Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Conclusion CHAPTER 3
The proposition in an argument that the other propositions, LANGUAGE AND ITS APPLICATION
the premises, support.
3.1 Three Basic Functions of Language
1.4 Deductive & Inductive Arguments
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Deductive Argument One of the most influential philosophers of the 20 th century
Claims to support its conclusion conclusively Rightly insisted that there are countless different kinds of
One of the two classes of argument uses of what we call „symbols,‟ „words,‟ „sentences.‟
Notes: CHAPTER 4
Effective communication often demands combinations of DEFINITION
functions.
Actions usually involve both what the actor wants and what 4.1 Disputes and Definitions
the actor believes.
Wants and beliefs are special kinds of what we have been Three Kinds of Disputes
calling “attitudes.”
Our success in causing others to act as we wish is likely to 1. Obviously genuine disputes
depend upon our ability to evoke in them the appropriate there is no ambiguity present and the disputers do
attitudes, and perhaps also provide information that affects disagree, either in attitude or belief
their relevant beliefs. 2. Merely verbal disputes
there is ambiguity present but there is no genuine
Ceremonial Use of Language disagreement at all
A mix of language functions (usually expressive and 3. Apparently verbal disputes that are really genuine
directive) with special social uses. there is ambiguity present and the disputers
E.g. greetings in social gatherings, rituals in houses of disagree, either in attitude or belief
worship, the portentous language of state documents
Criterial Dispute
Performative Utterance a form of genuine dispute that at first appears to be merely
A special form of speech that simultaneously reports on, and verbal
performs some function.
Performative verbs perform their functions only when tied in 4.2 Definitions and Their Uses
special ways to the circumstances in which they are uttered,
doing something more than combining the 3 major functions Definiendum
of language a symbol being defined
& ineffective that reliance D4: Hasty D2: Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (ad verecundiam)
upon them is a blunder. Generalizations A fallacy in which a conclusion is based on the judgment of
Fallacies of Mistakes that arise P1: Accident a supposed authority who has no legitimate claim to
Presumption because too much has P2: Complex expertise in the matter.
been assumed in the Question
premises, the inference P3: Begging the D3: False Cause (causa pro causa)
to the conclusion Question A fallacy in which something that is not really a cause, is
depending on that treated as a cause.
unwarranted assumption. o Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: “After the thing,
Fallacies of Arise from the equivocal A1: Equivocation therefore because of the thing”; a type of false cause
Ambiguity use of words or phrases A2: Amphiboly fallacy in which an event is presumed to have been
in the premises or in the A3: Accent caused by another event that came before it.
conclusion of an A4: Composition o Slippery Slope: A type of false cause fallacy in which
argument, some critical A5: Division change in a particular direction is assumed to lead
term having different inevitably to further, disastrous, change in the same
senses in different parts direction.
of the argument.
D4: Hasty Generalizations (Converse accident)
5.3 Fallacies of Relevance A fallacy in which one moves carelessly from individual
cases to generalizations
Fallacies of Relevance Also called the fallacy of converse accident because it is the
Fallacies in which the premises are irrelevant to the reverse of another common mistake, known as the fallacy
conclusion. of accident.
They might be better be called fallacies of irrelevance,
because they are the absence of any real connection between 5.5 Fallacies of Presumption
premises and conclusion.
Fallacies of Presumption
R1: Appeal to Emotion (ad populum, “to the populace”) Fallacies in which the conclusion depends on a tacit
A fallacy in which the argument relies on emotion rather than assumption that is dubious, unwarranted, or false.
on reason.
P1: Accident
R2: Appeal to Pity (ad misericordiam, “a pitying heart”) A fallacy in which a generalization is wrongly applied in a
A fallacy in which the argument relies on generosity, particular case.
altruism, or mercy, rather than on reason.
P2: Complex Question
R3: Appeal to Force (ad baculum, “to the stick”) A fallacy in which a question is asked in a way that
A fallacy in which the argument relies on the threat of force; presupposes the truth of some proposition buried within the
threat may also be veiled question.
P3: Begging the Question (petitio principii, “circular argument”)
R4: Argument Against the Person (ad hominem) A fallacy in which the conclusion is stated or assumed within
A fallacy in which the argument relies on an attack against one of the premises.
the person taking a position A petitio principii is always technically valid, but always
o Abusive: An informal fallacy in which an attack is made worthless, as well
on the character of an opponent rather than on the Every petitio is a circular argument, but the circle that has
merits of the opponents position been constructed may – if it is too large or fuzzy – go
o Circumstantial: An informal fallacy in which an attack is undetected
made on the special circumstances of an opponent
rather than on the merits of the opponent‟s position 5.6 Fallacies of Ambiguity
VALID CONVERSIONS
CHAPTER 7
Convertend Converse
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
A: All S is P. I: Some P is S (by limitation)
E: No S is P. E: No P is S.
7.1 Standard-Form Categorical Syllogism
I: Some S is P. I: Some P is S
O: Some S is not P. (conversion not valid) Syllogism
Any deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred
Complement of a Class from two premises.
The collection of all things that do not belong to that class.
Categorical Syllogism
Obversion A deductive argument consisting of 3 categorical
An inference formed by changing the quality of a proposition propositions that together contain exactly 3 terms, each of
and replacing the predicate term by its complement. which occurs in exactly 2 of the constituent propositions.
Obversion is valid for any standard-form categorical
proposition. Standard-From Categorical Syllogism
A categorical syllogism in which the premises and
OBVERSIONS conclusions are all standard-form categorical propositions
Obvertend Obverse (A, E, I or O)
A: All S is P. E: NO S is non-P Arranged with the major premise first, the minor premise
E: No S is P. A: All S is non-P. second, and the conclusion last.
I: Some S is P. O: Some S is not non-P.
O: Some S is not P. I: Some S is non-P. The Parts of a Standard-Form Categorical Syllogism
Major Term The predicate term of the conclusion.
Contraposition Minor Term The subject term of the conclusion.
An inference formed by replacing the subject term of a Middle Term The term that appears in both premises but not in
proposition with the complement of its predicate term, and the conclusion.
replacing the predicate term by the complement of its subject Major Premise The premise containing the major term. In standard
term. form, the major premise is always stated 1st.
Not all contrapositions are valid. Minor Premise The premise containing the minor term.
CONTRAPOSITION Mood
Premise Contrapositive One of the 64 3-letter characterizations of categorical
A: All S is P. A: All non-P is non-S. syllogisms determined by the forms of the standard-form
E: No S is P. O: Some non-P is not non-S. (by limitation) propositions it contains.
I: Some S is P. (Contraposition not valid) The mood of the syllogism is therefore represented by 3
O: Some S is not P. O: Some non-P is not non-S. letters, and those 3 letters are always given in the
standard-form order.
6.7 Existential Import & the Interpretation of Categorical The 1st letter names the type of that syllogism‟s major
Propositions premise; the 2nd letter names the type of that syllogism‟s
minor premise; the 3rd letter names the type of its
Boolean Interpretation conclusion.
Every syllogism has a mood.
7.2 The Formal Nature of Syllogistic Argument 7.6 Deduction of the 15 Valid forms of Categorical Syllogism
7.3 Venn Diagram Technique for Testing Syllogism Reduction to Standard Form
Reformulation of a syllogistic argument into standard for.
7.4 Syllogistic Rules and Syllogistic Fallacies
Standard-Form Translation
Syllogistic Rules and Fallacies The resulting argument when we reformulate a loosely put
Rule Associated Fallacy argument appearing in ordinary language into classical
1. Avoid four terms. Four Terms syllogism
A formal mistake in which a
categorical syllogism contains more than
3 terms. Different Ways in Which a Syllogistic Argument in Ordinary
2. Distribute the middle Undistributed Middle Language may Deviate from a Standard-Form Categorical
term in at least one A formal mistake in which a Argument:
premise. categorical syllogism contains a middle
term that is not distributed in either First Deviation
premise. The premises and conclusion of an argument in ordinary
3. Any term distributed Illicit Major language may appear in an order that is not the order of
in the conclusion must A formal mistake in which the major the standard-form syllogism
be distributed in the term of a syllogism is undistributed in Remedy: Reordering the premises: the major premise first,
premises. the major premise, but is disturbed in the minor premise second, the conclusion third.
the conclusion.
Illicit Minor Second Deviation
A formal mistake in which the minor A standard-form categorical syllogism always has exactly 3
term of a syllogism is undistributed in terms. The premises of an argument in ordinary language
the minor premise but is distributed in may appear to involve more than 3 terms – but that
the conclusion. appearance might prove deceptive.
4. Avoid 2 negative Exclusive Premises Remedy: If the number of terms can be reduced to 3 w/o
premises. A formal mistake in which both loss of meaning the reduction to standard form may be
premises of a syllogism are negative. successful.
5. If either premise is Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion
negative, the conclusion from a Negative Premise Third Deviation
must be negative. A formal mistake in which one The component propositions of the syllogistic argument in
ordinary language may not all be standard-form
premise of a syllogism is negative, but
propositions.
he conclusion is affirmative.
Remedy: If the components can be converted into
6. From 2 universal Existential Fallacy
standard-form propositions w/o loss of meaning, the
premises no particular As a formal fallacy, the mistake of
reduction to standard form may be successful.
conclusion may be inferring a particular conclusion from 2
drawn. universal premises.
8.2 Reducing the Number of Terms to Three VII. Propositions without words indicating quantity
E.g. Dog are carnivorous.
Eliminating Synonyms o Reformulated: All dogs are carnivores.
A synonym of one of the terms in the syllogism is not really a E.g. Children are present.
4th term, but only another way of referring to one of the 3 o Reformulated: Some children are beings who are
classes involved. present.
E.g. “wealthy” & “rich”
VIII. Propositions not resembling standard-form propositions
Eliminating Class Complements at all
Complement of a class is the collection of all things that do E.g. Not all children believe in Santa Claus.
not belong to that class (explained in 6.6) o Reformulated: Some children are not believes in
E.g. “mammals” & “nonmammals” Santa Claus.
E.g. There are white elephants.
8.3 Translating Categorical Propositions into Standard Form o Reformulated: Some elephants are white things.
Note: Propositions of a syllogistic argument, when not in standard IX. Exceptive Propositions, using “all except” or similar
form, may be translated into standard form so as to allow the expressions
syllogism to be tested either by Venn diagrams or by the use of rules A proposition making 2 assertions, that all members of
governing syllogisms. some class – except for members of one of its subclasses –
are members of some other class
I. Singular Proposition Translating exceptive propositions into standard form is
A proposition that asserts that a specific individual belongs somewhat complicated, because propositions of this kind
(or does not belong) to a particular class make 2 assertions rather than one
Do not affirm/deny the inclusion of one class in another, but
we can nevertheless interpret a singular proposition as a E.g. All except employees are eligible.
proposition dealing w/ classes and their interrelations E.g. All but employees are eligible.
E.g. Socrates is a philosopher. E.g. Employees alone are not eligible.
E.g. This table is not an antique.
8.4 Uniform Translation
Unit Class
o A class with only one member Parameter
An auxiliary symbol that aids in reformulating an assertion
II. Propositions having adjectives as predicates, rather than into standard form
substantive or class terms
E.g. Some flowers are beautiful. Uniform Translation
o Reformulated: Some flowers are beauties. Reducing propositions into standard-form syllogistic
E.g. No warships are available for active duty argument by using parameters or other techniques.
o Reformulated: No warships are things available for
active duty. 8.5 Enthymemes
III. Propositions having main verbs other than the copula “to Enthymeme
be” An argument containing an unstated proposition
E.g. All people seek recognition. An incompletely stated argument is characterized a being
o Reformulated: All people are seekers or recognition. enthymematic
E.g. Some people drink Greek wine.
o Reformulated: Some people are Greek-wine First-Order Enthymeme
drinkers. An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition
that is taken for granted is the major premise
IV. Statements having standard-form ingredients, but not in
standard form order Second-Order Enthymeme
E.g. Racehorses are all thoroughbreds. An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition
o Reformulated: All racehorses are thoroughbreds. that is taken for granted is the minor premise
E.g. all is well that ends well.
o Reformulated: All things that end well are things Third-Order Enthymeme
that are well. An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition
that is left unstated is the conclusion
V. Propositions having quantifiers other than “all,” “no,” and
“some” 8.6 Sorites
E.g. Every dog has its day.
o Reformulated: All dogs are creatures that have their Sorites
days. An argument in which a conclusion is inferred from any
E.g. Any contribution will be appreciated. number of premises through a chain of syllogistic inferences
o Reformulated: All contributions are things that are
appreciated. 8.7 Disjunctive and Hypothetical Syllogism
Symbols p q p q
Greatly facilitate our thinking about arguments T T T
Enable us to get to the heart of an argument, exhibiting its T F F
essential nature and putting aside what is not essential F T F
F F F
p q p q p q
q r T T T
p r T F F
F T F
p Q r p q q r p r F F T
T T T T T T
T T F T F F Biconditional Statement
T F T F T T A compound statement that asserts that its 2 component
statements imply one another and therefore are materially
T F F F T F
equivalent
F T T T T T
F T F T F T
The Four Truth-Functional Connective
F F T T T T
Truth- Symbol Proposition Names of
F F F T T T
Functional (Name of Type Components of
Connective Symbol) Propositions of
Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent that Type
A formal fallacy in which the 2 nd premise of an argument
And (dot) Conjunction Conjuncts
affirms the consequent of a conditional premise and the
Or V (wedge) Disjunction Disjuncts
conclusion of its argument affirms its antecedent
If…then (horseshoe) Conditional Antecedent,
p q
consequent
q
p If and only if (tribar) Biconditional Components
T
p ~p ~~p p ~~p
T F T T 9 RULES OF INFERENCE:
F T F T ELEMENTARY VALID ARGUMENT FORMS
NAME ABBREV. FORM
Note: This table proves that p and ~~p are logically equivalent. 1. Modus Ponens M.P. p q
p
Material equivalence: a truth-functional connective, , which may be q
true or false depending only upon the truth or falsity of the elements it 2. Modus Tollens M.T. p q
connects ~q
~p
Logical Equivalence: not a mere connective, and it expresses a 3. Hypothetical Syllogism H.S. p q
relation between 2 statements that is not truth-functional q r
Note: 2 statements are logically equivalent only when it is absolutely p r
impossible for them to have different truth values. 4. Disjunctive Syllogism D.S pvq
~p
p q pvq ~(p v q) ~p ~q ~p ~q ~(p v q) (~p ~q) q
T T T F F F F T 5. Constructive Dilemma C.D. (p q) (r s)
T F T F F T F T pvr
F T T F T F F T qvs
F F F T T T T T 6. Absorption Abs. p q
p (p q)
De Morgan’s Theorems 7. Simplification Simp. p q
Two useful logical equivalences p
o (1) The negation of the disjunction of 2 statements 8. Conjunction Conj. p
is logically equivalent to the conjunction of the q
negations of the 2 disjuncts p q
o (2) the negation of the conjunction of 2 statements 9. Addition Add. p
is logically equivalent to the disjunction of the pvq
negations of the 2 conjuncts
Principle of Noncontradiction
No statement can be both true and false RULES OF REPLACEMENT:
Every statement of the form p ~p must be false LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT EXPRESSIONS
o Every such statement is self-contradictory NAME ABBREV. FORM
10. De Morgan‟s De M.
Principle of Excluded Middle ~(p q) (~ p v ~q)
Theorem
Every statement is either true or false
Every statement of the form p v ~ p must be true ~(p v q) (~ p ~q)
Every such statement is a tautology 11. Commutation Com.
(p v q) (q v p)
CHAPTER 10 (p q) (q p)
METHODS OF DEDUCTION 12. Association Assoc.
[p v (q v r)] [(p v q) v r]
10.1 Formal Proof of Validity [p (q r)] [(p q) r]
13. Distribution Dist.
Rules of Inference [p (q v r)] [(p q) (p r)]
The rules that permit valid inferences from statements
[p v (q r)] [(p v q) (p v r)]
assumed as premises
14. Double D.N.
Negation p ~~ p
Natural Deduction
A method of providing the validity of a deductive argument 15. Transpor- Trans.
tation (p q) (~q ~p)
by using the rules of inference
Using natural deduction we can proved a formal proof of the 16. Material Imp.
Implication (p q) (~p v q)
validity of an argument that is valid
17. Material Equiv.
Equivalence (p q) [(p q) (q p)]
Formal Proof of Validity
A sequence of statements, each of which is either a premise (p q) [(p q) v (~p ~q)]
of a given argument or is deduced, suing the rules of 18. Exportation Exp.
inference, from preceding statements in that sequence, such [(p q) r] [p (q r)]
that the last statement in the sequence is the conclusion of 19. Tautology Taut.
p (p v p)
the argument whose validity is being proved
p (p p)
Elementary Valid Argument
Any one of a set of specified deductive arguments that serves
as a rule of inference & can be used to construct a formal
proof of validity
Formal Proof vs. Truth Tables Note: The reductio ad absurdum method of proof is often the most
The making of a truth table is completely mechanical efficient in testing the validity of a deductive argument
There are no mechanical rules for the construction of formal
proofs CHAPTER 11
Proving an argument valid y constructing a formal proof of its QUANTIFICATION THEORY
validity is much easier than the purely mechanical
construction of a truth table with perhaps hundreds or 11.1 The Need for Quantification
thousands of rows
Quantification
10.3 Proof of Invalidity A method of symbolizing devised to exhibit the inner logical
structure of propositions.
Invalid Arguments
For an invalid argument, there is no formal proof of invalidity 11.2 Singular Propositions
An argument is provided invalid by displaying at least one
row of its truth table in which all its premises are true but its Affirmative Singular Proposition
conclusion is false A proposition that asserts that a particular individual has
We need not examine all rows of its truth table to discover an some specified attribute
argument‟s invalidity: the discovery of a single row in which
its premises are all true and its conclusion is false will suffice Individual Constant
A symbol used in logical notation to denote an individual
10.4 Inconsistency
Individual Variable
Note: A symbol used as a place holder for an individual constant
If truth values cannot be assigned to make the premises true
and the conclusion false, then the argument must be valid Propositional Function
Any argument whose premises are inconsistent must be valid An expression that contains an individual variable and
Any argument with inconsistent premises is valid, regardless becomes a statement when an individual constant is
of what its conclusion may be substituted for the individual variable
Normal-Form Formula
A formula in which negation signs apply only to simple
predicates
Asyllogistic Arguments
Arguments containing one or more propositions more
logically complicated than the standard A, E, I or O
propositions