reviewer

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

3 views

reviewer

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- PS1solution
- your rubric oral presentation rubric american society in the 1920s group presentation rubric
- Janz, B. - Reason Inductive Inference and True Religion in Hume
- film as argument
- Andros Evaluating Essay
- EULecture7W11
- Syllogisms
- 3
- Manipulative Lesson
- 752MockNLUD2 Solutions
- Evolution facts
- ride the light.txt
- Reasoning (June 23, 2015)
- The Ritualization of Language in the Hermetica
- Bold Face Questions
- Communication Skills 2
- loglog
- ldc argumentation rubric gr 6-12
- Barca.adapt Module 3-ThesisAndRoadmap(1)
- 064 Formal Fallacies Common Valid and Invalid Argument Forms

You are on page 1of 11

Values of Compound Statements Valid, Sound, and Fallacious Arguments inference --- arguments R -> SR Deductive normative logical form/structure (independent of experience) How do premises support the conclusion? Logical necessity/logical certainty coherence Descriptive (Empirical Sciences) descriptive content (from experience) probability (warranted assertability)

correspondence

Effective -> a. valid, b. sound, c. carries conviction Sound -> a. valid, b. factually true Is it sound? Content and structure Valid -> P imply C Is it valid? structure

Fallacious -> Formal- incorrect logic Informal- fallacy of ambiguity Fallacy of relevance Non-sequitur- literally, it does not follow 4 Types of Compound Statement

1. Conjunction () and, also, however, but, although, moreover, still, yet, nevertheless P T T F F Q T F T F PQ T F F F

Negation (~: tilde) It is not the case that It is false that It is not true that

Jane and Dick will not (both) be elected; ~(JD) Jane and Dick will both are not be elected; ~J~D ~(JD) (~J~D) -Unless it rains, the ground is wet. WvR W -> R

Material 3. Implication (conditional) If P, (then) Q Q, if P -> antecedent P only if Q -> consequence In case P, Q Given that P, Q On the condition that P, Q P implies Q Provided that P, Q *only if- Q indicator --- > paradox of M.I. (material implication) */ P T T F / F / Q T / F T F P->Q T / F T / T /

A sarcastic statement: If Hitler is benevolent, then we are all monkeys. Only if (indicator of Q) 4. Biconditional () Or equivalences P if and only if Q

P is equivalent to Q P T T F F Q T F T F PQ T F F T

~(JD) F T T T T T F F T F F F T F T F T F F T

F F T T

(~J~D) F F F T F T F T

Application: Counter-factual conditional/ Wishful thinking -> daydreaming statement Like, Kung mananalo ko

Representing Arguments Truth Table Method of Proving Validity -Way of Representing Arguments

Versus

2n = 23 = 8 /2= 4 1st- 4 T 4F 2nd- 2T 2F 2T 2F 3rd- T F T F T F T F And so on *assignment of unknown- in order of appearance: from inside and from left 1. { [ ( TS ) -> ~K ] [ ~S -> ( TK ) ] } ->S {[(T K)]} -> T T T T F F F F T T F F F F F F T T F F T T F F S) S F T T T T T T T -> ~K] F T F T F T F T F T T F T T F F F F T T F F T T [ T T T F T T F F ~S T T T T F F F F T F T F F F F F -> (T T F T F T F T F T T F T T T T T T T F F T T F F

INVALID

T T T T F F F F

T T T F T T T T

T T F F T T F F

T T T F T T T F

T F T F T F T F

F F T F F F T T

F F T T F F T T

T T F T T T T T

T F T F T F T F

F T F T T T T T

F F F F T T T T

INVALID __________________________________________________ Fallacies of Relevance ---- > non-sequitur 1. Argumentum ad Hominem Circumstantial 2. Argumentum ad Baculum Appeal to force/ threat of force 3. Argumentum ad Misericondiam

Appeal to pity 4. Argumentum ad Populum Bandwagon effect 5. Argumentum ad Verecundiam Appeal to a false authority 6. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam Guilty- kabaligtaran (innocent-guilty) 7. Complex Question There are underlying assumptions that cannot be taken for granted 8. Petitio Principii Arguing in circles 9. Post hoc, ergo, propter hoc After this, therefore, because of this

10. Strawman (strawman fallacy) Your argument -> weak 11. Red herring (herring is an unusual kind of fish) gumagawa ng ibang issue para makalimutan ang issue 12. Slippery slope Gumagawa ng argument {like A BY Z} 13. False dilemma Given a choice between devil and the deep blue sea 14. False analogy

Formal Proof of Validity A. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) S -> W W -> -L S D -> -I D L v (I v C) 7) C -> B /B 8) S -> -L 1,2 HS 9) L 8,3 MP 10) I v C 6,9 DS 11) I 4,5 MP 12) C 0,11 DS 13) B 7,12 MP B. 1) -(T . U) . -(Y . V) 2) S -> [(V -> W) . (X -> Y)] 3) (T . U) v [(-S -> V) . (-S -> X)] 4) S -> (T . U) 5) (T . U) 1 simp. 6) S 4,5 MT 7) (V->W) . (X->Y) 2,6 MP 8) (-S -> V) . (-S -> X) 3,5 DS 9) S V S 6 add. 10) V v X 8,9 CD 11) W v Y 7,10 CD Other possible 9) V -> W 10) S -> V 11) V 7 simp. 8 simp. 10,6 MP

/ W v Y

12) 13) C. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

W WvY

9,11 MP 13 add.

(F . -P)-> -S F.W W -> -A A v P / -S W 2 simp. A 3,5 MP P 4.6 DS 8) F 2 simp. 9) F . P 8,7 conj. 10) S 1,9 MP D. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) (J -> R) . (-J -> E) R -> I [(J -> R) . (R -> I)] -> [(J . I) v (-J . I)] (J . I) -> T (-J . I) -> D /T v D 6) J -> R 1 simp. 7) (J -> R) . (R -> I) 6,2 conj. 8) (J .I) v (-J . I) 3,7 MP 9) [(J . I) -> T ] . [(-J . I) -> D] 4,5 conj. 10) T v D 9,8 CD Analysis of Natural Argument (Inductive Reasoning/Philosophy of Science) Important question: How do the premises support the conclusion? Induction 2 principles 1. P. of causality Causality- relation of cause and effect *All occurrences are the necessary consequences of previous events. 2. P. of the uniformity of nature- true uniformly with causality (vs. deduction)

Probability S1 S2 Warranted assertability From known (evidence) to unknown inductive leap Isolated event with another

S3 All

H -> I1, I2, I3 H Bertrand Russell- not accept- inductive leap Solipsism- I alone exist Inductivist (science and induction) Deductivist (math and logic) Paradigm shift- (Thomas Kuhn) F.L. Will (Frederick F. Will)

Past

Present

Future

Future 1- 5-10 yrs ago of confirmable future? YES Future 2- it is not empirically confirmable; it is with principle On Induction Generalization: There are two possible cases when we are making an inference form the observed to cases yet unobserved

1. Cases with a closed domain (perfect cases)- where we can define the domain or the

number of cases that we have to observe. This is where we can easily assign degrees of reliability on statements according to their inferential patterns (given 100 marbles inside a box) A. Singular Statement: A marble is white Required ecidence- 1 marble ; certain- no inductive inference B. Particular Statement: Some marbles are white

; certain

C. General Statement: : Most of the marbles are white Required Evidence- 50% plus 1 D. Universal Statement: All marbles are white. Required Evidence- 100%/ complete enumeration 30% or 30 marbles- probable 80% or 80 marbles- highly probable 99%- true beyond unreasonable doubt Alost all/ nearly all- it depends on your notion, whether the required evidence is 80% or 80 90% Please note also that in ordinary discourse, the use of few, several, or many are purposively vague terms.

e.g. How many is many? 2. Cases with an open domain (imperfect cases)- where we cannot define the number of cases that we have to observe. Most of the generalizations that we make in the real world have open domains. Thus, we cannot definitely assign degree of probability as neatly as we can with the perfect cases. But even if we cannot do this, we can still make a generalization using a universal statement all provided that the ff. two conditions are satisfied: A. The observed cases/samples must be representative of the class- But how does one determine that the sample is representative? e.g. Try to look at and criticize data from survey B. No conflicting cases has been observed- The moment that a conflicting case has been found. It is enough to render the universal statement false. Types of Generalization 1. 2. 3. 4. Universal G. G. by enumeration- from properties you want to observe Statistical g. G. by analogy

Techniques of Evaluating Arguments 1. Claiming the conclusion must be very clear. Identify the type of argument/reasoning involved. 2. Do the premises provide strong, moderate or little support to the conclusion? 3. Challenge the truth of the premises (especially those containing all. Most or almost all claims) 4. Challenge the truth of the conclusion by producing counter-examples.

Test for Reliability of a Generalization 1. Are these enough cases to support a universal statement or only a general one? 2. Are these found in a variety of times, places and circumstances? 3. Has there been conflicting cases?

- PS1solutionUploaded byColin Jennings
- your rubric oral presentation rubric american society in the 1920s group presentation rubricUploaded byapi-450506896
- Janz, B. - Reason Inductive Inference and True Religion in HumeUploaded bybbjanz
- film as argumentUploaded byWicky Garoafa
- Andros Evaluating EssayUploaded byAndros Mafra
- EULecture7W11Uploaded byshekhar.mnnit
- SyllogismsUploaded bycrazzzzzzzy
- 3Uploaded byAlex Navas Fonseca
- Manipulative LessonUploaded byAshley McMenamy
- 752MockNLUD2 SolutionsUploaded byBenjamin Ballard
- Evolution factsUploaded byjulianbre
- ride the light.txtUploaded byCainã Silva Coutinho
- Reasoning (June 23, 2015)Uploaded byyrikki
- The Ritualization of Language in the HermeticaUploaded by1unorma
- Bold Face QuestionsUploaded byteskulpen1991
- Communication Skills 2Uploaded byMaria Romelyn Montajes
- loglogUploaded bysujee
- ldc argumentation rubric gr 6-12Uploaded byapi-197098224
- Barca.adapt Module 3-ThesisAndRoadmap(1)Uploaded byAlek
- 064 Formal Fallacies Common Valid and Invalid Argument FormsUploaded bynyonie22messi
- Deductive and Inductive Grammar LearningUploaded byCarlos Ivan Noy
- Some New Implication Operations Emerging From Fuzzy LogicUploaded byRahul Sharma
- 454-Article Text-1893-1-10-20080211Uploaded bybhpliao
- 1 - Mathematical Statements.pdfUploaded byHarold André Cruz Santos
- Boole vs Aristotle (Categorical Logic)Uploaded byIndie Bot
- Ch.2+Lecture+1.pdfUploaded byDani Honeyman
- Legal Technique and Logic (2nd Reaction Paper)Uploaded byPasmadoe
- Deductive Reasoning LegTechUploaded bySteffny Lav Bee Ecate
- Types of LogicUploaded byMikee Sagada Marbacias

- AquaSox Roster 6-15-15Uploaded byRyan Divish
- Study on Dominos.docxUploaded bySudhir Singh
- mmdegUploaded byManvendra Nigam
- Ratio Analysis at Indian Rayon by Rafik Kaat1Uploaded byrashmidatta10
- Wills and Succession Course Outline and Cases (New)Uploaded byPauline Mae Araneta
- Microsoft Word - Contracts Flow Chart 1.DocUploaded bythisis50dotcom
- CSR Ajith.docxUploaded byAjith Reddy
- Asia Injury Prevention Foundation – Winning Vietnam’s Helmet WarUploaded byVuong Luu
- Philosophy-Science-Theory.Class.pptUploaded byElyk Dwi Mumpuningtias
- RA 9173Uploaded byChelsey
- Gregory Schopen - Separate but Equal: Property Rights and the Legal Independence of Buddhist Nuns and Monks in Early North IndiaUploaded byƁuddhisterie2
- jhjhkkkhUploaded byMakocegaznati
- 2008 October UNA-Tampa Bay NewsletterUploaded byUS-UNA-Florida
- Signs Sn21Uploaded byizia_2
- 2010 High Speed Rail en[1]Uploaded bySead Kurtović
- The River BetweenUploaded byVEDA PUBLICATIONS
- JA-RODUploaded bySheila G. Dolipas
- S&P Industry Surveys: Property - CasualtyUploaded bydell1888
- CFTC - Appendix A to Part 4--Guidance on the Application of Rule 4.13(a)(3) in the Fund-of-Funds ContextUploaded bySEC Compliance Consultants
- Goyanko vs UCPB 690s79Uploaded byNorma Waban
- Institute on Taxation and Economic PolicyUploaded byDean Barker
- The Holy Spirit and His GiftsUploaded bybiffbarff
- Pavani - Italian citizenship application- Found on http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.insieme.com.br%2Fimage%2Ffilasp280607.xls&ei=z3xmUuOAMNXJ4APT-oCoBA&usg=AFQjCNEzqBe9LF2qU_Klk5inGEEtOOyUVA&bvm=bv.55123115,d.dmgUploaded byCCostaTranslation
- Tan Hee JuanUploaded byChin Kuen Yei
- TED Talk ScriptUploaded byMegan Crowley
- Recipes From Ukraine and Eastern Europe by Olia HerculesUploaded byLivia Moreanu
- The Art of the Ancient Near East (Art eBook)Uploaded byBruno Toledo
- Dunlop vs. Secretary of Labor digestUploaded byKym Buena
- Implementation Project Plan TemplateUploaded byJe Geong
- Daycare ApplicationUploaded byweewolves

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.