Venn Diagrams and Categorical Syllogisms

Slides:



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

Basic Terms in Logic Michael Jhon M. Tamayao.
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.
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
An overview Lecture prepared for MODULE-13 (Western Logic) BY- MINAKSHI PRAMANICK Guest Lecturer, Dept. Of Philosophy.
Deductive Arguments: Categorical Logic
Categorical Logic Categorical statements
Categorical Reasoning
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.
Syllogistic Logic 1. C Categorical Propositions 2. V Venn Diagram 3. The Square of Opposition: Tradition / Modern 4. C Conversion, Obversion, Contraposition.
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 Syllogisms
Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning. Objectives Use a Venn diagram to determine the validity of an argument. Complete a pattern with the most likely possible.

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.
The Science of Good Reasons
Testing Validity With Venn Diagrams
Philosophy 148 Chapter 7. AffirmativeNegative UniversalA: All S are PE: No S is P ParticularI: Some S is PO: Some S is not P.
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.
Chapter 3: MAKING SENSE OF ARGUMENTS
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.
DEDUCTIVE VS. INDUCTIVE REASONING. Problem Solving Logic – The science of correct reasoning. Reasoning – The drawing of inferences or conclusions from.
LOGICAL REASONING FOR CAT 2009.
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS
DEDUCTIVE VS. INDUCTIVE REASONING Section 1.1. PROBLEM SOLVING Logic – The science of correct reasoning. Reasoning – The drawing of inferences or conclusions.
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 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
Fun with Deductive Reasoning
Chapter 6 Evaluating Deductive Arguments 1: Categorical Logic Invitation to Critical Thinking First Canadian Edition.
Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual
Critical Thinking Lecture 10 The Syllogism By David Kelsey.
McGraw-Hill ©2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Testing Validity With Venn Diagrams The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn.
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.
Deductive reasoning.
Testing Validity With Venn Diagrams
Deductive Logic, Categorical Syllogism
THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
5 Categorical Syllogisms
Venn Diagrams 1= s that are not p; 2= s that are p; 3= p that are not s S P.
Today’s Topics Introduction to Predicate Logic Venn Diagrams
5.1 Standard Form, Mood, and Figure
Chapter 3 Philosophy: Questions and theories
Predicate Logic Splitting the Atom.
Rules and fallacies Formal fallacies.
Geometry Review PPT Finnegan 2013
4.1 The Components of Categorical Propositions
Philosophy 1100 Class #8 Title: Critical Reasoning
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
DEDUCTIVE REASONING Forensic Science.
Philosophy 1100 Title: Critical Reasoning Instructor: Paul Dickey
4 Categorical Propositions
Logical Forms.
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING Section 1.1. Problem Solving Logic – The science of correct reasoning. Reasoning – The drawing of inferences or conclusions.
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
Chapter 6 Categorical Syllogisms
Reason and Argument Chapter 7 (2/2).
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
Presentation transcript:

Venn Diagrams and Categorical Syllogisms Unit 5

John Venn 1834 – 1923 English logician and philosopher noted for introducing the Venn diagram Used in set theory, probability, logic, statistics, and computer science

Classes of things represented in circles:

Shading means the class or set of items is empty – there are none that fit that description:

Comparing two different classes:

All are, “every” vs. No are, “none”, “nothing”

Representing subjects and predicates visually:

All S are P. Universal Categorical Statement All members of the subject class are also members of the predicate class. All sharks are predators. (The circle on the left represents sharks, the circle on the left is predators.) All apples are sweet. We’ve shaded out the area where the non-predator sharks would have been, and where the non-sweet apples would have been. This is known as an “A” statement.

No S are P. Universal Categorical Statement No members of the subject class are also members of the predicate class. No salmon are porpoises. We shaded the area where a “salmon-porpoise” would have been, because there cannot be anything existing in that area. This is known as an “E” statement.

Some S are P. Particular Categorical Statement Some members of the subject class are also members of the predicate class. Some sailors are privates. The X is placed where the sailors who are also privates would exist. This is known as the “I” statement.

Some S are not P. Particular Categorical Statement Some members of the subject class are not members of the predicate class. Some scholars are not philosophers. This is known as the “O” form statement.

A, E, I, O There are four basic categorical statement types, named A, E, I, and O. The quantity of a categorical proposition is either universal, or particular. The quality of a categorical proposition is either affirmative, or negative.

A, E, I, O and their quantity and quality A is the universal affirmative statement. E is the universal negative statement. I is the particular affirmative statement. O is the particular negative statement.

The meaning of “some” In categorical logic “some” means “at least one”, which is considered its minimal meaning. “Some” is the standard form particular quantifier. So, for example, the I statement, “Some buses used by the city are roadworthy machines”, would mean there’s at least one bus used by the city (but not necessarily any more than that one) that is a roadworthy machine.

The Square of Opposition: How the four types of categorical statements relate to each other

Practice: Which diagram goes with each of the following categorical propositions? Give the letter type, and draw the Venn diagram. 1. No Catholics are Protestants. 2. Some cats are Persians. 3. Some dogs are not hunters. 4. All Georgians are Americans. 5. No fish are bipeds.

Categorical Syllogisms Made up of three statements, giving three specific classes of things and how they relate http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/venn/tute3.php The webpage above is interactive, and shows how the three statements can be placed on a Venn Diagram made of three circles.

Imagine how to shade in: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

First shade in All men are mortal:

Now shade in: Socrates is a Man And check to see if there is a space where Socrates can be mortal as well – there is, where the X appears below: This is considered “valid” because the Venn diagram shows that the conclusion is necessarily true: there is no space left for a Socrates who is non-mortal!

Checking what is true on a Venn diagram:

Checking what is true on a Venn diagram:

Venn Diagram checker http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/venn/venn-program.php Use this link to double check how you represent statements on Venn diagrams The page immediately after it explains how to use “ticks” on a Venn diagram to check Categorical Syllogism arguments for validity

Mood (cont.) Example: All dictators are tyrants. All czars are dictators. Therefore, all czars are tyrants. The mood of this example is AAA.

A Question For You Selecting from the list below, what is the mood of this syllogism? No candidates are witnesses. Some lawyers are witnesses. So, some lawyers are not candidates. A. OIE B. IOE C. EIO D. AOI

Answer Selecting from the list below, what is the mood of this syllogism? No candidates are witnesses. Some lawyers are witnesses. So, some lawyers are not candidates. A. OIE B. IOE C. EIO (Correct) D. AOI

Figure The figure of a syllogism is determined by the position of the middle term. Example: All dictators are tyrants. All czars are dictators. Therefore, all czars are tyrants. In this example the middle term is “dictators”.

Substituting the letters for the terms (M) dictators- (P) tyrants (S) czars- (M) dictators (S) czars- (P) tyrants This gives us: M P S M S P S refers to the subject term of the conclusion. P refers to the predicate term of the conclusion. M is the middle term, it only appears in the premises.

1STfigure 2NDfigure 3rd figure 4th figure The 4 Figures: M P P M M P P M S M S M M S M S S P S P S P S P 1STfigure 2NDfigure 3rd figure 4th figure

Figures represented as a bow tie and collar on the M (middle terms)