Philosophy 148 Chapter 3 (part 2)

Sentences that express multiple propositions. We have noticed that some sentences express propositions. Some sentences express several propositions and connect them together. For example, note that in the sentence ‘I am wearing a blue hat and a green jacket’ two things that might or might not be the case are expressed: I am wearing a blue hat I am wearing a green jacket These two propositions are asserted together, connected by the word ‘and’.

Symbolizing propositions Just as people save time by using letters to stand for any given number in algebra, logicians use letters to stand for any given proposition. So the compound statement on the previous slide can look like this: p and q (where p stands for the proposition that I am wearing a blue hat and q stands for the proposition that I am wearing a green jacket).

Connectives There are several ways for sentences that express propositions to be connected: ‘not’ ‘and’ ‘or’ ‘if…then…’

Argument forms We can apply this procedure to whole arguments, not just statements to reveal the structure that lives behind our language. Example: If it is raining, then the ground is wet. It is raining. The ground is wet. Since the underlined sentences express propositions, they can be replaced with propositional variables like so: If p, then q p C. q

Argument forms When the content of an argument is abstracted away, and only propositional variables and connectives remain, we have an argument form, and can see the structure that lives behind our language. As it happens the structure of an argument alone determines whether the argument is valid. This is a significant insight.

Forms that are always valid There are indefinitely many valid arguments that are not of the forms below, but the forms below are always valid: Modus ponens (affirming the antecedent): If p then q p q Modus tollens (denying the consequent): Not q C. Not p

More valid forms Hypothetical Syllogism (chain argument) If p then q If q then r If p then r Disjunctive Syllogism (process of elimination) p or r Not p r

Forms that are always invalid Affirming the consequent If p then q q p Denying the antecedent Not p C. Not q

Organizing long arguments Separate the claims into a numbered list Identify the conclusion, put it on the diagram first. Draw an arrow from any claim that is intended to be support for the conclusion from that claim, to the conclusion. underline 2 claims that are meant to work together

Organizing long arguments Be as faithful to the original text as you can, but remember that sometimes authors repeat themselves in different ways, go on tangents, and bring in irrelevant information.

Example (claims that work together): (1) Bill is a student at Yale. (2) No student at Yale has won the Nobel Prize. (3) Therefore, Bill has not won the Nobel Prize. 1 + 2   3

Example (independent claims): (1) The president is soft on the environment. (2) He has weakened clean-air regulations (3) and lifted restrictions on logging in the West. 2 3 1

Example: (complex arguments) Conclusion: (3) The idea that God is required to be the enforcer of the moral law is not plausible. Premises: (4) In the first place, as an empirical hypothesis about the psychology of human beings, it is questionable. (5) There is no unambiguous evidence that theists are more moral than nontheists. (6) Not only have psychological studies failed to find a significant correlation between frequency of religious worship and moral conduct, but convicted criminals are much more likely to be theists than atheists. (7) Second, the threat of divine punishment cannot impose a moral obligation. (8) Might does not make right.