You are on page 1of 11

Analysis of Deductive Argument (Deductive The Subject Matter of Logic Logical Analysis of Statements Representing Compound Statements Truth

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

S1 S2 S3 All represent -> to isolate logical form P->Q P Q P-Q Q_ P

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

2. Disjunction (v) or, eitheror, unless (Q indicator) P T T F F Q T F T F PvQ T T T F

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

Neither P nor Q; ~(PvQ) Negative prefixes, like: He is impatient; ~P

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

T/F- Contingent All T- Tautology All F- Contradiction

~(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

Vertical 1. (TS) -> ~K ~S -> (TK)

Versus

Horizontal N= number of unknown 3 unknown

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

2. { [ (R -> (P v D) ] ~P ] } -> (D -> ~R) {[(R -> (P (D -> ~R) v D) ] ~P ]}->

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

Required Evidence- at least 1

; 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?