Chapter 6 Evaluating Deductive Arguments 1: Categorical Logic www.criticalthinking1ce.nelson.com Invitation to Critical Thinking First Canadian Edition.

Slides:



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

THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
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.
An overview Lecture prepared for MODULE-13 (Western Logic) BY- MINAKSHI PRAMANICK Guest Lecturer, Dept. Of Philosophy.
Deductive Arguments: Categorical Logic
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.
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.
Rules for Valid Syllogisms
Philosophy 1100 Today: Hand Back “Nail that Claim” Exercise! & Discuss
Syllogistic Logic 1. C Categorical Propositions 2. V Venn Diagram 3. The Square of Opposition: Tradition / Modern 4. C Conversion, Obversion, Contraposition.
Inductive and Deductive Reasoning Geometry 1.0 – Students demonstrate understanding by identifying and giving examples of inductive and deductive reasoning.
Un-rules for Good Writing 1. Don’t use no double negatives. 2. Make each pronoun agree with their antecedent. 3. Join clauses good like a conjunction should.
Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual
Patterns of Deductive Thinking
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, Even further More and yet more Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard.
Categorical Syllogisms
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.

Logic and Philosophy Alan Hausman PART ONE Sentential Logic Sentential Logic.
Chapter 10 Evaluating Premises: Self-Evidence, Consistency, Indirect Proof Invitation to Critical Thinking First Canadian.
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.
Informal Fallacies 1: Language, Relevance, Authority
Venn Diagrams and Categorical Syllogisms
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?
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.
Deductive Reasoning Rules for Valid Syllogisms. Rules for a valid categorical syllogism 1.A valid syllogism must possess three, and only three, unambiguous.
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, Even further More and yet more, ad infinitum, Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard.
MLS 570 Critical Thinking Reading Notes for Fogelin: Categorical Syllogisms We will go over diagramming Arguments in class. Fall Term 2006 North Central.
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.
LOGICAL REASONING FOR CAT 2009.
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS
Chapter 12 Informal Fallacies II: Assumptions and Induction Invitation to Critical Thinking First Canadian Edition Joel.
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 4 Argument Analysis 1 Invitation to Critical Thinking First Canadian Edition Joel Rudinow Vincent E. Barry Mark.
Diagramming Universal-Particular arguments The simplest style of nontrivial argument is called a Universal-Particular argument. Earlier in Part 2 Module.
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
Chapter 7 Evaluating Deductive Arguments II: Truth Functional Logic Invitation to Critical Thinking First Canadian Edition.
Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual
Invitation to Critical Thinking Chapter 7 Lecture Notes Chapter 7.
Critical Thinking Lecture 10 The Syllogism By David Kelsey.
Critical Thinking Lecture 8 An introduction to Categorical Logic 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.
Aristotelian Logic.
Chapter 3 Basic Logical Concepts (Please read book.)
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
5 Categorical Syllogisms
Rules and fallacies Formal fallacies.
4.1 The Components of Categorical Propositions
Philosophy 1100 Class #8 Title: Critical Reasoning
Testing for Validity and Invalidity
Philosophy 1100 Title: Critical Reasoning Instructor: Paul Dickey
Logical Forms.
Chapter 6 Categorical Syllogisms
Reason and Argument Chapter 7 (2/2).
Philosophy 1100 Class #9 Title: Critical Reasoning
8C Truth Tables, 8D, 8E Implications 8F Valid Arguments
Presentation transcript:

Chapter 6 Evaluating Deductive Arguments 1: Categorical Logic Invitation to Critical Thinking First Canadian Edition Joel Rudinow Vincent E. Barry Mark Letteri

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 6-2 Deductive Reasoning: Overview Formats  Mapping  Conventional  Casting  Valid Syllogism Deductive Validity  Invalidity  Testing for validity Categorical Logic  Statements to forms  Square of Opposition  Syllogisms  Figure and Mood  Venn Diagrams

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 6-3 Formats All Canadians are mortal. All human beings are mortal. All Canadians are human beings. Mapping +

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 6-4 Formats Mapping Conventional (1) All human beings are mortal. (2) All Canadians are human beings. ____________________ (3) All Canadians are mortal. All human beings are mortal. All Canadians are human beings. All Canadians are mortal. All human beings are mortal. All Canadians are human beings. All Canadians are mortal. +

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 6-5 Formats Mapping ConventionalCasting (1) All human beings are mortal. (2) All Canadians are human beings. ____________________ (3) All Canadians are mortal. (1) + (2) ____________ (3) All human beings are mortal. All Canadians are human beings. All Canadians are mortal. +

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 6-6 A Format for a Valid Syllogism Argument: Sentence Form Argument: Standard Form Major Premise Minor Premise Conclusion All human beings are mortal. All Canadians are human beings. All Canadians are mortal. All H’s are M’s All C’s are H’s All C’s are M’s subject term predicate term middle term

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 6-7 Deductive Validity  Three statements Two premises that lead to a conclusion (thesis) Two premises that lead to a conclusion (thesis)  Standard form always in this order: Major premise Major premise Minor premise Minor premise Conclusion Conclusion If the premises are taken to be true, then the conclusion must also be true. If the premises are taken to be true, then the conclusion must also be true.

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 6-8 Invalidity  Not all forms are valid forms Unreliable if premises do not lead to the conclusion Unreliable if premises do not lead to the conclusion Sample Invalid Format (1)All Canadians are human. (2)All Ontarians are human. (3) All Ontarians are Canadians. All C’s are B’s All O’s are B’s All O’s are C’s

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 6-9 Valid and Invalid Forms VALID All human beings are mortal. All Canadians are human beings. All Canadians are mortal. INVALID All frogs are mortal. All Canadians are mortal. All Canadians are frogs. All A are B All C are A All C are B All A are B All C are B All C are A

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 6-10 Testing for Deductive Validity Test 1: Ask, “Can I assert the premises and deny the conclusion without contradicting myself?” Test 2: Try to imagine a scenario in which the premises are all true and the conclusion is false. Test 3: Constructing counterexamples: using the same form (format or pattern) to construct an analogous set of statements that test the form for validity.

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 6-11 Translating Categorical Statements into Standard Form Some general rules 1. Begin with a quantity indicator: some, all, no. 2. Use “are” or “are not” as the verb. 3. Subject and predicate terms must be noun phrases; they each denote a category. 4. The subject term appears before the “are” or “are not” and the predicate term appears after. 5. All + not = some—use the “some” term instead of “all” + “not”. 6. Turn adjectives into nouns or noun phrases. 7. Turn verbs into nouns or noun phrases.

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 6-12 Square of Opposition AFFIRMATIVENEGATIVE A: Universal Affirmative e.g. All mothers are female. E: Universal Negative No fathers are female. I: Particular Affirmative e.g. Some women are mothers. O: Particular Negative e.g. Some women are not mothers. Total Inclusion Total Exclusion Partial Inclusion Partial exclusion

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 6-13 Mood and Figure  When the syllogism is in standard form, the “mood” of a syllogism is determined by which of the four statement types appear as the major premise, the minor premise and the conclusion.  Thus, you can represent the three statements in a syllogism using statement types from the Square of Opposition: e.g. AAA, EAE, EIO, AOO, etc.  The “figure” of each syllogism is determined by the position of the middle term.

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 6-14 Mood:A Mood:I Mood:E Mood:O AFFIRMATIVENEGATIVE A: Universal Affirmative e.g. All mothers are female. E: Universal Negative No fathers are female. I: Particular Affirmative e.g. Some women are mothers. O: Particular Negative e.g. Some women are not mothers. All human beings are mortal. All Canadians are human beings. All Canadians are mortal.

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 6-15 Mood:A Mood:I Mood:E Mood:O AFFIRMATIVENEGATIVE A: Universal Affirmative e.g. All mothers are female. E: Universal Negative No fathers are female. I: Particular Affirmative e.g. Some women are mothers. O: Particular Negative e.g. Some women are not mothers. Some fruit are oranges. Some fruit are apples. Some oranges are apples. I:

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 6-16 Mood:A Mood:I Mood:E Mood:O AFFIRMATIVENEGATIVE A: Universal Affirmative e.g. All mothers are female. E: Universal Negative No fathers are female. I: Particular Affirmative e.g. Some women are mothers. O: Particular Negative e.g. Some women are not mothers. No fruit are oranges. No fruit are apples. No oranges are apples. E:

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 6-17 Mood:A Mood:I Mood:E Mood:O AFFIRMATIVENEGATIVE A: Universal Affirmative e.g. All mothers are female. E: Universal Negative No fathers are female. I: Particular Affirmative e.g. Some women are mothers. O: Particular Negative e.g. Some women are not mothers. Some fruit are not oranges. Some fruit are not apples. Some oranges are not apples. O:

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 6-18 Figure— based on position of middle term S = subject M = middle term P = predicate 1 st figure M—P S—M S—P All human beings are mortal. All Canadians are human beings. All Canadians are mortal. subject predicate middle term 2 nd figure P—M S—M S—P 3 rd figure M—P M—S S—P 4 th figure P—M M—S S—P 1 st figure

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 6-19 Venn Diagrams System of intersecting circles  Each circle represents a category.  A shaded area is “vacant” – an area without at least one member  An X is used to indicate a “populated” area – an area with at least one member.  Using two intersecting circles and these simple symbols, we can represent any of the four standard forms of categorical statements (A, E, I, and O).

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 6-20 Venn Diagrams  All human beings are mortal.  All Canadians are human beings.  All Canadians are mortal. Valid or invalid? AM H

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 6-21 Venn Diagrams  Some mysteries are entertaining.  Some books are mysteries.  Some books are entertaining. Valid or invalid? BE M XX

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 6-22 Venn Diagrams  All mysteries are suspenseful.  Some books are not mysteries.  Some books are not suspenseful.  Valid or invalid? BS M X