductive: premise offers support and evidenceInductive: premise offers support and evidence Deductive: premises offers proof that.
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.
Copyright © Peter Cappello
Deductive reasoning.
Chapter 3 Basic Logical Concepts (Please read book.)
Philosophical Arguments
What makes a Good Argument?
Deductive Arguments.
Relevance Premises are relevant to the conclusion when the truth of the premises provide some evidence that the conclusion is true Premises are irrelevant.
Philosophical Arguments
Win Every Argument Every Time
Chapter 3: Reality Assumptions
Chapter 3 Philosophy: Questions and theories
Introduction to Logic PHIL 240 Sections
The Ontological Argument
The Ontological Argument
Logical Forms.
Logical Fallacies.
8C Truth Tables, 8D, 8E Implications 8F Valid Arguments
The Persuasive Speech Ch. 24.
Evaluating Deductive Arguments
Philosophical Arguments
Presentation transcript:

The construction of a formal argument Logic The construction of a formal argument

Logic: the study of the correct rules of reasoning Reason vs. Rhetoric Propositions: declarative statements that assert a claim They are either true or false Analytic vs. Synthetic propositions (Kant) analytic: predicate adds nothing to the subject E.g. 2 + 2=4 Deductive reasoning Pure rationalism; no new information from the world Synthetic: predicate adds knowledge to subject. Conclusions come from our observation of the world E.g. “The rose is red.”

Induction Drawing conclusions from observation of particular cases Scientific method Knowledge is always a matter of probability We frame expectations of future events Arguments not “valid” in formal sense; rather, “strong” or “weak” Analogical reasoning (“if it cures cancer in mice, it should cure cancer in people”) Occam’s Razor

abduction Reasoning “to the best explanation” Seeks to add explanatory reason “Occam’s razor” Seek simplist explanation Is there a God? (utilizing abductive reasib)

Deductive reasoning {deduce: to derive a conclusion from something known) Syllogisms: formal arguments with premises and conclusions Truth preserving (as in a mathematical equation) Validity vs. soundness A valid and sound argument should always be true Categorical syllogism A) Socrates is a man B) All men are mortal C) therefore: Socrates is mortal (valid & sound argument) A) Socrates is a dolphin B) All dolphins are mortal C) Therefore: Socrates is mortal (valid but unsound)

Hypothetical Syllogism forms Modus Ponens: (affirming the antecedent) If P, then Q A) If it rains the ball game will be cancelled B) It’s raining C) the game is cancelled Modus Tallens (denying the consequent) If P, then Q; Not P; not Q B) It is not raining C) the game is not cancelled

Invalid Hypothetical forms Denying the antecedent A) if P, then Q B) not P C) therefore, not Q Example A) If Mary is a mother, she is a woman B) Mary is not a mother C) Therefore, Mary is not a woman

Invalid Hypothetical Forms Affirming the consequent A) If P, then Q B) Q C) therefore, P Example: If Mary if a mother, she is a woman Mary is a woman Therefore, she is a mother

Necessary vs. Sufficient Necessary—”A” is required for “B” result (To earn good grades one must study diligently) Sufficient—”A” is one cause of “B” result (beheading is sufficient for death) Necessary and sufficient (For the world to be made right, Jesus must return)

Logical fallacies: a lifelong pursuit