Reason and Argument Chapter 7 (1/2).

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
-- in other words, logic is
Advertisements

Basic Terms in Logic Michael Jhon M. Tamayao.
An overview Lecture prepared for MODULE-13 (Western Logic) BY- MINAKSHI PRAMANICK Guest Lecturer, Dept. Of Philosophy.
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
Deductive Arguments: Categorical Logic
Categorical Logic Categorical statements
1 Philosophy 1100 Title:Critical Reasoning Instructor:Paul Dickey Website:
How can it be a syllogism if it doesn’t look like an A,E, I, or O statement? Translating “Ordinary” Sentences into the Standard Forms.
Today’s Topics Introduction to Predicate Logic Venn Diagrams Categorical Syllogisms Venn Diagram tests for validity Rule tests for validity.
PHIL 120: Jan 8 Basic notions of logic
Chapter 9 Categorical Logic w07
Categorical Logic l A useful type of “real world” logic commonly used for characterizing relationships l Applications in law, business contracts, natural.
Predicates and Quantifiers
Basic Argumentation.
The ubiquity of logic One common example of reasoning  If I take an umbrella, I can prevent getting wet by rain  I don’t want to get myself wet by rain.
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, Even further More and yet more Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard.
Discrete Maths Objective to introduce predicate logic (also called the predicate calculus) , Semester 2, Predicate Logic 1.
Logic and Philosophy Alan Hausman PART ONE Sentential Logic Sentential Logic.
Chapter 2 The Logic of Quantified Statements. Section 2.4 Arguments with Quantified 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.
Three Modes of Persuasion Qualitative/Quantitative September 2011 Rhetoric: Communication Techniques.
Venn Diagrams and Categorical Syllogisms
Critical Thinking Lecture 8 An introduction to Categorical Logic By David Kelsey.
Arguments with Quantified Statements M Universal Instantiation If some property is true for everything in a domain, then it is true of any particular.
Chapter Three Truth Tables 1. Computing Truth-Values We can use truth tables to determine the truth-value of any compound sentence containing one of.
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.
MLS 570 Critical Thinking Reading Notes for Fogelin: Categorical Syllogisms We will go over diagramming Arguments in class. Fall Term 2006 North Central.
1 Introduction to Computational Linguistics Eleni Miltsakaki AUTH Spring 2006-Lecture 8.
2.8 Methods of Proof PHIL 012 1/26/2001.
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS
1 Introduction to Abstract Mathematics Chapter 2: The Logic of Quantified Statements. Predicate Calculus Instructor: Hayk Melikya 2.3.
1 Introduction to Abstract Mathematics Predicate Logic Instructor: Hayk Melikya Purpose of Section: To introduce predicate logic (or.
Critical Thinking Lecture 8 An introduction to Categorical Logic
Chapter 13: Categorical Propositions. Categorical Syllogisms (p. 141) Review of deductive arguments –Form –Valid/Invalid –Soundness Categorical syllogisms.
Invitation to Critical Thinking Chapter 6
Giving good reasons. When listening to others, we cannot concentrate only on our own feelings and reactions We must listen to what they are saying.
Chapter 6 Evaluating Deductive Arguments 1: Categorical Logic Invitation to Critical Thinking First Canadian Edition.
Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual
Predicate Logic Although Propositional Logic is complete... It is still inadequate.
Critical Thinking Lecture 8 An introduction to Categorical Logic By David Kelsey.
The Art About Statements Chapter 8 “Say what you mean and mean what you say” By Alexandra Swindell Class Four Philosophical Questions.
Lecture 041 Predicate Calculus Learning outcomes Students are able to: 1. Evaluate predicate 2. Translate predicate into human language and vice versa.
2004/9/15fuzzy set theory chap02.ppt1 Classical Logic the forms of correct reasoning - formal logic.
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.
Do now Can you make sure that you have finished your Venn diagrams from last lesson. Can you name 5 famous mathematicians (including one that is still.
Truth Tables, Continued 6.3 and 6.4 March 14th. 6.3 Truth tables for propositions Remember: a truth table gives the truth value of a compound proposition.
Introduction to Philosophy Doing Philosophy: Arguments
Deductive reasoning.
Deductive Arguments.
Testing for Validity with Venn Diagrams
5 Categorical Syllogisms
Today’s Topics Introduction to Predicate Logic Venn Diagrams
Chapter 3 Philosophy: Questions and theories
Predicate Logic Splitting the Atom.
Chapter 8 Logic Topics
3 Logic The Study of What’s True or False or Somewhere in Between.
Reasoning about Reasoning
4.1 The Components of Categorical Propositions
Philosophy 1100 Class #8 Title: Critical Reasoning
Arguments.
Chapter 3 Introduction to Logic 2012 Pearson Education, Inc.
Philosophy 1100 Title: Critical Reasoning Instructor: Paul Dickey
“Only,” Categorical Relationships, logical operators
Chapter 6 Categorical Syllogisms
Predicates and Quantifiers
6.4 Truth Tables for Arguments
Phil2303 intro to logic.
Chapter 3 Introduction to Logic © 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley.
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
Presentation transcript:

Reason and Argument Chapter 7 (1/2)

A new kind of argument: All men are mortal Socrates is a Man Socrates is mortal How does one translate this into chapter 6 (propositional) logic? Well, each premise and the conclusion seem to express a different and single proposition, so:

A new kind of argument: All men are mortal Socrates is a Man Socrates is mortal p q r

Problem: But the argument form comes out invalid, when the argument itself is as clearly valid as anything! This is because the sentences in the argument contain quantifiers. This supplies us with two choices:

Predicate Logic: Socrates is a man: (x)(Sx  Mx) In this case, truth tables stop being practical and you must learn a new method of determining validity.

Aristotle’s Categorical Logic Socrates is a man: All things that are Socrates are men Arguments with sentences put into one of four categorical forms (next slide) can be evaluated just as they are with one of a couple simple methods.

Categorical Forms (there are only four ways of putting things into categories):   Affirmative Negative Universal A: All S are P E: No S is P Particular I: Some S is P O: 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 P All of these go Any S is P straight into the Anyone S is P form: 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

Square of Opposition

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.