Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
TYPE
EVALUATION
1. Deductive:
o valid/invalid (no middle ground)
o T premise, false conc are the only actual truth values that determine validity,
others don't
o Sound/unsound
o To be unsound the false premise(s) must actually be needed to support conc.
(False superfluous premises are no problem)
o Sound arg with necessarily true conc doesn't require premises to be related
2. Inductive:
o Strong/weak
o Based on uniformity of nature (future tends to replicate the past/regularities
prevail accross spatial regions
o Assuming truthfulness of premises, see if conclusion probably true by linking up
premises with regularities in experiential background AND probability of
conclusion must be based on the assumption that premises are true (if probably
true independently of premises then its weak)
o Allows for degrees of strength. Strong must he more probable than improbable
(more than 50% probability of truthfulness of conclusion) adding extra premises
may weaken or strengthen argument
o True premises and probably false conclusion are the only actual truth values that
determine strength UNLESS total evidence requirement (TER) not met.
o TER: premises must not exclude or overlook some crucial piece of evidence that
undermines the stated premises and requires a different conclusion
o Cogent is strong, all true premises and total evidence requirement met i.e. total
evidence taken into account for actual truth of premises and probability of
conclusion
**superfluous false premise wont make an originally cogent argument uncogent
COUNTER EXAMPLE
- Argument form is an arrangement of letters and words such that the uniform substitution
of words and phrases in place of the letters results in an argument
- Any substitution instance of a valid argument form is a valid argument
- Substitution instance of invalid form is an invalid argument IF it is not also a substitution
instance of a valid form or conclusion is a tautology
- Counter example method consists of isolating the form of an argument which it is relying
on and constructing a substitution instance that has true premises and a false conclusion
(useful to start with conc)
- Identify premises and conc, form words and content words, replace content words with
letter
- Only useful for deductive arguments
- For categorical syllogisms remember: cats, dogs, mammals, fish, animals
- For hypothetical syllogisms: better if substitution for conditional premise expresses
necessary relation. For conditional conclusion use true antecedent and false consequent
LANGUAGE
INFORMAL FALLACY
- Relevance: Appeal to force, pity, people (fear, bandwagon, vanity, snobbery, tradition),
accident strawman, red herring, ad hominem (direct, circumstantial, tu quoque), missing
the point
- Weak induction: hasty Generalization (converse accident), unqualified authority, false
cause (post hoc ergo proper hoc, non causa pro causa, multiple causes, gamblers fallacy),
weak analogy, appeal to ignorance, slippery slope
- Presumption (insufficient support): begging the question (shaky premise missing, shaky
premise, restated in conclusion, circular reasoning. For the latter two, conclusion is
usually presented first. Illusion of support is necessary to count as fallacy and not
redundancy. See if arguer trying to hide something) complex question, false dichotomy
(disjunction of what you want + some unacceptable proposition presented as only
alternative. Reject unacceptable proposition), suppressed evidence
- Ambiguity: equivocation (meaning of word/phrase), amphiboly (syntactical ambiguity)
- Illicit transference: composition (conclusion depends on erroneous transference of
attribute from parts of something onto the whole), division (opposite of composition).
These differ from generalization and accident based on collective vs distributive
predication. Also for these, you need general knowledge of situation and nature of
attribute
CATEGORICAL PROPS
- Relates two categories (part or all of the class denoted by subject term is included or
excluded from the class denoted by predicate term)
- Standard categorical form (quantifier, subject, copula, predicate)
- Quality, quantity for propositions. Distribution for terms
- Existential import (all or some of the things denoted by subject term of universal
categorical prop actually exist).
o Boole: Venn, modern square, immediate inferences, boolean existential fallacy.
o Aristotle: traditional square, existential fallacy (when contrary, sub contrary,
subalteration used for nonexistent things) different from "illicits". Immediate
inferences, conditional validity. Venn diagram (subject and predicate term must
be same as those of premise. Use circled x for universal premise, not conclusion)
- Conversion (Switch/ EI), Obversion (Quality, not quantity and predicate term
complement), contraposition (switch and complement/ AO) and contradictory are
unconditionally valid
- Not all cases of universal to particular fallacies are existential eg illicit contradictory
TRANSLATING TO CATEGORICAL
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS
NATURAL DEDUCTION
- PRED LOGIC
o Nothing is B: -EvBv / Av-Bv
o All B are C: Av(Bv⊃Cv) [needs existential import of A for "some B are C" to be
true]
o No B is C: Av(Bv⊃-Cv)/-Ev(Bv∧Cv)
o Some B are C: Ev(Bv∧Cv)
o Some B are not C: Ev(Bv∧-Cv)
o Not all ...: -Ax
o Equivalence between
-Ax; E-x
-Ex; A-x
-Ex-Fx; AxFx
-Ax-Fx; ExFx
Ax(Fx ∧ Gx); (AxFx ∧ AxGx)
Ex(Fx ∨ Gx); (ExFx ∨ ExGx)
(AxFx ∨ AxGx) q entails but isn't equivalent to Ax(Fx ∨ Gx)
AxEy(Dxy) isn't logically equivalent to but entails EyAx(Dxy)
o For presence of variable in just A or just B universal or existential quantification
can be extracted from both "ands" and "ors", to give equivalent wffs
o For conditionals, above rule applies if variable only in consequent, but if only in
antecedent, a universal or existential quantification in antecedent extracts into
the other. Extracting any type of quantification doesn't work if variable in both
antecedent and consequent EXCEPT: Ex(Fx ⊃ Gx); (AxFx ⊃ ExGx)
- TRANSLATIONS (see chap 29 for practice)
o When translating, don't forget assertions about names, whether an object
actually exists, and proper translation of "ands" in english
o No A (relation) every B (or emphasis "any" B)
¬Ex(Gx ∧ Ay(Fy ⊃ Lxy))
or Ax(Gx ⊃ ¬Ay(Fy ⊃ Lxy))
o No A (relation) any B
¬Ex(Gx ∧ Ey(Fy ∧ Lxy))
or Ax(Gx ⊃ ¬Ey(Fy ∧ Lxy))
or Ax(Fx ⊃ Ay(Hy ⊃ ¬Rxy)) (from chap 29: no philosophy student admires any
rotten lecturer)
o For "all A are any B" take into consideration if B exists or not (chap 29: all wise
people example)
o All A are every B, some A are every B
o If everyone loves Nerys then Owen does. (Or Anyone loves Nerys, and if anyone
loves Nerys, then Owen does) (AxLxn ⊃ Lon)
o If anyone loves Nerys then Owen does (ExLxn ⊃ Lon)
- IDENTITY
o Qualitative and strict numerical identity are both transitive, symmetric and
reflexive relations, i.e. are both equivalence relations. But strict numerical identity
is the ‘smallest’ equivalence relation – it relates an object to nothing other than
itself
o Ref: Ax x=x OR ∀xRxx OR ∀x∃yRxy
Sym: AxAy(Rxy ⊃ Ryx) OR AxAy(x=y ⊃ y=x)
Tran: AxAyAz((x=y ∧ y=z) ⊃ x = z) OR AxAyAz((Rxy ∧ Ryz) ⊃ Rxz)
Euclidean: AxAyAz((Rxy ∧ Rxz) ⊃ Ryz)
You can instantiate multiple universal quantifiers with the same names in a wff.
(Useful to close tree if there is a reflexive relation wff present anywhere)
o The Only: the general form of such statements is that a designated individual has
a stated attribute and anything having that attribute is identical to the designated
individual (if the only are >1 then join by disjunctions when expressing
equivalence to all people who have the property)
o All except: the general form of such statements is that a designated individual
lacks a stated attribute and that anything not identical to the designated
individual has the stated attribute. (If all except >1 things, then join them by
conjunctions when stating their non-equivalence to everything else)
o Superlatives: These are statements asserting that, of all the members of a class,
something is the largest, tallest, smallest, heaviest, lightest, and so on. To
translate these statements, first give the designated item the class attribute, and
then say that, if anything else has that attribute, it is somehow exceeded by the
designated item
o Definite description: an item of a certain sort exists, there is only one such item,
and that item has the attribute assigned to it by the statement. (Scope matters
here when negating a definite description)
o Only a relation b: (Lab ∧ Ax(¬x = a ⊃ ¬Lxb))
o Everyone except a relation b: Ax(¬x = a ⊃ Lxb)
o a relation everyone but b: Ax(¬x = b ⊃ Lax)
o Some predicate only relation b: Ex((Gx ∧ Lxb) ∧ Ay(Lxy ⊃ y = b))
o Whoever wrote the Iliad wrote the Odyssey: Ax(Ix ⊃ Ox)
o Whoever is a present King of France is sexy: Ax(Fx ⊃ Hx)
o Angharad loves only Bryn and Caradoc, who are different people: {((Fb ∧ Fc) ∧ ¬b
= c) ∧ Ax(Fx ⊃ (x = b ∨ x = c))}
o the tallest girl: {Gy ∧ Az((Gz ∧ ¬z = y) ⊃ Myz)}
o Existence claims involving predicative expressions and definite descriptions get
rendered into QL = using the existential quantifier. Existence claims involving
names don't e.g. Ex x=n is always true and its negation always false. This is a
problem with real names and empty names (as QL= assigns objects to all names)
- PRELIMINARIES
o When in doubt, use indirect proof
o Tautologies can be proved by conditional or indirect proof. Tautologies
expressed as equivalences are usually proved using two conditional sequences,
one after the other.
- ND RULES OF IMPLICATION
Applicable to whole line only
Note that whenever we use this strategy of working backward from the conclusion, the
rules of replacement are the only rules we may use. We may not use the rules of
implication, because these rules are one-way rules.
o Standard rules
▪ Modus ponens
▪ Modus tollens
▪ Pure hypothetical syllogism
▪ Disjunctive syllogism
▪ Constructive dilemma
▪ Simplification (& E)
▪ Conjunction
▪ Addition (or I)
OR
▪ And introduction/elimination
▪ Or introduction/elimination
▪ Conditional elimination (ponens, tollens)/ conditional intro (conditional
proof, weakening)
▪ biconditional elimination
▪ negation introduction (indirect proof)
▪ Pure hypothetical syllogism (look for diagonals)
▪ Constructive/ destructive dilemma
▪ Argument by cases
o Quant rules
▪ EI: introduce only name (do before UI). The name introduced must be a
new name that has not occurred in any previous line, including the
conclusion to be derived.
▪ UI: introduce name (old name or new name even if it doesn't appear
before) or variable depending on context (variable if intending to
universally generalize later over some part of the statement, name if
intending to match some part of universal statement to another
statement).
When UI is used to introduce variables into a proof, it is important that
these variables end up free and that they not be captured in the process
by other quantifiers
▪ EG: quantify over name or variable and replace atleast one of their
occurrences with quantifier variable. It is important that the instantial
letter be replaced by a variable that is captured by no previously
introduced quantifier and that no other variables be captured by the
newly introduced quantifier
▪ UG: quantify only over variables and replace all their occurrences with
quantifier variable.
a. In conditional and indirect proof, UG must not be used within the
scope of an indented sequence if the instantial variable y is free in
the first line of that sequence.
b. For multiple quantifiers, UG must not be used if the instantial
variable y is free in any preceding line obtained by EI.
c. It is important that the instantial letter be replaced by a variable
that is captured by no previously introduced quantifier and that no
other variables be captured by the newly introduced quantifier
For universals you can generalise and instantiate with the same variables
as given before.
When translating these statements, the point to remember is simply this:
The subject of the original statement is represented by a capital letter in
the antecedent, and the predicate by a capital letter in the consequent.
- ND RULES OF REPLACEMENT
Applicable to parts or whole even when quantifier attached
o Demorgans
o Commutativity
o Associativity
o Distribution
o Double negation (--A⋁B and -A⊃B are equivalent). See result of 8.3, 1, 16
o Transposition
o Material implication
o Material equivalence
o Exportation: [(p ^ q) ⊃ r] :: [ p ⊃ (q ⊃ r)]
o Tautology
o 4 quantifier negation rules
ANALOGY
PROPORTIONAL SYLLOGISM
- z% (<100%) of all As are Bs
x is an A
There is a z% probability that x is a B
INDUCTIVE GENERALIZATION
- Things and instances
x no of As have been observed
All or z% of observed As are B
All or z% of all As are B
Use interval, random sampling with replacement and large sample (or increase interval
which will reduce accuracy). Interval size doesn’t change much unless observed relative
frequency less than 0.1 or greater than 0.9.
INDUCTION BY CONFIRMATION
- hypothesis is a description or explanation of an object (too small, too far away), event
(too long ago) or a process (too long) that cannot be observed
- Based on data and goes beyond it (not mere description of data), though it can be
completely novel as well.
- data is information that comes from observation of the world, not simulations
- prediction should be a testable deduction that is preferably only likely true if hypothesis
is true, not otherwise. P(E|-H) must be low. Make sure it is precise enough so that you
can tell if it matches data
- data for building hypothesis and testing should be separate (though testing data can be
older data not used to build hypothesis)
- If data doesn’t match prediction then hypothesis false by Modus Tollens (given you can
rule out ambiguities in the extent to which data matches prediction; and any errors in
observation of data)
- After confirmation check for any other reasonable explanations using criteria for best
hypothesis (Hypothesis indeterminate if other explanations just as good. Hypothesis
supported if this is the best explanation)
- Sometimes prediction isn’t a deduction (which can compromise Modus Tollens) and
maybe prediction is also likely if hypothesis false. In that case, use Bayes Rule, which
can quantify degree of support hypothesis gets from E or lack of support from –E. You
can also find posterior odds of H against –H
- Procedure
o State hypothesis and its important features
o Make prediction (If … Then …). Assign probabilities to hypothesis.
o Describe data then collect
o See if match
o If doesn’t match use MT to falsify hypothesis or Bayes rule to quantify probable
falsity. If match then look for alternate explanations that provide explanations
just as good (if yes then hypothesis indeterminate, if no then use Bayes rule to
quantify evidential support for hypothesis).
o Make conclusion
NECESSARY CONDITION
A is a necessary condition for B if consequent of conditional
OR
Not -> Not
Yes <- Yes
Rest are indeterminate
SUFFICIENT CONDITION
A is a sufficient condition for B if antecedent of conditional
OR
Yes -> Yes
Not <- Not
MILLS METHODS
- Reason from phenomenon to probable cause
- Mills MoA for necessary condition: antecedent condition always present with
phenomenon, but may be present in absence of phenomenon which rules it out as
sufficient cause
- Modified Mills MoD for sufficient condition: Antecedent condition present in atleast one
case with phenomenon and absent in all cases where phenomenon is absent, but may be
absent when phenomenon is present which rules it out as necessary cause.
- Mills JMoAD for necessary and sufficient condition: One to one correspondence between
antecedent condition and phenomenon
- Mills MoR: rule out possible causes. The one that remains is the probable cause.
(probable because not all causes may be known)
- Mills MoCV: primitive correlation
- Start by looking at patterns. If you see mostly cause and effect present together, go for
MoA unless one to one correspondance (JMoAD). If you see mostly absence of cause
and effect then try MoD.
ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
- identify nature of statements
- Find conc and reasons
- Find hidden premises and separate useless stuff - Lay out pattern: vertical, horizontal
(independent), conjoint (dependent), multiple conc.
- Deductive or inductive evaluation
- Language issues + fallacies
- If argument defective, give counter example or RAA
- If you need to pick hypothesis is given time frame, try to falsify as many as possible.
From the remaining, use induction by confirmation or crucial experiment unless
predictions not possible. Pick inference to best explanation then.