CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS, CHP. 8 DEDUCTIVE LOGIC VS INDUCTIVE LOGIC ONE CENTRAL PURPOSE: UNDERSTANDING CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS AS THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF.

Slides:



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

Basic Terms in Logic Michael Jhon M. Tamayao.
Deductive Arguments: Categorical Logic
Operations (Transformations) On Categorical Sentences
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.
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.
Critical Thinking Lecture 9 The Square of Opposition By David Kelsey.
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, Even further More and yet more, etc., ad infinitum, Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard.
Philosophy 1100 Today: Hand Back “Nail that Claim” Exercise! & Discuss
CS128 – Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science
EDUCTION.
Categorical Syllogisms Always have two premises Consist entirely of categorical claims May be presented with unstated premise or conclusion May be stated.
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
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, Even further More and yet more Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard.
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.
Categorical Propositions To help us make sense of our experience, we humans constantly group things into classes or categories. These classifications are.

Categorical Propositions All S is P No S is P Some S is P Some S is not P.
Deductive versus Inductive Reasoning Consider the following two passages: Argument #1 Mr. Jones is a member of the Academy of Scholarly Fellows and only.
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.
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?
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.
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
Critical Thinking Lecture 9 The Square of Opposition
Midterm Practice Famous Fallacies, TFTD, Hurley
Chapter 13: Categorical Propositions. Categorical Syllogisms (p. 141) Review of deductive arguments –Form –Valid/Invalid –Soundness Categorical syllogisms.
Practice Quiz 3 Hurley 4.3 – 4.6.
Invitation to Critical Thinking Chapter 6
Chapter 19: Living in the Real World. Introductory Remarks (p. 190) The joy and misery of ordinary English is that you can say the same thing in many.
Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual
The Traditional Square of Opposition
Midterm Practice Famous Fallacies, TFTD, Hurley
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.
Categorical Propositions, con't
Further Immediate Inferences: Categorical Equivalences
Today’s Topics Introduction to Predicate Logic Venn Diagrams
Famous Fallacies, TFTD, Hurley
Chapter 8 Logic Topics
Practice Quiz 3 Hurley
Rules and fallacies Formal fallacies.
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
4 Categorical Propositions
Categorical propositions
(1.4) An Introduction to Logic
4 Categorical Propositions
Conditional Statements
“Only,” Categorical Relationships, logical operators
5 Categorical Syllogisms
Practice Quiz 3 Hurley 4.3 – 4.6.
Presentation transcript:

CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS, CHP. 8 DEDUCTIVE LOGIC VS INDUCTIVE LOGIC ONE CENTRAL PURPOSE: UNDERSTANDING CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS AS THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS DEFINITION: A DECLARATIVE SENTENCE IN WHICH SUBJECT TERM AND PREDICATE TERM ARE RELATED AS CATEGORIES

CATEGORIES: CLASSES OF THINGS  E.G. WHALES ARE MAMMALS  S V P  SUBJECT, VERB AND PREDICATE  5 COMPONENTS OR ATTRIBUTES OF CAT. PROPS  1. SUBJECT, 2. PREDICATE, 3. COPULA, 4. QUANTITY, 5. QUALITY.

QUANTITY AND QUALITY  EACH PROPOSITION HAS…  QUANTITY: PARTICULAR OR UNIVERSAL  AND…  QUALITY: AFFIRMATIVE OR NEGATIVE  E.G. SOME WHALES ARE MAMMALS (PARTICULAR AFFIRMATIVE)  E.G. ALL WHALES ARE MAMMALS (UNIVERSAL AFFIRMATIVE)

THERE ARE 4 STANDARD CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS. THERE ARE 4 STANDARD CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS.  A: UNIVERSAL AFFIRMATIVE  E: UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE  I: PARTICULAR AFFIRMATIVE  O: PARTICULAR NEGATIVE  P.QUIZ 8.1. P. 198.

STANDARD FORM/TRANSLATING INTO STANDARD FORM  GOAL: TO PUT INTO S V P FORM AND RELATE TERMS AS CATEGORIES OF THINGS  SOME CHALLENGES:  1. SUBJECT AND PREDICATE ARE SWITCHED  E.G. “TENDER IS THE NIGHT.”  2. SUBJECT IS SPLIT IN TWO  E.G. “NO CODE HAS BEEN MADE THAT CANNOT BE BROKEN”  STANDARD FORM: NO CODE THAT CANNOT BE BROKEN IS A THING THAT HAS BEEN MADE

STANDARD FORM, CONT.  3. SINGULAR TERMS  E.G. “TOM IS A GOOD BASKETBALL PLAYER.”  “NEW YORK IS A LARGE CITY.”  4. NON-STANDARD QUANTIFIERS.  “EVERY,” “EVERYTHING,” “NOTHING,” “NONE.”  E.G. “OBJECTS HEAVIER THAN AIR MUST FALL WHEN UNSUPPORTED.”

STANDARD FORM, CONT.  SPECIAL PROBLEM: ALL S IS NOT P  E.G. ALL POLITICIANS ARE NOT CRIMINALS  RULE OF THUMB: IN MOST CASES, TRANSLATE UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE AS NO S IS P  P.QUIZ 8.2. P. 202.

CLASSICAL SQUARE OF OPPOSITION  DESCRIBES RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS  LOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS:  CONTRARIES  CONTRADICTORIES  SUBALTERNATES  SUBCONTRARIES

AKA: BASIC INFERENCES  PURPOSE: TO BECOME FAMILIAR WITH TRUTH VALUES OF PROPOSITIONS AND MAKING INFERENCES  CONTRARIES: IF A IS TRUE, E MUST BE FALSE.   IF E IS TRUE, A MUST BE FALSE  A AND E CANNOT BE TRUE AT THE SAME TIME BUT CAN BE BOTH FALSE.

LOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS, CONT.  E.G. A: ALL BREAD IS NUTRITIOUS  E: NO BREAD IS NUTRITIOUS  CONTRADICTORIES: SIMPLE: IF ANY ONE PROPOSITION IS TRUE, THE OTHER MUST BE FALSE AND VICE VERSA.  SUBALTERNATES:  SUBCONTRARIES:

LOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS, CONT.  ISSUE OF INDETERMINATE TRUTH.  P.QUIZ 8.3. P. 207.

EXISTENTIAL IMPORT AND THE MODERN SQUARE OF OPPOSITION.  A DILEMMA: NOT STRESSED TOO MUCH  THE ISSUE: SOME UNIVERSAL PROPOSITIONS ARE OF SUCH A NATURE THAT WE CANNOT DRAW THE SUBALTERNATE, OR THE PARTICULAR.  OR, PARTICULAR PROPOSITIONS, LIKE I, ENTAIL THAT THE SUBJECT OR CONCEPT IS SOMETHING EXISTING.

EXISTENTIAL SQUARE CONT.  E.G. ALL UNICORNS HAVE HORNS (A FORM)  SOME UNICORNS HAVE HORNS (I)  WHICH UNICORNS HAVE HORNS?  WHEN A PROPOSITION HAS EXISTENTIAL IMPORT:  WHEN ITS TRUTH DEPENDS UPON THE EXISTENCE OF S AND/OR P, SUBJECT OR PREDICATE.

EXISTENTIAL IMPORT CONT.  ALL PARTICULAR STATEMENTS DO HAVE EXISTENTIAL IMPORT.  BUT…  E.G. ALL STUDENTS WHO MISS THREE OR MORE CLASSES WILL FAIL THE COURSE. (A)  SOME STUDENTS WHO MISS THREE OR MORE CLASSES WILL FAIL THE COURSE. (I)  CONTRADICTORIES

DISTRIBUTION  AN ATTRIBUTE OF TERMS, NOT THE PROPOSITIONS.  THE CONCEPT: WHETHER WE KNOW THE EXTENT OF THE CLASS OR CATEGORY OR NOT.  RULE OF THUMB: IF WE KNOW THE EXTENT OF THE CLASS OR CATEGORY, POSITIVELY OR NEGATIVELY, THEN WE CAN SAY THE TERM IS DISTRIBUTED. IF NOT, IT IS UNDISTRIBUTED.

CHART ON DISTRIBUTION Proposition Type SubjectPredicate ADU EDD IUU OUD

IMMEDIATE INFERENCES. ALSO CALLED LOGICAL OPERATIONS.  THE IDEA: TAKING OUR FOUR STANDARD FORM CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS AND SUBMITTING THEM TO A VARIETY OF OPERATIONS.  ONE OF OUR PURPOSES: TO LEARN BASIC INFERENCE AND DETERMINE WHETHER THE CHANGED PROPOSITION FOLLOWS, IS TRUE OR LEGITIMATE (EQUIVALENT)

IMMEDIATE INFERENCES, CONT.  CONVERSION, THE CONVERSE.  SWITCHING SUBJECT AND PREDICATE.  E.G. SOME ENGLISHMEN ARE SCOTCH DRINKERS.  THE CONVERSE: SOME SCOTCH DRINKERS ARE ENGLISHMEN.  THIS FOLLOWS.  EQUIVALENCE AND LEGITIMACY

IMMEDIATE INFERENCES, CONT.  E PROPOSITION: NO WOMEN HAVE BEEN U.S. PRESIDENTS.  CONVERSE: NO U.S. PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN WOMEN.  FOR BOTH I AND E PROPOSITIONS, THE CONVERSE FOLLOWS.

IMMEDIATE INFERENCES, CONT.  A FORM: ALL PICKPOCKETS ARE CRIMINALS.  CONVERSE: ALL CRIMINALS ARE PICKPOCKETS.  O FORM: SOME HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT AMERICANS.  CONVERSE: SOME AMERICANS ARE NOT HUMAN BEINGS.  FOR BOTH, A AND O, CONVERSION IS NOT LEGITIMATE.  P.QUIZ, 8.6. P. 215.

IMMEDIATE INFERENCES, CONT.  OBVERSION: ALL OBVERSION IS LEGITIMATE!  BASICALLY, DRAWING THE COMPLEMENT OF THE CLASS.  2 CHANGES:  1. REPLACE THE PREDICATE TERM WITH ITS COMPLEMENT  2. CHANGE THE QUALITY OF THE PROPOSITION  SEE CHART P. 216.

IMMEDIATE INFERENCES, CONT.  COMPLEMENTS ARE NOT OPPOSITES! THEY REFER TO THE CLASS OF EVERYTHING NOT S OR NOT P.  QUIZ 8.7. P  CONTRAPOSITIVE  2 CHANGES.  SWITCHING SUBJECT AND PREDICATE (CONVERSION)  REPLACING BOTH TERMS WITH THEIR COMPLEMENTS

IMMEDIATE INFERENCES, CONT.  STRUCTURE: ALL S IS P BECOMES ALL NON-P ARE NON-S.  CONTRAPOSITIVE OF A IS ALWAYS LEGITIMATE  IS NOT LEGITIMATE FOR I OR E PROPOSITIONS.  E.G. NO PRIMATE IS AN AQUATIC ANIMAL  CONTRAPOSITIVE: NO NON-AQUATIC ANIMAL IS A NON-PRIMATE.  COWS ARE NON AQUATIC ANIMALS THAT ARE NON-PRIMATES.

IMMEDIATE INFERENCES, CONT.  EQUIVALENCE!!!  DO NOT WORRY ABOUT VENN DIAGRAMS TO TEST THIS.  OUR PURPOSES: WE USE THE OBVERSION OF THE A PROPOSITION TO CAPTURE THE A FORM IN VENN DIAGRAMS.  P. QUIZ 8.8, 220

VENN DIAGRAMS OF CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS  A:

VENN DIAGRAMS OF CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS  E:

VENN DIAGRAMS OF CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS  I:

VENN DIAGRAMS OF CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS  O: