Famous Fallacies, TFTD, Hurley

Slides:



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

Test the validity of this argument: Some lawyers are judges. Some judges are politicians. Therefore, some lawyers are politicians. A. Valid B. Invalid.
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
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.
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
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, Even further More and yet more Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard.
Categorical Propositions To help us make sense of our experience, we humans constantly group things into classes or categories. These classifications are.
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 Fallacies. Syllogism (not a fallacy) A logical argument presented in terms of two statements and a conclusion which must be true if the two statements.
Philosophy 148 Chapter 7. AffirmativeNegative UniversalA: All S are PE: No S is P ParticularI: Some S is PO: Some S is not P.
Fallacy Argument that may seem to be correct, but that proves on examination not be so. A fallacy is an error in reasoning.
McGraw-Hill©Stephen E. Lucas 2001 All rights reserved. CHAPTER SIXTEEN Methods of Persuasion.
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
Midterm Practice Famous Fallacies, TFTD, Hurley
Practice Quiz 3 Hurley 4.3 – 4.6.
Write whether the following are good or bad. List three reasons why.  Premarital sex  Drugs  Hitting someone who hit you first  Death penalty  Abortion.
Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual
The Traditional Square of Opposition
Midterm Practice Famous Fallacies, TFTD, Hurley
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.
Chapter 7. Propositional and Predicate Logic
2. The Logic of Compound Statements Summary
PHIL 151 Week 8.
Logical Fallacies.
Understanding Fallacy
COMP 1380 Discrete Structures I Thompson Rivers University
Methods of proof Section 1.6 & 1.7 Wednesday, June 20, 2018
4 The Art of Critical Reading Reading Critically Mather ▪ McCarthy
Today’s Topics Introduction to Predicate Logic Venn Diagrams
5.1 Standard Form, Mood, and Figure
The Prior Analytics theory of propositions
Persuasion Fallacies are our Friends?!?
5 Categorical Syllogisms
Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad baculum)
From Chapter 4 Philosophy: Questions and Theories
Logical Fallacies List
Recognizing & Avoiding Fallacies
Practice Quiz 3 Hurley
Rules and fallacies Formal fallacies.
Truth, Facts, Theories, Definitions Hurley 4.1 & 4.2
Famous Fallacies, TFTD, Hurley
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
Categorical propositions
More on Argument.
4 Categorical Propositions
“Only,” Categorical Relationships, logical operators
Chapter 7. Propositional and Predicate Logic
Chapter 6 Categorical Syllogisms
Brain Teaser Eskimos are very good hunters, but why they don't hunt the penguins?
COMP 1380 Discrete Structures I Thompson Rivers University
X X X X Logical relations among categorical propositions S P S P S P
LOGIC and reasoning MATH 10.
4 Categorical Propositions
Practice Quiz 3 Hurley 4.3 – 4.6.
Presentation transcript:

Famous Fallacies, TFTD, Hurley 4.1 - 4.7 Midterm Practice Famous Fallacies, TFTD, Hurley 4.1 - 4.7

For the Midterm … I will provide you with a categorical proposition, like… All cars that are not Mazdas are cars with good jingles I’ll ask you for its quality (Affirmative) qualifier (‘All’) quantity (Universal) quantifier (‘All’) copula (‘Are’) distribution (Subject, but not predicate) letter name (‘A’) terms (‘cars that are not Mazdas’=Subject … ‘cars with good jingles’=predicate)

1 How many quantifiers are there? List them… 3: ‘All’, ‘No’, and ‘Some’

2 How many qualifiers are there? List them… 4: ‘All’ for Universal Affirmative, ‘No’ for universal negative, ‘are’ for particular affirmative, ‘are not’ for particular negative.

3 Memorize distribution! All SD are P No SD are PD Some S are P Some S are not PD

4 Standard Form… Which is in standard form, and why? No Jimmy Johns subs are slathered in mustard (not this one … ‘slathered in mustard’ is an adjectival phrase, not a noun phrase … a phrase that names a class of objects) Some eyebrow tweezings are less than pain free procedures (this one … ‘less than pain-free procedures’ is a noun phrase that names a class of objects that overlaps the class of ‘eyebrow tweezings’)

5 Consider: No non-A are B (T) Contraposition Some non-A are B. (F) All A are non-B. (Und.) No non-B are A. (T) Some non-A are not B. (T) No non-B are A. (Und.)

6 Consider: All A are non-B. (F) Obversion All A are non-B. (F) All non-B are A. (Und.) No A are non-B. (Und.) No A are B. (F) Some non-A are not B. (T)

7 Consider: Some A are not non-B. (T)  All A are non-B. Contraposition (T) Contrary (F) Conversion (T) Obversion (T) Contradictory (F)

8 Consider: Some non-A are B. (F)  Some B are non-A. Subcontrary (T) Conversion (Und.) Contraposition (Und.) Conversion (F) Contraposition (F)

9 Assume Aristotle (Traditional standpoint). Consider: Some A are non-B. (F)  Some A are not non-B. (F) Illicit, contrary Illicit, subalternation Subcontrary Illicit, subcontrary Contraposition

10 No S are P. (Aristotelian standpoint) After filling in the diagram … Area 2 is shaded, and there is a circled X in area 1. Areas 1 and 3 are shaded. Area 1 is shaded, and there is a circled X in area 2. There is an X in area 2. Area 1 is shaded, and there are no other marks.

11 All S are P. (Boolean standpoint) After filling in the diagram … Areas 1 and 3 are shaded. Area 2 is shaded, and there are no other marks. Area 1 is shaded, and there is a circled X in area 2. There is an X in area 2. Area 1 is shaded, and there are no other marks.

12 Shade area 2 and place an X in area 1. Which of the following would be valid inferences: shaded area 2. an X in area 3. an X in area 1. shaded 1. no X’s or shadings.

13 Shade area 1 and place an X in area 2. Which of the following would be valid inferences: shaded area 2. an X in area 3. shaded area 1, and X in area 2. shaded 1. no X’s or shadings.

14 Assume Aristotle (Traditional standpoint). Consider: No non-A are B. (T)  Some non-A are not B. (F) Illicit, subalternation Illicit, contradictory Contradictory Illicit, subcontrary Conversion

15 Assume Boolean (Modern) standpoint. Consider: No A are B. (T)  Some A are B. (F) Existential fallacy Illicit, contradictory Contradictory Illicit, subcontrary Conversion

16 Assume Boolean (Modern) standpoint. Consider: No A are B. (T)  All A are B. (F) Existential fallacy Illicit, contrary Contradictory Illicit, subcontrary Conversion

17 Assume Aristotle (Traditional standpoint) All red sounds are rough flavors.  Some red sounds are rough flavors. Existential fallacy Valid, contradictory Valid, subcontrary Invalid, subalternation Invalid, contrary

18 Know these Famous Fallacies: No Fallacy! Ad Hominem (abusive, circumstantial, you too!) Appeal to Pity (ad misericordiam) Appeal to Force (ad baculum) Appeal to the People (ad populum) Appeal to Unqualified Authority (ad vericumdiam) Faulty Dilemma (compare to ultimatum) Composition Division Weak Analogy Hasty Generalization

19 Know these sorts of definition… Real Genus-Difference Verbal Ostensive Operational Stipulative Reportive Enumerative Etymological Synonymous

20 Know the 3 theories of truth, and their general problems…

21 “There were only 2 people in the room at the time of the murder … we can, therefore, exclude the fact that there was a large crowd in the room at that time.” Is this a correct, or incorrect use of the notion of a fact? (incorrect … facts are facts … you exclude possibilities, not facts)

22 Identify the species, genus, and difference at work in these Genus-Difference definitions… An elephant is an animal with a trunk A laptop is a computer made to sit in your lap

22 (continued) Elephant = animal trunk Laptop = computer for your lap Species Genus Difference Species Genus Difference

23 Read section 4.7 on your own. You will have 4 sentences to translate, but none of them will involve converting a single statement into 2 categorical propositions. Good luck!