1/BASIC CONCEPTS

YolaFile-080618
FoClassDiscussionOnly/Teacher/ArmandoLTan/AssociatProfessor/
PhilosophyDepartment/SillimanUniversity
s1. LOGIC. [ Gk. logos:reason]; Copi: study of the methods and
principles used to distinguish good (correct) from bad (incorrect
arguments. Though logic may be defined in many other ways, central to any definition of logic is the study of argument.
s2. STATEMENT: any sentence that asserts/denies something and is
either true or false but not both. Commands/questions/exclamations/suggestions/proposal are not statements.
[traditional use: Proposition]
2a. Synthetic and Analytic Statement.
synthetic: factual and verifiable.
The Christians believed in the doctrine of incarnation.
The Hindus believed in the doctrine of metempsychosis.
Heraclitus: the eyes are more exact witnesses than the ears.
analytic :

reason/definition/principles of thought

square is a four equally sided plane figure.

If x is 2 and y is 3, then x+y=5.
2 plus is equal to 4.
In ordinary language the logical truth of any given statement is
understood on the basis of the meaning of words. Example of
statements which are by definition logically true/false:
All spinster are unmarried women.
Every husband is a female person.
Summary: statement is, gen.speaking, either synthetic/analytic.
Synthetic if is either true/false; analytic: either logically true
or false.
s3. ARGUMENT: a set/sequence of statements. Two parts: the premise
the statement that asserts about something; conclusion: the
statement that is claimed to follow from the premise. Ex. "it is
good to eat/drink/and be merry, for tomorrow we shall die." The
first statement is the conclusion, the second, "tomorrow we shall
die," is the premise since it provides d reason/ground for eating,
drinking/merry making.
Other examples:
a. All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. So Socrates is mortal.
b. Eternal life belongs to those who live in the present for the

reason that eternity means timelessness and the present has no

temporal dimension.
Common premise-indicators: assuming that/granting that/ for the
reason that/given that/since/whereas/because/for/inasmuch as.
Common conclusion-indicators: therefore/hence/thus/so/ we infer/
we conclude/for this reason/it follows that/consequently/accordingly.
The presence of indicators does not necessarily guarantee/imply
an argument: "glasses are breakable. So handle them with care."
Single conditional statement makes no claim, and hence not an
argument.
"If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration
but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in
the present."
Here none of the assumed categorical statements is asserted as a
premise and conclusion respectively. Hence there is no argument.
3a. The Form of the Argument. To say that the conclusion must
formally or logically follow from the stated premises is to say
that the
premises and conclusion of any argument need not be
factually true so that if an argument is valid because of its
form all argument having that same form are equally valid.
Logical analogy to the Socrates argument:
All boxers are persons of good will.
J. Venn is a boxer.
/J. Venn is a person of good will.
s4. TRUTH AND VALIDITY: statements are either true/false.
arguments are either valid/invalid. Validity is determined by form
and not by the truth value of statements. So we can have a valid
argument with entirely false
premises and conclusion:
All great philosophers are women.
All good teachers are great philosophers.
So ally good teachers are women.
On the other hand we can have an invalid argument with entirely
true premises and conclusion:
Some professors are critics of society.
Some writers are critics of society.
Hence some writers are professors.

Logical analogy:
Some men love to watch TV shows.
Some women love to watch TV shows.
Hence some women are men
Most important point to remember in this case: no argument with
true premises and a logically false conclusion can be valid.
Some samples of valid/invalid arguments with the combination of
truth values:
a. If you are studying, then you are not asleep.(true)
You are not asleep.(true)
Thus you are studying.(true)
b. All liars are spies.(false)
All lawyers are spies.(false)
So some lawyers are liars.(true)
c. Either Russell is a logician or mathematician.(true)
Russell is not a logician.(false)
Thus Russell is a mathematician.(true)
d. If Ramos won, then Cardinal Sin voted for him.(true)
Cardinal Sin did not vote for Ramos.(false)
Hence Ramos did not win.(false)
e. All feminists are teachers.(false)
No teachers are psychologists.(false)
Hence no psychologists are feminists.(false)
a and b are invalid; c, d, and e are valid.
Summary: Premises
: Conclusion : Argument
---------------------------------------------All true
: true
: valid or invalid
All true
: false
:
invalid
All false
: true
: valid or invalid
All false
: false
: valid or invalid
any truth
: true/false : valid or invalid
value
:
combination :

4a. Sound N Unsound Argument

:----- Formal Arguments -----:
:
:
Vali
Invalid
:
:
:
:
:---------:
-------:
:
unsound
soun
unsound
(at least one false premise)

s5. DEDUCTION/INDUCTION: difference is cantered on the validity

of their conclusion.
All vegetarians are religious persons.
Polmin Walkaway is a vegetarian.
So Polmin Walkaway is a religious person.
Most vegetarians are religious persons.
Polmin Walkaway is a vegetarian.
So Polmin Walkaway is a religious person.
Difference: first speaks of all vegetarians and therefore the
conclusion necessarily follows; second speaks only of most vege
tarians likely to include Mr. Walkaway, and so the conclusion
probably but not necessarily follows. This is so because the
evidence in favor of Mr. Walkaway is not conclusive.
In other
words, the probability that Mr. Walkaway is a religious person
does not, of logical necessity, dismiss the possibility that he
is not. In term of logical wisdom, it means that even if the
premises are true, the conclusion could be false.
Common distinction : deduction proceeds from general
to a particular conclusion; induction proceeds from
statement to a general conclusion.
Not
and
and
and

statements
particular

always true: 1. deductive argument with particular premises

conclusion; 2. inductive arguments with universal premises
conclusion; 3. inductive argument with particular premises
conclusion.
1. Either Wang stole or legally earned the gold.
Wang did not steal the gold.
Therefore Wang legally earned it.
2. All saints are Christians and are Catholic.
All Popes are Christians and are Catholic.
All crusaders are Christians and are Catholic.

Therefore probably all Christians are Catholic.

3. Rachmaninov is a composer and a romantic musician.
Verdi is a composer and a romantic musician.
Mozart is a composer.
Hence Mozart is probably a romantic musician.
s1/s5 EXERCISES
I. Identify the premises and conclusion for passages that contain
an argument.
1. Shaw: Any idea that has never been tried is false. Christianity
is false simply because it has never been tried.
2. Aquinas: To every existing thing God wills some good. Hence,
since to love anything is nothing else than to will good to that
thing, it is manifest that God loves everything that exists.
3. Locke:
Labor is the basis of all property. From this it
follows that a man owns what he makes by his own hands and the
man who does not labor has no rightful property.
4. Aeschylus: So Agamemnon, rather than retreat, endured to offer
up his daughter's life to help a war fought for a faithless wife
and pay the ransom for a storm-bound fleet.
5. Leibniz: And there must be simple substances, since there are
composites; for the composite is nothing else than an accumulation or aggregate of the simples.
6. Govier: There can be no such thing as the beginning of time,
because all beginnings are in time, and there would be no time in
which the beginning of time could be located.
7. Aquinas: Whoever repents of what he has done has a changeable
will. God then has a changeable will, since he said, "it repenteth me that I have made man" [Gen. 6:7]
II. Distinguish between deductive and inductive arguments.
1. If Marx had been a communist, then he would have been a Christian. But Marx was not a Christian. Therefore he was not a
communist.
2. We experience that human life is not eternal. Hence all humans
are mortal.
3. Martino Salbahe must be a moron because all those morons
we have had occasioned to talk to come from his clan.

whom

4. If nothing can happen without a cause is true, then the world

has a cause.
The world has no cause. Therefore nothing can
happen without a cause is false.
5. Arguments with false conclusion are invalid inasmuch as no
arguments with false conclusion are valid.
6. Philosophers draw conclusions from premises assumed to
true. Americans, Chinese, Filipinos and others also do. So
probably they are all philosophers.

be

7. Either the teacher is absent-minded or he is out of his mind

The teacher is not either of the two.
We conclude that we really
don not know.
-----------------------------------------------------