Critical Thinking Lecture 9 The Square of Opposition

Slides:



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

Geometry 2.2 Big Idea: Analyze Conditional Statements
Deductive Arguments: Categorical Logic
Operations (Transformations) On Categorical Sentences
1 Philosophy 1100 Title:Critical Reasoning Instructor:Paul Dickey Website:
L41 Lecture 2: Predicates and Quantifiers.. L42 Agenda Predicates and Quantifiers –Existential Quantifier  –Universal Quantifier 
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 1100 Today: Hand Back “Nail that Claim” Exercise! & Discuss
EDUCTION.
Section 2.1 Notes Conditional Statements. Conditional Statement A type of logic statement that has two parts: a hypothesis and a conclusion We will write.
Categorical Syllogisms Always have two premises Consist entirely of categorical claims May be presented with unstated premise or conclusion May be stated.
Proving the implications of the truth functional notions  How to prove claims that are the implications of the truth functional notions  Remember that.
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.
Welcome to Interactive Chalkboard 2.3 Conditional Statements.
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.
Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications
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.
2.3 Analyze Conditional Statements. Objectives Analyze statements in if-then form. Analyze statements in if-then form. Write the converse, inverse, and.
Homework Review notes Complete Worksheet #1. Homework Let A = {a,b,c,d}, B = {a,b,c,d,e}, C = {a,d}, D = {b, c} Describe any subset relationships. 1.
Philosophy 148 Chapter 7. AffirmativeNegative UniversalA: All S are PE: No S is P ParticularI: Some S is PO: Some S is not P.
Critical Thinking Lecture 8 An introduction to Categorical Logic By David Kelsey.
Conditional Statements Conditional Statement: “If, then” format. Converse: “Flipping the Logic” –Still “if, then” format, but we switch the hypothesis.
Logic and Proofs. 2-2 Conditional Statements Conditional statements are just that – statements that contain a condition. If p then q p is the Hypothesis.
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, Even further More and yet more, ad infinitum, Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard.
Inference Logic.
Lecture Propositional Equivalences. Compound Propositions Compound propositions are made by combining existing propositions using logical operators.
AIM: WHAT IS AN INDIRECT PROOF?
Section 2.21 Indirect Proof: Uses Laws of Logic to Prove Conditional Statements True or False.
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.
MM1G2.b. Understand and use the relationships among the statement and it converse inverse and contrapositive. Destiny and Scott.
2-3 Conditional Statements- Related What are the three related conditional statements? How are the three related conditional statements made?
Critical Thinking Lecture 8 An introduction to Categorical Logic
Which is closer to the boat; the bird or the fish?
Relationships of Equivalences February Observe Relationship How two things relate to each other Mathematical A=A or ~A=~A Logically A=A, E=E,
2.1 Conditional Statements Goal 1: Recognizing Conditional Statements Goal 2: Using Point, Line, and Plane Postulates CAS 1,3.
Practice Quiz 3 Hurley 4.3 – 4.6.
Inverse, Contrapositive & indirect proofs Sections 6.2/6.3.
The Traditional Square of Opposition
Introduction to Logic Lecture 13 An Introduction to Truth Tables By David Kelsey.
Critical Thinking Lecture 10 The Syllogism By David Kelsey.
Critical Thinking Lecture 8 An introduction to Categorical Logic By David Kelsey.
If-then statements April 4, What is an if-then statement? One of the postulates we looked at earlier stated: If B is between A and C, then AB +
Law of logic Lecture 4.
Categorical Propositions Chapter 5. Deductive Argument A deductive argument is one whose premises are claimed to provide conclusive grounds for the truth.
Further Immediate Inferences: Categorical Equivalences
Today’s Topics Introduction to Predicate Logic Venn Diagrams
Practice Quiz 3 Hurley
2.1 Conditional Statements
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
4 Categorical Propositions
“Only,” Categorical Relationships, logical operators
5 Categorical Syllogisms
X X X X Logical relations among categorical propositions S P S P S P
Critical Thinking Lecture 9 Translating a Categorical Claim into Standard Form By David Kelsey.
1.3 Propositional Equivalences
Practice Quiz 3 Hurley 4.3 – 4.6.
Presentation transcript:

Critical Thinking Lecture 9 The Square of Opposition By David Kelsey

The Square of Opposition The square of opposition: represents the logical relationships that can hold between any two corresponding standard form categorical claims. For any two standard form claims to correspond to each other: A……….Contraries…………….E . .(cannot both be ____) . . . . . . . Contradictories . . (__________________) . . . . . . . . . . . . . I…………Subcontraries……….O (cannot both be _____)

Contraries & Subcontraries Corresponding A and E claims are contraries: Contraries cannot both be true. For example Corresponding I and O claims are subcontraries. Subcontraries cannot both be false. For example

Contradictory claims Contradictories: One true, the other false: Corresponding A and O claims are contradictories. And corresponding I and E claims are contradictories. One true, the other false: Never the same T-value:

Using the square Inferring truth values using the square: Using the square of opposition and given the truth value of any standard form categorical claim one can always infer the truth value of at least one of the other corresponding three standard form claims. Say the A-claim All monkeys are mammals is true. The square tells us:

What can be inferred from the square A true clam at the top of the square of opposition: given this one can infer the truth value of Given an A claim is true: And similarly for a true E claim. A false claim at the bottom of the square: from this one can infer the truth value of Given an I claim is false: And similarly for a false O claim.

What can be inferred in using the square #2 Given a false claim at the top of the square of opposition one can infer the truth value of Similarly for a true claim at the bottom of the square Say the A-claim All sharks are monkeys is false: And similarly for false E claims. And also similarly for true I or O claims.

Three Operations Conversion, Obversion & Contraposition: Conversion: 3 operations that can be performed on any standard form categorical claim. The operations help us find a new truth value for a new claim… Conversion: Finding the converse: find the converse by simply switching the positions of the subject and predicate term Example: For any E or I claim: A and O claims:

Obversion Obversion: guides one to finding the obverse of a claim. Find the obverse by: 1) changing it from affirmative to negative or vice versa Remember that while ______ claims are affirmative, _______ claims are negative. To change an A claim to negative: To change an E claim to affirmative: To change an I claim to negative: To change an O claim to affirmative: 2) replacing the predicate term with its complementary term.

Complementary terms A complementary term: Two complementary classes: refers to or picks out a complementary class of things. Two complementary classes: refers to two different classes of things which together pick out all and only the members of some universe of discourse. A universe of discourse is the group of things that a claim is about. Example:

Universe of Discourse A universe of discourse (UD): contains classes of things within it. Subsets of a UD: Example: Every subset has a complement: for every subset of a UD there is a complement to that class. Complements to subsets: all the members of the UD that aren’t members of the ___________. Complementary classes: (for some UD) pick out all and only the members of that UD. Complementary terms: refer to complementary classes.

Some examples of complementary terms Replacing a term with its complement: Non-: Is often as easy as putting ‘non-’ in front of it. Examples: But replacing a term with its complement is sometimes tougher: Example: Looking back at obversion: The second step to obversion: replace the predicate term with its complement. Example: Find the obverse of All Presbyterians are Christians. 1) Change it from Affirmative to negative: 2) Replacing the predicate term with its complement: Thus the obverse is:

Obversion recap So to find the obverse of a claim: change it from affirmative to negative or vice versa and then replace the predicate term with its complement. No fish are mammals: 1) Change it to affirmative: ______________ 2) Replace the predicate term with its complement: __________ So we get ____________ All Catholics are Christians: its obverse is Some contestants are not winners: Some citizens are voters: Logically Equivalent: for any standard form categorical claim, it and its obverse are logically equivalent. Same T-Value:

Contraposition All Mongolians are Muslims: its contrapositive is To find the contrapositive: 1) switch the places of the subject and predicate terms just as in conversion 2) replace both the subject and predicate term with their complements. All Mongolians are Muslims: its contrapositive is Some citizens are not voters: its contrapositive is A and O claims E and I claims