- PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS Seventh Edition Advanced Techniques For Critical Thinking ANDRESITO E. ACUNA U. P. DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY DILIMAN, QUEZON CITY‘Copyright 2006 by ANDRESITO E. ACUNA. All righis reserved, No part of this book, especially the ‘three templaies for composing argument, composing ‘policy argument, and resolving cognitive moral dilemms, may be reproduced in any form, translated.in any language ‘by mimeographing, photocopying or recording, or used as framework or quoted as illustration in ‘misteral thesis or doctoral dissertation without permission in waiting from the author. Violation, of this copyright is @ ground for legal action, The address of the author is the UP Philosophy Department, CSSP, UP Diliman, Quezon City; the mailing address is UP, P. O. Box 97, UP. Diliman, Q.C. Philippines. if you wish to order copies ofthe book call 981-8500 loe.2130Table of Contents Preface to the Seventh Edition Preface to the Sixth Edition Introduction, To the Student Unit I : Analysis of Concepts Module 1 Module 2 Module 3 Module 4 Module 5 Module 6 Module 7 Words and Coneepts + Intension and Extension of Concepts Using the Same Lariguage + Classification of Concept + Ambiguous and Vague Terms + On Definitions + Analytic Definition Unit I : Analysis of Knowledge Claims Module 1 Module 2 Module 3 Module 4 Module 5 Module 1 Module 2 Module 3 + Analysis of Statements + Rationalism and Empiricism ‘Types of Knowledge Claim, + Theories of Truth + Your Obligation as a Critical Thinker Unit I: Analysis of Deductive Argument + The Subject Matier of Formal Deductive Logie + Representing Compound Statements + Truth Values of Compound Statements 3 4 2» 39 45 30 56 n 8 a4 90 4 9s 100 107Module 4 : Module 5 : Module 6 : Module? Representing Arguments Basie Deductive Argument Forms Complex Argument Forms + Truth Table Method Unit IV : Analysis of Natural Argument Module 1 Module2 : Module3 : Module 4 Module 5 Module 6 Module Module 8 ‘The Subject Matter of Informal Logie The Theory of Argument On Induction Generalization Fallacies—Counterfeit Argument + Theory of Appraisal for Simple Arguments £ Composing Complex Arguments Composing Policy Arguments Unit'V : Analysis of Ethical Theories Module 1: Module 2 : Module 3: Module 4 : Modiule 5": Module 6 : ‘Types of Ethical Theory, Deontological Theories Humanist Ethics Advanced Techniques for Resolving ‘Cognitive Moral Dilemmas ne 120 27 135 145 153 1682 167 1m 180 200 au 256 237 263 269 216 283 292Preface to the Seventh Edition In the middle seventies and early eighties, the criticism that the department was teaching philosophy courses that are irrelevant to the price of eggs in he market intensified to a point that dismayed many of my friends and colfeagues in the department. And what is unfortunate is that the criticism is not entirely without justification. What is more unfortunate is that we were all helpless to do aiything about it. How do you make philosophy relevant in the perception of our students is a problem that seems to have no solution. Philosophy 11 Symbolic Logie should be doing this job. But the course was subjected to the same criticism as irrelevant not only to Philosophical argumentation but also moze irrelevant to ordinary argumentations. ‘Looking back, .the root cause of the criticism can be traced {0 implementation ofthe so called BA Philosophy open curriculum—it had only 9 units of philosophy courses 2s requirement to be a Philosophy major. And any philosophy course will do, for there was neither, a required course nor any prerequisite. At the time, our BA Philosophy Curriculum had the ‘minimum requirements of only 120 units for graduation. It-was the lovvest in the disbanded College of Arts and Sciences (CAS). The showeage ofthis open curriculum is 33 units of free electives. And by fee electives, it was really ffee—PE academic courses, Music academic ‘courses will do, for so long as the course is dubbed as academic, it can be credited to the 33 units. And through the intervention of the chair, two required Philosophy subjeots, namely; Philosophy 11 and Speculative Thought were deleted from the G E Program. This decision effectively broke any contaet of the Department from the U P student body, Imegine a GEP ‘without a Philosophy course! In theory, the open curriculum was good, It would ellow for philosophy majors who are {Geniuses in physics, mathematios and the arts to use the 33 units of fee electives inthe pursuit of a moze intense study in physies or mathematics or the arts. The Department should not choke ‘their genus by confining them within the narrow parameters ofa standard curricilum However, 'm not aware if the Department has produced any such gents. '” “In practice, what did we produce? We have’ produced hundreds of philosophy majors who entered the UP College of Medicine, and UE or FEU Col of Medicine. I hope many of them stayed in the Philippines to practice their profession in the service of thé Pilipino people. In short, the BA Philosophy curriculum became a pre-med curriculum. ‘The unintended corisequences of the open, curriculum was: the Department became known as_tambakan ng mga basak these are students who were kick out ofthe various colleges in UP Diliman and would transfer to the Department by taking only 9 units of philosophy courses and would credit 33 units of théir major subjects to the free electives. . The rationale is Wala namang daw tatangap! Kawawa naman\ And so we became the social welfare Department for drop outs also. We can only speculate how many lives the department saved by accepting them, But we do.not have to speculate who are the students bad mouthing the philosophy as irrelevant. These are philosophy majors with only 9 units of philosophy courses! Ti my watch as Chair (1984-1987), the frst thing I did was revise the BA Philosophy Curriculum, by purging the 33 units of free electives. Professor Sammy Vera Cruz. headed the committee to revise the Curriculum. We became a philosophy department again for philosophy‘majors Only. Lwould like to believe that since the implementation of the revised curriculum in 1985-86, the honorific ttle of tambakan ng mga Basak would be forgotten, In addition, 1 was able to fight, in many system-wide workshops, for the inclusion of Phito { Philosophical Analysis in the 1986-87 GEP. This course was my solution 1o the problem ‘of making philosophy relevant not only to the price of eggs in the murket but also to the rest of ‘the natural lives of U P students. This course will impart almost all the skills, concepts and principles in the conceptual arsenal of the philosophers. without the substance of Philosophy. ‘And without these assortments of skills no philosopher can philosophize, Learning different approaches or types of philosophy may be easily forgotten in one or two semesters by GE students. But once the skills, concepts, and principles are internalized by the G E students, these Dunele of critical thinking skills wil be beneficial to G-E students the rest oftheir natural. lives. | would like to believe that thousarids of Philo I students from 1987 benefited fromn the course ‘the way I anticipated it, After completing Philo I the students, will be able to compose s/he own argument, shhe can criticize the argument that was conipose as a preparation for composing a colinter-argument and in addition, Philo 1 students can easily resolve any cognitive moral dilemma. “The belief that Philo’ 1'students have acquired these sophisticated critical thinking skills means something to a recently retired professor. Imagine imparting this bundle of critical thinking skills to the evolving conceptual apparatus of thousands of G E students! { know that their encounter with Philo 1 made a difference to their lives From 1986 teaching Philosophy 1 better and better became my obsession. I interacted ‘and [ hope I inspired almost all Philo 1 teachers system wide from 1986 until the GEP was replaced by the present RGEP. And I would like to believe that Philo'l teachers became better philosophers because they were teaching Philo 1. For the simple reason that teaching the skills ‘and principles of critical thinking to Philo 1 students enables the teacher 1o master the skills and principles-if s/he wants to teach Philo I well. And I know that mastering these assortment of skills makes one a more rational person—a better person. And,a better person is one who is not ‘motivated by envy, reprisal, deceit or avatice. What does it profit a philosopher if he gains all the PRD degrees and international recognitions but s/he remains an irrational person? Such a philosopher has lost his raison aéire : Almost all of my researches were devoted to improving’ the book Philosophical Analysis.” It is now on its 7* edition. It is the only G E course with a single instructional material used system wide since its full implementation’ in 1987 and the same instructional ‘materials is used in other universities eg well. And I would like to believe that Phila is the most successful G E course in the assortinent of 19 courses in the old GEP. And I would like to: believe that { have devoted the last 20 years of my academic career to something meaningful— that of improving the’ conceptual. apparatus of G E students. This belief really means something—that I did my job well—that my stay inthe department made'a difference however small. The value of a teacher isto be gauged in the numberof students he has transformed and inspired. For example, if a Philo I teacher can inspire his students to internalize the epistemic obligation of a critical thinker never to accept the truth of a statement or a belief without examining the evidence for it, this single principle alone will transform G E students into a more rational person, ‘The aim of the seventh edition of this book is to make it even more reader friendly, A ‘cursory inspection of any module page would reveal that I have synchronized thé objectives of ‘each module by adding subtitles in the display text. These subtitles represent the skill, concept and principle mentioned in the objectives of every-module page. In addition, I have ettempted to trace how each objective is represented in the self-assessment questions ia order to ensure theis internalization, _In order to ensure that Philo 1 students will be able to participate in the current discussion of policies being implemented or floated by the government | have developed a special template for composing policy argument, and how to eritcize the argument that was composed as a preparation fér composing a counter-policy argument. What better way to make Philo 1 students feel relevant tothe current controversies éonfronting the country than providing ‘them with the cognitive skils to analyze and criticize policy proposals. hope that this isnot zy last experiment'in Philo 1. Five simulations were developed in the Module 8 of Unit IV: ‘Analysis of Natural Argument. These'simulations are: Two-Child Policy, Total Logging Ban, , Legalize Same-Sex Marriage, Cepital Punishment and Legalization of jueteng. Tm sure that these five simulations will ensufe the intemaliztion ofthe steps in the template for composing policy argument. Thave also deleted some modules in order to make the flow of instructional units from ‘module to modulé smoother. In.Unit I: Analysis of Concepts, I have deleted two modules. ‘These are: Module 2: The Problem of Meaning and Module 3: Wutgenstein's Theory of ‘Meaning. in Unit Ii: Analysis of Knowledge Claims, l deleted Module 4: Nature of Evaluative Judgment. And in Unit IV I deleted Module 5: Hypothesis Testing. Unit I: Analysis of Deductive Argument and Unit V: Analysis of Ethical Theories, except for addition of sub-ttes in the Display Text, remains unaltered, My attempt to merge fully with the intemational movement of informal logic and the philosophical analysis movement the Philippines was interrupted by my retirement from the University last March 15, 2006. ‘I hope that the intellectual adventure that started in 1986 will ‘not come to an abrupt end. Without Philo 1 students to inspire me, new researches and developments will be difficult to come by. I hope that some members of the Department will continue ta do what I have begun, 1 would like to express my grtitude to all my friends and colleagues system wide since 1986. They are too many to mention. Many of them are associate professors and some are full professors now. They, provided me with the muck needed ispiration and motivation not only for the improvement of the bdok Philosophical Analysis but also in the conduct of teaching Philo | in and outside the classroom in our yearly system wide workshops. * In the preparation ofthe 7 edition, f would lke to acknowledge debt of gratitude fo my dear friend Professors Abstract Layug and Jojo Banares who stayed upto 3 in the morning in ‘my computer room finalizing the draft. As always Prof. Lalug exceeded his job as a crt and debated with me about numerous eottroversial points, Y wish to thank also my student Mr. Peter Jonas David who volunteered to do some proofreading. He did a good job too. Tow special thanks to my younger colleagues in thé Department of Philosoply who edited the rough deaf and fied many constructive suggestions. They ar: Ms Lalane Slane ad Karta Anilet Arevalo, . Prof. Suruno took the Trouble of improving many items in the Things To Do which I adopted. extend my debt of gratitude to Prof. Ma. Theresa Payongayong who read the rough draft with a fine tooth comb looking for typographical and grammatical errors and she offered numerous constructive revisions.. Prof. Payongayong fought the typhoon. Paeng 10 submit the edited draft in the nick of time. The printing of the book would not be possible ‘without their help.Preface to the Sixth Edition ‘This work has a new beginning. While the Philippine movement on impesting critical inking skills to UP students has developed independently from the international movement of formal logic, critical thinking, rhetoric and argumentation, the time has come for the Philippine ‘movement to merge with the intemational mainstream, This insight was made possible by my friend and collesgue Prof, Allen Alvarez who attended an intemational conference on informal logic! and brought home, among others, the books of Ralf Johnson entitled Manifest Rationality” and Frans H. van Bemeren entitled Fundamentals’ of Argumentation Theory. Both books surveyed the literature of North America aid Europe on what could be referred to collectively as the informal logic movement from the early 1950s.to the year 2000 with particular emphasis on major personalities in different movernents and their corresponding work. ‘Unfortunately, no work was cited at all from the Asian region. The surveys of Johnson and Eemeren enabled me to situate my own experiment on, {imparting critical thinking skills as an educational objective that begun in 1986, I have never realized that I could be part of the movement of informal logie and 1 am glad to sey that my own experiment on imparting a bundle of skills, concepts, and principles on how to compose and evaluate natural argunients fo college students in the UP system is definitely not far behind. Consequently, in preparing forthe sixth edition I attempted to merge the critical thinking tradition in the UP System with the tradition of informal logic by participating in their language game. I accepted as genuine almost all of the problems and issues that prevented the various ‘movements of informal logic ftom becoming a unified discipline. offered my solutions to some of the fundamental problems identified by Johnson confronting informal logicians: the quest for 1 theory of argument with its two other theories, viz. the theory of analysis and appraisal. On. ‘the one hand, the theory of analysis is in search of a consensus of the definition of an argument, its typology, and its purpose. On the other hand, the theory of appraisal is in search for the criteria of how the vatious types of natural argument in ordinaty discourse cen be evaluated and criticized. In addition, itis also in search fora theory of premise relevance, have clearly discriminated the subject matter of formal deductive logic from informal logic by not being hostile to forfal loge which seems to be the current practice of many inforniatlogicans. Tn Unit II! Module I: The Subject Matter of Pormal Dedutive Log, 1 restr its subject matter 1o the realm of logical form—valid or invalid logieal form or slnmple reason that when an argument is represented in onder fo inspect the truth table for validity or invalidity, the content ofthe arguments disregard as if there is nothing in the conten of an argument to inspite logieal or philosophical curiosity. The content of the argument that formal logicins discard isthe main subjct matr-of informal logic. In order fo jusify the subject ‘hater of informal logic, in Unit IV Module 1: The Subject Mater of Informal Loge, gave example of an invalid aigument called affrming the consequent, wherein an empirical analysis ‘ofthe content of the premises confirms the th of the conclusion, To wit Informal Loge at25: A Conférence Celebrating 25 yar of Informal Lope, Univesity of Windsor, Ast? May 2003, * (Lawrence Exhaum Ascites, Pulses, London 2000)391p. > (Lawrence Exbaum Associates, Publishers, Maha, New Jere, 1996) 424 p‘fitrains, Angat Dam will be fell 2. Anaat Dam is full. 3. Therefore, it rained. From the standards of formal logic, the argument form above is invalid. But if you analyze the content of the argument, you will notice that the empirical claim of conclusion 3. Therefore, it ‘rained, is verified to be true by the two premises 1. and 2. Ifthe Dam is fill, you know it rained even if you have not observed the rain. In Unit IV Module 2: Theory of Argumien, offered defiition ofan arguinent, namely ‘An arguinent is any discourse, whether oral or written, in which some Statements are used as reason, justification or evidence in order to support, the claim of another statement. The claim of the statement may be something true, {false or probable: something good/bad, righturong, desirable/undesirable, The ‘part of the discourse used f0 support a claim is called premise and the part of. ‘the discourse supported by the premises is called the conclusion. ‘This definition is wide enough and loose enough to cover almost all types of argument that can occur in any language game. In addition, I also offered a pluralistic typology of argument from ‘the epistemological perspective, namely: empitical, analytic, nd evaluative. arguments. The ‘argument strength of the three’ types of arguments was also indicated and prescribed as a preparation for its full development in Unit IV Module 7: The Theory of Appraisal where the three types of arguments were lavishly illustrated with many examples in order to locate where the strength of cach argument hinges on so that evaluation and criticism of each type can receive individual treatment. tis in this context t6o that a theory of premise relevance i offered. T have also revised the most sophisticated techniques for hastening the development of the meta-cognitive ability of freshmen students in Unit IV Module 8: Composing Arguments and Counter Arguments and Unit V Module 6 Advanced Techniques for Resolving Cognitive Moral Dilemma As always, I have revised the two templates to make the steps easier and more user friendly and modified the examples in the Things To Do in ascending degrees of difficulties. believe that these two templates are the upper limits of what one can achieve through philosophical analysis considering the time constraint of one semester. After six revisions and more. than seventzen years of expetimentations, I am fully satisfied that [ have collated all the possible skills, concepts, and principles including those ‘complex skills like composing argument and resolving cognitive moral dilemma that many ‘experts believe is impossible to teach. I teach them in one semester to UP students. But having merged with the movement of informal logic, the merger offers new and exciting, challenges in theory consinictions. It seems that the time has come forthe practice to dictate onthe theory. 1 would like to express my gratitude to my dear friend Abstract Layug and Eften Quiray who read the rough draft with-a fine tooth comb looking for typographical and grammatical ‘ertots, Towe special thanks to tny younger colleagues in the Department of Philosophy who edited the original draft and offered constructive suggestions. They are Sarah Jane Toledano, Lalaine Siruno, Karitsa Anika Arevalo, Jeanette Yasol-Naval and my dear friend Jojo Baftares. 1 ‘extend my debt of gratitude to Ma. Theresa Payongayong who took the trouble not only in ‘editing but also in checking the consistency of the ASAQ with the SAQ. Needless to say, the printing ofthe book was facilitated with their help.Introduction ‘We ll kro that the goal of edvemon is not merely to impact knowledge, for knowledge ati easily become obsolete considering the rapid pace of science and technological development. One of the important educational goels isto provide students wit eritical thinking skills that ‘would enable them not only to acquire new knowledge but also to cope with the ever-inereasing complex. world of multi-media propaganda manipulating our desires, choices, beliefs and stttudes. Many educators, both tocal and foreign, have called these life skills because once” internalized by students, these skills would be beneficial to them the rest of their natural life T strongly feel that without Philosophy'1, the bundle of life skills that will be acquired and internalized by UP stadents would be severly inadequate. Let us take a quick look at the objectives ofthe General Education Program (GEP) ‘Common Minimum General Education Program ~ of the UP Systern Objectives of the G. B, Program ‘The G. E. Program aims to lay the groundwork for the fullest development of the student's potentials and sense-of social responsibility as a Filipino by attempting: ‘To broaden the student’s intellectual and cultural horizon; To foster a commitment to nationalism balanced by a sense of internationalism; ‘To cultivate a capacity for independent, critical and ereative thinking; and ‘To infuse a passion for learning witha high sense of moral and intellectual integrity. In particular, the G. E Program seeks to help students: 1. Acquire basis. skills “and competencies in mathematics; ‘reasoning and ‘communicatioa; 2. Develop an awareness, understanding and appreciation of the various disciplines of the natural sciences, social sciences, humanities and philosophy; and 3. Develop a sense of nationhood. General objective No. 3, namely: “To cultivate a capacity for independent, critical and creative thinking” and the particilar objective No. 1, namely: “Acquire basic skills and competencies in mathematics, reasoning, and communication” would not be fully attained without Philosophy 1. The independent and critical thinking part and the reasoning part of the two objectives will not also be inculated without Philosophy 1. But, I have to admit, I cannot claim that ereative thinking cannot be inculcated without Philosophy 1. Basie Concept of Philosophy 1 | know that many of you must have one oF two favourite philosophers, Who aretiey: Plato, Aristotle, St, Aquinas, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Russell, Ayet, ‘or Wittgenstein? How would you like to learn the techniques of your favourite philosopher?‘Techniques that they use when they philosophize, without them they cannot engige ina philosophical debate. Techniques that are readily applicable and useful to the business of living. Suppose that you have the powers to probe and observe the workings of the minds of your favourite philosophers. And.suppose further, tht you have the powers to pick out the indispensable skills, principles and concepts that they use when they are involved in a philosophical controversy or debate. What would you pick out? 1) You would pick out the skills of the Philosopher when he conducts logical analysis ofthe meaning of terms and concepts; pechaps his ability to define a concept as well. 2) Or, you might be struck with his technique of anal philosophical problem. 3) You might also be impressed with the philosopher's ability o scrutinize whether a knowledge claim ora belief isin the ealm ofthe known, knowable or unknowable. 4) A philosopher, if he is an epistemologist,can readily judge different types of knowledge claim and the required evidence to justify the elaim, and sorting outa 4) As you observe the workings of the minds ofthe philosophers, you cannot help ‘but be bewildered withthe facility with which he ean compose an argument and a ‘counter-argument; as well as hs skill in criticizing and evaluating an argument. 6) And finaly, you might be amazed withthe philosopher's decision making proficiency in decidiig which course of action to take when confronted with a cognitive-moral dilemma. Resolving cognitive-moral dilemma involves a whole constellation of skills, coneapts, and principles, Your collection of skills, concepts; and principles is the main arsenal inthe conceptual apparatus of the philosophers, without which they cannot philosophize—because without these philosophical techniques, they cannot analyze and solve pkilosophical problems and they cannot defend or reject a philosophical thesis. In short, they cannot engage in a philosophicel debate, ‘They will end up writing philosophical metaphors and even absurdities by enumerating their ‘vague conclusions without any supporting argument and pass it off a a philosophical work. In-one. semester, we teach our Philosophy T students almost all, if not all; of the indispenseble ‘skills, edncepts, and prifciplés that were collated in the various areas: of Philosophy namely: Philosophy of Language, Epistemology, Symbolic Logi, Informal Logics Philosophy of Science, Ethics, and Metaphysics. ‘This bundle of skills converged in the most sophisticated skill of composing ar argument and the meta-cognitive skill of criticizing the argument that you have composed as a preperation for composing a counter argoment. And finally, to the (for want of a better term)” mega- cognitive skill of evaluating the strengths, as well as the weaknesses of both the original ‘argument and the counter-argument with the instrction of strengthening the weaker argument by ‘modifying the premises and/or adding new premises to balance the strensth ofboth anstuments In Unit V Thave developed a step by step decision making procedure, for resolving any cognitive moral dilemma. All the important skills, principles and concepts internalized fiomUnit I to Unit IV converged in this template, Thus, Philosophy 1 does fot only offer an cexbaustive study of natural arguments; but it also provides the students with a decision making procedure for resolving any cognitive-moral dilemmas one is likely to encounter in the business of living, ‘This is the basic concept of Philosophy 1. Ido not believe that there is & course like this ‘ig any department of philosopiy in the whole world. We have searched the Internet forthe various syllabi of numerous departments of philosophies allover the world; we have not fours a course that approximates Philosophy 1. Definition of Critical Thinking ‘An examination ofthe Iiteratuze dealing with the concept of critical thinking seems to defy any cleat understanding. One would expect that the concept should at least he clearer by ‘now, considering that for three decades a good number of thinkers, coming from various Aisciplines have seriously bothered to construe, define, and operationalize the concept, But as itis, the concept has been used vastly more than it has been understood. Both theoreticians and practitioners ae still quareelling about the relevant sense of critical thinking. As 1 see it the problem is still very basio—it i not knowing more about what sills, concepts nd principles ae involved in cxtcal thinking, but rather thet of identifying what skills, concepts, and principles we should know more about. seems that theoreticians donot ‘know what variables are included or wat variables are excluded in ctitcal thinking for these have not been ascertained. And yet the idea of making erticl thinking as one of te importnt objectives of various curicula all over the world has been recognized by educstos of varying Persuasion. A.quick survey of how the term eiial dimnking has been defined inthe literate ‘of teaching critical thinking would reveal these definitional nuances.’ To wit 1, Harvey Seigel: Critical thinking is “..thinking appropriately moved by reason” - 2.°. Robert Ennis: Critical thinking is “rational reflective thinking concerned with ‘what to do or what to believe.” 3. Richard Paul: “Critical thinking is disciplined, self-directed thinking which ‘ckcrnplifies the perfection of thinking appropriate to a particular mode-or domain of thinking, “...citical thinking isthe at of thinking about your thinking while ‘you're thinking in order to make your thinking better, mote clear, ‘more eceurate, more fait”? 4, Mathew Lipman: “Critical thinking is thinking that is selcorretive, se Context, and relies upon criteria for the formation of judgements.” 5. John MePeck: “Critical thinking as the skill and propensity t6 engage in an activity ‘with reflective scepticism. ; fished Paul, Crteat Thaktog, Sorama Sint Universi Cntr for Cet Thinking ad Moral tig, ioneat eC ity: Contr for Cita Thinking snd Moral Cig6. Ralph Johnson: “In my view, the focuis of the critical thinker’s senutiny is thoughi, and I take the word ‘thought’ here in its widest sense of being an intellectual/rational product of soine sor including such various items as belies, theoves, hypothesis, news stories, and arguments, whether they are someone else's of one’s own.” ‘Theory of Critical Thinking “To my mind, the capacity for self-consciousness is the genesis—the origin of what is called critical thinking. If human beings are merely conscious and not.self-consaious, the ‘capecity for critical thinking will also be absent. ‘This means that the capacity for critical ‘thinking is natural whether we are aware of it or not. All of us have done some form of critical ‘thinking. We are all critical thinkers in varying degrees of seriousness and intellectual capacity. Almost all of the definitions of critical thinking. we. have examined are focussed on a rational and/or intellestval product. This definition would favor educated people to be the only critical thinkers. Needless to say, a cave man reflecting on his hunting tactics and judging it as ineffective invents a new and effective tactic of cooperative hunting, is not only a critical thinker but creative one as well. We begin with something familine—judgement of regrets. A dog can bite, a Manila Water employee reading your water meter and not have any guilty felings about it. Mike Tyson bit the ear of his, opponent in a boxing match and felt guilty about it. Or if this remark is debatable, a least he has the capacity to feel guilty about it. A dog has no capacity for self consefousness; only humans do. A good example ofthe self-conscious act of evaluating one's ov thought and behaviour is found in Ludwig Witgenstein's Philosophical Investigations fom sections 143-155. Here ‘Wingenstein imagined himself aching # pupil he series of numbers from 0-9, By inference the pupil must be only 3-4 years old because ho is stil struggling withthe series of natural aumbers After some laborious training, Wittgenstein imagined the child having random as well as systematic erors; but at some point in the training, the pupil suddenly continues the svies independent and exclaims: “Now I know!” “Now ean go on!” “ Now I can do it!” “ Now I understand?™ Numerous psychologists have claimed that this self-conseious.act is a fine example of ‘mefa-cognition. This is actualy the pupil’s self-conscious awareness and evaluation of his ovm ‘behavioural and thought processes, My own concept of critical thinking is closely allied to the Concept of meta-cognition. Let me now offer an analytic definition. of meta-cognition and critical thinking: Meta-cognition (definiendum). réfers to the self-conscious act (genus) of evaluat judging, and criticizing the worth or value of (diferent ia) one’s action, belief, behaviour ‘or one’s intellectual and rational product (denotat). Critical thinking (definiendum) refers to the conscious act (genus) of evaluating, judging and criticizing the ‘worth or value of (diferentia) of another person's action, belief, behaviour, intellectual and rational produet (denotata. ¥ Ralph. ohasom, The Rise of nfrmal Logte (Nenpst News, Vigna, Vale Press, 196) p. 25.Only Philosophy 1 has developed the technique for hastening the development of meta- cognition in smooth and easy steps in one semester. Of course, it could not be said that we have completed the process. Blut if GE students will continue applying thé skills they have internalized, the ability for meta-cognition will be part of their coneeptual apparatus; and hence, ‘it would be beneficial to them the rest of ther life. I would like to believe that the ability for ‘meta-cognition is what Socrates (479-399 B C)-meant when he said, “The unexamined life is ‘not worth living.” And’Socrates believes that only through “self reflection can wisdom be attained. ‘The Network Problem The concepts independent, critical, and ereatve thinking found in the objectives ofthe GEP of the UP’ System would constitute what Ralph Johnson called a network problem. This means that the concepts “cannot be understood in isolation from one another.” Wittgenstein called concepts related in this way—cousins. This network problem wes not sorted out in 1987 when te objectives ofthe GEP-were finalized.” Let us attempt to sot them out nov ‘The Network Problem Independent Thinker Creative Thinker (Crit Thinker ‘The concept of an ‘independent and critical thinker overlaps, Both thinkérs accept the 1704), a well-known British empiricist, all things that exist im the world are particulars. Take a handful of sand: each bit of sand isa particular. Now I ‘Want you to try to imagine giving a name for every bit af sand. Can you do it? I know I can't {Ris almost impossible for every bit of sand io have proper name, Moreover, even if you can doit, it isnot practical. According to Locke, general terms were invented because itis impossible for every particular to have a proper name, Locke invéntéd a word to refer to this process: fe called it abstraction. As we notice a charectristie eomimon to a group of particulars, ' rosmae, David Hugh, Logic: The Art of Reasoning (NY: David Mek Co, fs, 1967) j.27 4‘general idea is formed. Take, for instance, your handful of sand. You notice that they share a common characteristio~pethaps the colour white. Consequently, the general idea white sand bbecomtes the general term you invent to refer to your handfil of sand? ‘Simple and Complex Terms ‘When a word or a group of words is used to express @ concept, philosophers would refer to the word as a term. Cat is a single word used to express a concept. In contrast, The king of France-is a group of words used to express a concept. Cat and. The king of France should be properly called ferms, Terms are the verbal means of expressing what we know through coricepts. ‘While the concepts that we have are not made up of letters, the terms that we utilize to express four concepts are made up of letters, ‘Concepts aie native to our intellect; they are our means for acquiring knowledge, You alresdy know that terms may be a word or a group of words. Dog, cat, bat, bird are a few ‘examples of simple terms. Each of these terms is made up of single word, On the other hand, complex terms are made up of several words; some famous examples in philosophy are: The resent king of France, The author of Waverly and The morning star. ‘These are examples of ‘complex terms that representa single concept.” It has the logical form The so and ‘so according to Bertrand Russell (1872-1970). Concepts are the building blocks of our knowledge, yet they can hardly be imagined to «exist (or a better term is subsist) except in our minds. Thus, without the ability to form concepts, ‘human knowledge will not be possible. This is how important words and concepts are! That is ‘why they are the basic units of philosophical analysis and critical thinking, |! Nag, E and Brand, B. (eds) Meaning and Knowledge, (N Y: Harcourt, Broce and Wert ne 195) pp. Freemaa, Op. Cit, p.31‘Unit: Module 1 — Self Assessment Questions i Nam ‘Total Score: ‘The Self Assessment Questions (SAQ) incorporated in the design ofall. the modules inthis book will provide you with enough exercises that will enable you to remember the skills, concepts and principles, discussed in the Display Text. The SAQ is self-administred.and will provide you with @ quick feedback on how well you are doing in the Answers fo the Self ‘Assessment Questions (ASAQ). 4 Fill im the Blank. I'm sure you are familiar wit this type of SAQ. This type of SAQ is ‘more superior to true or false or multiple choices for recollecting the skills, concepts and rincipes identified inthe objectives. For leaning process fo occur, I want you to look at the correct answers in the ASAQ only after you have ‘written! down your own answers. Simply choose your answers from the list given below. There ae, of course, more items inthe list than you'need to avoid the process of elimination. And sometimes when the answer requires a ‘aizaton, itis not included in the lst. To check your answer, you have to consi the Display ‘Text. Please use a ball pen to write your answers onthe space provided, 1. The basic unit of cominiunication in a natural language are aged. 2. Aword is made up of Jette. whereas a concept is made up of _idaae 3. The ability to form concepts is natural. When we observe a traitor characterisios common toa group of particulars @ genecal idea is formed. Locke refered to this, process a8_gstmaction 4, When a word or a group of words i used to express a concept the word is technically called 8 _tem 5. Cat and dog are scimsie. terms; whereas the King of France and the author of Waverly are Leaman tems. 6. The building blocks of human knowledge are _ concep 7. Without “wards concepts eanaot be formed; without concepts, various types of oatadg climt cannot be aserted; without knowisdge claims, _arquneate ‘Cannot be composed, (Swords) simple?) -generall term leters7 [knowledge/ . complex “abstraction words ideas [arguments particular natural _ceoncepts_knowledge Instruction: Now; it is time for you to'compare your answers with the correct ones in the ‘ASAQ. Then compute your score. This is how you should compute your score: the number of correct answers over the number of tems. Saag e eee gaee ee ce Oda aaua ea eeeeeaaauaaaeeead ‘This is the HELP BOX, It is our dialogue box. This will be our private means of, i ification. Please write it down itt this box and I will do my best to give your-answer that will satisfy yourUnit I: Module 1 Answers to the Self Assessment Questions ‘The Answers to the Self Assessment Questions (ASAQ) is your Feedback Sheet. It will provide you with the Corect answer for every item in the SAQ. Ii a powerful technique for informing you egsiding how well you are doing. There is only one rule you must follow in using the ASAQ, namely: you must eheck your answers only after you have already written your own. Ifyou look atthe answers before writing down your own, the programming ofthe book will not work for you Given below are the comrect answers to the Fill in the Blanks of Module I. Fill in the Blanks 7. words! 5. simplel 3 gece fem Tleten knowledge! “complex. abstraction. I words . ideas, els cular atural S.concepis _ knowled ‘After you have compared your answers withthe corect ones in the ASAQ and you have no errs, you should be congratulated. However, if you did not get a perfect score, please do not be discouraged. Many Philo I students initially don’t get perfect scores too, May 1 suggest that in the next module; read the Display Text more tines than you did. In addition, don't go to the SAQ unless you feel confident that you will make a perfect score, Now plese goto the Activity: Things To Do for the application of the sills and principles that you have leamed in this module. Unit I: Module 1- Things To Do Now you ae prepared to apply and actully experience how the skills, concepts and principles inthe Display Tet ally work. Please complete the requirements of th items Below ‘A. Make-a list of ten simple terms designating a.concept. Likewise, make another listof ten complex terms designating a concept too. Then, tell me if they are signs of persons, things, places, or something else. B. I want'you fo use your imagination and trace the common characteristics that must have been used through the process of abstraction in the formation of the concepts represented by the following terms: a) guard.dog; b) poisonous snake; c) wooden chair; d) tall tree; and e) ‘triangle. 7Unit 1: Module 1 — Things To Ponder [Now is the time for you to do your own thinking! This i the first of a seties of activities called Things To Ponder (TTP) in this book. This activity is designed to develop your ability for independent thinking, to widen your intellectual horizon. As you will soon discover, many items in the activity TTP are controversial, and as such, many correct answers are possible. am. {nvting you to produce your own comrect answers. ‘A. Is it possible to form a concept through the process of abstraction words? hout using B. You know that without concepts, knowledge is not possible, is knowledge possiblo without language? ©. What about thoughts?_Is thinking possible without language? ‘Summing Up ‘This module gave-you the distinction between a word and a concept. This is the basic unit of philosophical analysis. Now you know that concepts are made up of ideas and thit they are formed through the process of abstraction. You also know that simple as well as complex. ‘terms can be used to express a concept. More importantly, you have leamed that concepts are the ‘building blocks of kxiowledge, You have made a good start. I want you to move on to the next ‘module.Module 2 : Extension and Intension of Concepts Introduction : ‘This module will focus on the technique of a critical thinker in analyzing a concept in terms of intension and extension. The distinction between intension and extension has far reaching implications for your study of more complicated skills in critical thinking. You will use the distinction in classifying concepts, in applying the method of analytic definition and in Aistinguishing types of knowledge claims found in Unit il, ‘This module will help you enlarge your understanding of what céncepts really are. And after completing the module, you should be able to: 1. Analyze concepts in terms ofits extension and intension; 2. Distinguish intension in terms of either essential property or family resemblance; and 3, Discuss the significance of Wifigenstein’s example of the concept games. Unit I: Modute 2 - Display Text Extension and Intension ‘There is a consensus among philosophers of language that every term expressing ‘concept is analyzable fom two aspects. Fist, you miay identify of the kind of things that are ‘members of the domain of the concept. These are called extension of the concept. And second, you may specify the trait, or set of tats, characteristics or even function shared by the members, ‘These ae called the intension of the concept. Let me give you a good example to illustrate the’ philosophical use’ of the terms, The extension of the concept bat denotes all the individual animals regardless of size, shape-or ‘colour, Even if some bats are as small 2s a human thumb, and others have a wingspan of several feet both ate members of the extension of the concept bat. However, if our analysis will stop at the extension, you will not know the nature of all bars. To know its nature, you have to shift ‘your analysis from the extension to the intension of the concept. In analysing the intension of the'coricept, you must try to state the trait or set of traits, characteristics or the function that diferentiate bats from the rest ofthe animal kingdom. This tay be a single traitor function that js held in common or-sometimes @ set of traits tht are inevenly distributed to the members of the extension. The sigle trait common to all bas is: they are th only mammals capable of sustained flight ike a bird, Nevertheless, unlike bids, bats ae abe to fly at low speed with extreme manoeuverblity..In shor, to analyze the intension of the concept we must pay attention to the singlé trait or set of tats and characteristics those members ofthe extension must hare.Essential Property ‘Notice that when the intension of a concept becomes very precise and clearly defined, it ‘becomes an essential property. This means thatthe possession of a single trait isthe mecessary and sufficient condition to qualify one to be & member of the extension of the concept. Most of. ‘our biological classifications of plants and animals are based on an essential property held in gommon by the members. A familiar example is the concept mammal. The requirement for _membership is the possession of a single physical trai—mammary glands. Without mammary ‘lands, én‘animal cannot be'a mammal. [find it sometimes amusing that whale, platypuses and elephants are mammals, Aside ftom the mammary gland that they have in common, it sems that they share no other observable characteristics, Obviously, most of the concepts thet you have in your vocabulary, do not stipulate essential properties. Yet, strange as it may seem, the essentialist in philosophy believes that for 4 concept to be méaningful, the intension of the concspt should be limited to an essential property only: Essentatsm states that if Ure is no essential property held fy common by all the ‘members, the coficept cannot be meaningful. This is a very old doctrine in philosophy of language that is hardly ever questioned until Wittgenstein came into the picture. Games and Family Resemblance : In bis book Philosophical Investigations, Wittgensiein challenged the essentialist view that for a general term fo be meaningful there must be an essential property held in common by the members. He cites his famous example of games.' Here Wittgenstein enjoins us to consider ‘Rumerous games like board games, card-games, tall games, Olymnpic Games and so on. And then he asks: What single trait or characteristic is common toall these games? Wittgenstein explores, some possiblities, he ponders Is there always winning end losing or competition among players? Isthere always amusement or enjoyment among players? Don’t say: “there must be something common, or they. would not be called ‘games.’ " -~ But look and see whether thee is something common to all For if you look at them you will not see something that is common to al, bul Sinilartis,relaionships and a whole series of tem at that. To repeat don’t, ‘think, but Took? And witien you actually start looking and seeing you will not find an essential property held in common by all the activites we call games. What we will discover, according to Wittgenstein ig = complicated network of similarities overlapping and erisa-crossings Sometimes overall sinailaruis, sometimes similarities of detail? Wiitgenstein could not find a single essence to. characterize all games. What he discovered is a multifarious relationship. And he could not think of a better term to call this ‘complicate, network than family resemblance. Iy short, the intention of the concegt games forms a family of tits, characteristics aid functions, Wittgenstein says Op. Ca. Witgenstein, P16, + id PL, > ibid P46.Moreover, the strength ofthe thread does not reside in the fact that some one * bre runs trough its whole length bu inthe overlapping of many fires * Nowhere can we find an essential property, which would be the essence of all games. He iscovered a family of traits, characteristics and functions rather than an essential property that make the use of general terms siable. ‘Wittgenstein wams us not to assume that because we succeed in using a general term to refer o a group of objects or activites, that there must be an essential property held in common by them. IF you will only loot and see, you will discover thet most of these concepts are. sogulated snd made stable ony by «family resemblance of traits and chatacteristis and not by a single essential property. Later inthis Unit you will dévelop your sklln defining terms, and this reminder of Witigenstein should be taken seriously. * In sum, concepts are analyzed in terms of its extension and intension. The exténsion of ‘any concepts consist of the members; in contrast, the intension of the concepts consist of either ‘an essential traits that all the members must have or a family resemblance of traits and characteristics that need not be distributed evenly to all the members. : “ibid, 2167, |Unit: Module 2-SAQ Name: Total Score: Ihave prepared a set of SAQ that would enable you to sharpen your éomprehension of the distinction between the intension and extension of concepts. Fil in the blanks with the sppcoprate answers below. 1. To fally understand any concept, you must analyze it in tris. of _etenipn — and —tension 2. When the intension of the concept is an essential property, it leads to_eehsier membership. 3. Inaddition, essential property is the necescany and _ sufficient condition for ‘membership inthe extension. 4. The itension ofthe concep is characterized as cither an agent papery —_oF only fen matin, of isan tapas. 5. falism states that if there is rio. trait, the term cannot be meaningful. 6. Torebut exsentalism, Witgenscin itodueed Ts concept of. in onder to demonsttate that concepts can be mearinghl even without be fea OF essential property. 7. Numerous concepts in ordinary language re held by. Lonity-cesembhance_rather than by —Rssental_peoporgy——__- [essential properiyfamily resemblance -infensioa/exiension [exclusive “aecessary/suicient ssential property “family resemblance games amily resemblance/essential property HELPUnit 1: Module 2- ASAQ Fill in the blanks 23 essential propertyfamily resemblance 1) intension/extension 2) exclusive 3) necessary/sufficient 5), essential property 6) family resemblance games 7) family resemblance/essential property Unit 1: Module 2—-TTD A. Geta ist of 20 cones ie intension sites an essential prope Int how they ead toexelusive membership. Plas consul ether a god dletonany or en cnoylopooia B. Get another list of 20 concepts whose intensions specify @ family resemblance of traits and characteristics that are unevenly distibuted to the members. Summing Up ‘The technique of analyzing concepts in terms of intension and extension will prove very useful when you develop your. skill of classifying concepts and when you develop the more sophisticated skill of defining concepts. This module has prepared you for the other modules to ‘come in this Unit ] Note Pad Please write your important remindér(s) here, 3Module 3 Using The Same Language Introduction “This module will elaborate on Ludwig Witgenstein’s theory of meari ase of e word. In the process, i will inteduce you to a very basic but important aspect of philosophy of language, namely, the requirement for speaking the same language Objectives ‘After studying this module you should be able to: Deseribe how a Word aequires meaning; Distinguish ambiguous and vague concepts; Avoid useless verbal controversies; and “Apply a cardinal rule incrtical thinking. Unit; Module 3— Display Text ‘The Meaning of a Word Philosophers agree that a word takes on a meaning through the way in which people who boeloig to the same verbal community use it either orlly or in written form. When asked about the meéning ofa word Wittgenstein’s reply was For a large class of cases ~ though not for all - in which we employ the ‘word “meaning” tt can be defined thus: the meaning of @ word is its use in the language. Let us begin from the beginning: What exactly is Wittgenstein’s theory of meaning in terms of use? Uknow that you are familiar with the numerous ways of using words. You know that a word ean-serve as @ name for persons, places or things. Words ean combine usefully ina sentence to express a command, a wish or an intention. Words ean be used to ask 2 question, or offer an explanation or state a fact. Now you have an idea of the numerous wajs in which words sre used. All these uses for Wittgenstein are meaningful ‘Wittgenstein’s theory of meaning needs a more precise clarification. By the use ofa word ‘he meant actual uses of words by real people in actual linguistic contexts, Wittgenstein frowns on artificial uses of language, which in his judgement philosophers are fond of doing. Terms like sense data, substance, ideas, and the absolute are used so artificially by philosophers in teit language game. To be sue, they are examples of language gumes that philosophers play, but they have no form of if. This means that te language games are unplayable by real people in real life situations. Tus, if a language game is unplayable in the sense aboverthe language game has no form of if 34How then do you determine the meaning ofa word? * Wittgenstein suggests that to determine the meaning of the word bat, for instance, your have to identify how the word is used in @ particular language game, In one language geme, i is used to refer to a roident In another, the word refers to an instrument in a game called baseball. Similarly, the word cold can refer to the weather, or it can refer to the disposition ofa loved one. ‘Again, the word diffu is often used as a description of an exam, of in another use it ean deseribe the predisposition of a person. The uses of words in ordinary language are overflowing with similar examples because almost all of them have more than one use. ‘According to Wittgenstein, to understand the meaning of a word is to understand how itis used in a given language:game. ‘To share meanings orto hold the meaning of @ word in common is to share a language-game. In addition, to share a language-game is to‘share a form of lif Suffice it to bay that Witigenstein emphasized that the same combination of leties may have diferent uses, and hence, different meanings in numerous language games belonging toa naturel lsnguage ike English, French, or Filipino, Consider the various uses of the word hand: Give hima helping hand. Give her a hand with the luggoge. ‘The audlence gave Brap a big hand. Please hand ine the hammer Ambiguous and Vague Words, according to lexicographers, havea history. A word comes to being when itis used for the frst time, When it gains curency, the same use of the word becomes integrated in ‘numerous language gemes. This is the conventional or standard use of a term, The words Jather, mother, brother, sister, family, marriage ete. have conventional uses. Conventional, because in numerous language games the words are used in more or less the same way. However, it may happen that a word with a conventional use is modified and used uniquely in a language ‘game e. g. the conventional use of the word Bading about 10 years’ago is a nickname. In the language game of homosenial it is synonymous with being gay. Bertrand Russell used the ‘echnical terms atom and mofecuie in Physics uniquely in his language game—~atomic prosition ‘and molecular proposition, In some cases, a word may acquire many different uses in different Isnguage-games, thus it becomes ambiguous. In our national language the terin (oob and hiya have so many linguistic uses that Filipino philosophers thought that deciphering the nuances of the various uses will reveal a unigue Filipino philosopky. ‘The terns some and many are used so loosely in many lenguage-games that it becomes vagie. Moreover, inthe end the term may even be discarded through disuse. Have your ever heard of the term sondo? It means one peso. Funny’ as it may seem, words may be reborn and used again. For example, Latin terms are reborn and used respectably as scientific terms in various sciences. Useless Controversies ‘Many controversies in everyday life turn out to be pointless, because people often utter, the same word but they are using it in diferent ways, And what is unfortunate is that they do not inform each other regarding their use of the word. This is panicularly important when the word is used uniquely by both parties. If they only informed each other about their use of the word, they, ‘would probably realize that there was no disagreement to begin with ceaAt other times, uttering the same word can lead to @ purely verbal agréement. The best ‘example.I could give in philosophy is to be found in theological discussion where the term God is often uttered. But this is purely verbal agreement since on closer examination, the term is, Found to be used differently by different practitioners. Infact, they are playing different language ‘games but unfortunately, they do not recognize this fac. Cardinal Rule ‘There is 2 cardinal rule for critical thinkers invoked by’philosophers from the ancient times to the present, namely; you must never take part in any discussion or verbal dispute in any subject matter with anyone unless you are swre that both of you are using the same word in the same way. This is the best way to avoid uscless controversy and even misunderstanding, want you to do your own experiment. When canying a discussion or a debate with your fiends, try to determine winether you are using words in the same way, Ask your friends very tactfully: What do you mean by that? what sense are you using the word? And by use of a word you mean information about the intension and extension of the term. In addition, you should not be satisfied with any answer unless you are provided with a clear statement of the intension and given some typical samples ofthe extension of the concept, The answer to these questions will reveal whether you are using words in the same wey or not However, i your frend cannot give you any information about the intension or extension of the disputed term, then you know that your fiend (or verbal opponent) does not have complet understanding of the term shhe pretends to know. So: when confronted with a forniable argument, you can buy some time to think ofa repariee by picking on a key tem ofthe argument by asking: ‘What co you mean by that? In whet serise are you using the word? 1a sure that as you practice using these questions, you will find it so illuminating and 0 wsefl that you will most likely carry on with his practice the reat of your ie! Please note that in order to avoid useless controversy never forget the cardinal rule in critical thinking: Never take part in any discussion or verbal dispute unless you are sure that both of you are using words in the sare way, 36Name: Total Score: ‘The SAQ incorporated in the design’ of every module in these instructional materials will provide you with enough exercises that will enable you to remember the skills, concepts, and principles discussed in the Display Text. Fill in the Blanks 1. Philosophers agree that the meaning of words is acquired through the use, of people belonging to the same verbal community. i 2. People who use the same set of words in the same way belong tothe same "RS 3. When people belong to the saine language game they share the sare Goues of lie 4, To determine the meaning of a word you have to determine how itis gced it the language game. 5. When the sane. word is used in the same way indifferent laiguage games, the use has become _conentiandl 6. When a word has acquired numerous uses in many language games it beeame 2, fen ord is sd loosely uch ht you id it il dn wh the mers, then it beeame_saque 8. Useless controversies on consist in wing words neg, ways ae 9. The cardinal rule for critical thinkers states: “EYES, pee ae 10, The questions to ask winen you ate not sure whether you are using words inthe same way Or nots: aiuto you mun by that? Sn aint unis, ace_yot using the oa? words in the Sana wy. fommoflife used language game Prague Ambiguous “use onventional _Alfferent ways HELP Do you have any questions? . ”Unit: Module 3— ASAQ ‘This is your Feedback Sheet. The ASAQ gives you the correct answer to every item in the SAQ. Itis a powerful too! for satisfying your question Was I right? when you were doing the 'SAQ. There is only one rule you mast follow in using the ASAQ, namely: you must check your ‘answers with them only after you have already writen your own. Fill in the Blanks ‘Sfomm oflife used >: Tanguage game 7. vague 6.ambiguous I-ust . S.conventional 8. different ways For 9.and10_. refer tothe Display Text _for the correct answer Unit: Module 3- TTD ‘You are now prepared to apply. and actually experience how the skills, concepts and principles in the module really work, ‘A. Lwant you to expetinont on ackng the question What do you mean by tha? o In what sense are you using the word? jst in ease you suspet that you and your fiends are not using @ word in the same way. Listen to talk shows on your TY set and tries to identify the words that are not being used in the same way. D. Please provide mé with 10 samples of ¥) terms with conventional use, b) terms that are ‘vague, ¢) terms that are ambiguous, d) terms that are no longer in use and terms that are reborn. Unit 1: Module 3- TTP - Nous the tne for you to do your ove thinking! These ates are esgid to develop ‘you ability for independent thinking, ‘A. What if oftrasking the fvo questions Whar do you mean by that? and In wha sense ‘You are using the word? you still éo not understand the person you are taking with. What do you ‘do?! B. When do you know you ate playing the same language game? Can you state the criterion of teria? ‘Summing Up ‘This module gave you a good idea ofthe linguistic technique of using the same word in the same way. Using words in the same way means playing a language game, to play a language {game isthe same as sharing a form of life. Consequently, the best way to understand the meaning of @ word is to know how the word is used in a language game. ‘This ngenious TTD em was sugested to me by Ms Ls 2 Sirun. 38Module 4 Classification of Concept Introduction ‘This module ll provide you with very good survey of the different types of concept secognized by epistemologists as well as philosophers of language. twill provide you also with a very practical way of distinguishing concepts in tems of the following eategotis: empirical, analytic, evaluative fittious, metaphysical, dispositional and theoretical. In adition, it will give youa good idea ofthe types of concept used inthe various sciences Objectives ‘After completing this module, know you will easily be abe to: 1. Distinguish the seven main categories of concept; 2. Apply the technique for classifying concepts; and 3. Apply the intra- and inte-subjectivity tests Unit: Module 4 - Display Text ‘Types of Concepts 1 know that there is a question that you are anxious to ask me: How many types of concepts are there? Unfortunetely, we do not have a fixed, as well as a hard and fast, classification of concepts. Although there are seven categories that are readily available, these empirical, analytic, evaluative, fictitious, metaphysical, dispositional and theoretical concepts. To be sure, this classification is not fixed or given once and forall. New categories the future may evolve but others might disappear too. Furthermore, the distinetion is not very precise and there are overlapping samples. Empirical Concept explain and understand, [f the members of the extension of a concept can be observed in the ‘word, then the concept is empirical. the members are observable inthe way tables and chairs ae observable, then the members exist in space and time. They are therefore; tangible and visible ‘to the unaided senses. In addition, the trait, characteristics and functions that members must possess is also observable inthe same way-—tangible and visible. ‘Theoretical Concept ‘Scientists speak of theoretical entities or theoretical constructs. These entities cannot readily be observed to exist in space and time by the unaided senses, Such entities are observable conly'through the use of very powerfal sensory extending devices like the electron microscope. Nevertheless, the tentative posit of their existence is necessary for. a scientific theory to be 39fimctional and,for it to geneiate research. A good exsimple isthe putative make up of matter into ‘om and its constituent particles, Sensory eitending devices are generlly two types-—tadio telestope for observing galaxies said tobe 40 milion ight years aay fom Earth. Thiss the maero universe. We alse havo the microscope or electron racroscope for observing the micro univers, the world of imioro‘orgaisms like germs and virus andthe world of electron and newrinos. You might be interested to know thatthe mide universe isthe word of tables and chairs which you are very familia with This is the world observable through the unsided senses this is the empiceel worid : Dispositonal Concept ‘You might be surprised to know that there are fiybrid comcepts that come from the sciences. Some of them are called dispositional concepts like elastic, magnetic, temperature, tc. These concepts do not designate a directly observable trait or characteristic that members ‘must have’ but they exhibit this observable trait only if certain operations are performed, For example, to determine if an object is magnetic we have to perform certain operation like putting ‘some.iron filings near the object and if the iron filings adhere to objec, then you know the object ‘is magnetic. This operation constitutes the definition of a dispositional concept as you will discover later in the module Analytic Concept ‘The members of the extension of analytic or abstract concepts are those entities which cannot be found in the world. They are neither tangible nor visible like tables and chairs They are conceptual entities and as such, creations of our minds. A good example thet [know you are familiar with is the concept. of manber. Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 50 on to infinity are all abstract concepts. (By the way infinity is also an abstract concept) Number 1 is a set with one ‘member; 2 isa set with two members 4 is a set with four members, etc. What about zero? Well, a set with no membei. As an analytic concept, the miembers of the extension are hot ‘empirical objects lke tables and chairs, Another good exarnple of an analytic eoncept is the concept circle. The intension of the concept circle is very precise and clearly delineated but they are, not observable at all. How can You observe an infinite number of points equidistant from a centre? Unfoitunately, this trait is nobservable—it cannot be found in the world. I want you to try to imagine this trait for a moment, | know you believe you hive been drawing circles all your life. It seems obvious that the circles that you can draw will not satisfy the requirement of the intension because the moment You assign a physical diameter, however small to a point, that point is infinitely divisible. And if you can still isolate a single point in the infinite number of points, that point is also- infinitely {ndivisible, and so on to the next point. In addition, if every physical point were infinitely ‘divisible, then it would be very difficult to determine the requirement of being equidistant from 2 centre. Consequently, the circles that you have béen drawing are not genuine members of the ~ satension of the abstract concept circle. They are approximations; pedagogical devices to help you understand the extension of an abstract concept. The point to be stressed here is thatthe intension of the concept circle is unobservable, tied being as such the members of the extension isnot to be found in the world. Théy are abstract es that sibsist only in our minds. When you are doing formal sciences lke loge, geometty 0‘and mathematics, you are dealing with analytic concepts. Analytic concepts sie powerful tools in the sciences, provided that you do not confuse abstract concepts for empirical ones. That is an ‘entirely different story! ‘Evaluative Concept One type of concept that has generated 0 much controversy for so long in philosophy ray be called evaluative. Evaluative concepts cover a whole range of eoncepis—we have the moral, aesthetio, and even the religious, Concepts like good or bac right ot wrong: moral ot immoral fl into the wioral category. The concepts of becuty and ugliness are under the esthetic. ‘And the concepts of heaven and hell are inthe category of the religious, Legal conccps ike suit 0 not guilty ae also evaluative. Evaluative concepts are or judgements ofthe work oF velue ofa person, at, behaviour, event, lace, et. Fictitious Concepts Similarly, the intension of fictitious concepts is also clearly delineated, but we know that, ‘the members ofthe exteision ofthe concepts are purely imaginary. Mermaids and Unicorns axe g00d examples of fictitious concepts. Fictitious concepts are not bad per se. In fact, in mythology and fay tale, they provide a unique source of entertainment. Even now I still enjoy Watching seience fction movies on the TV. programs. What is misleading is when fictitious concepts purport to be empirical while in fact they ate not. Ghost, tikhalang, muno sa punso and ‘manananggal are good examples of fictitious conceps pretending to be empirical. Because some Filipinos believe such entities exis, they seem to lie in-between the fictitious and the empirical ‘Metaphysical concepts assumed the centre stage in many philosophical systems. A good example is the concept of substance like God, mind, and matter. For instance, the intension of the concept mind is described as follows: It is an entity that is fundamental. It is immaterial, it hha rio weight, no mass and consequently it cannot be located in space. It does not exist in space Yet it is believed to exist in time. It is also indivisible and cannot be divided info parts. Its also eternal and so it cannot be destroyed unless destroyed by God. Nevertheless, itis believed that the mind interacts with the body. Another very imeresting metaphysical concept offered bythe idealist philosophers is called the absolute It is characterized as 2 universal mind and as such, it is composed of the totality of all minds, pst, present and to come, together with all tei ideas, of course. And so we are all part of one reality the absolute There will be no prob ing line between empirical, aetaphysial, abstract and fictitious can easily be drawn, For example, the dividing line between the empirical and the metaphysical is often dificult o establish even in the science. Intra-Inter Subjec ity Tests know that sometimes itis difficult to determine the status-of @ concept, It is therefore important to provide you with a quick but reliable method for determining types of concept, be it empirical, fictitious or abstract. ‘The method I have in mind is the intra and inter-subjectivity| test. These are the tests used in Epistemology and in all the sciences. al1 my example of an angel. Suppose, for example, ‘that Ihave an angel made up ofthe purest crystal itis almost invisible. I keep my angel on top of ‘ound narra table, The angel is visible and tangible only to me. If [touch i, it emits a sound only can hear. Only can smell it and taste it to. I alone ca identify and reidentify the engel on Aforent occasions that I want. Now mark this wel: suppose all my attempts to teach somebody the technique of observing the ange led. Nobody else can se it or touch it the wey 1 do, The question you must ask is: Js the age! empirical? Surely, it passes the test of intra-subjectvity, for I can identity and reidentify tie erstal angel whenever T want to, However, if anothet person Wwho wants to see and touch it could not do so, then the ange failed the test of inter subjectivity. Remember, forthe extension ofthe concept to be empiric, it must pass bath ests, Ploase bear in mind that when something does not pas the intra and inter subjectivity tess, the entity is fictitious. 1f, for example, my angel behaved so irrationally that even I could not see it or touch it when T want to, then my angel Became totaly fictitious It cannot even pas the intra subjectivity test, In short for an entity to pass the intra subjectivity tes, I must be able to ‘observe the ety anytime I want fo. And, frit to pas the inter-subjectivity test, another person ‘can, ithe wants to observe the same entity too. ‘These tests fr determining wither an entity i empirical or not, apply nt only to entities in te sciences and philosophy but also to your beliefs about trans-empirical ents like mno 42 puns, tkbalang and aswang, To be sue, there are many Filipinos who claim they have seen ‘such entities. The crucial question to ask is: Cam anybody who wants fo observe a muna. sa punso ‘be able to observe it? If the answer is yes, then it passes both the intra and inter-subjectivity tests, the entity is empirical. Ifthe answer is no, then it is fictitious. If we use these two test consistently, many eaiies purporting to be empirical will be unmasked as fictitious, So tberefore, i ou are not sure whether an entity is either empirical or fctitous, we the two tes tthe members of an extension are not directly observable through the unaided senses but through the use of sensory extending apparatus, like the use a simple light microscope for ‘observing thicrobes or the use of a radio telescope for observing a black hole, the belief that, microbes or black hole exist is established through the intra and inter subjective consensus of a community of scientists who are experts in the field. For example, the community of scientists of whatever nationality, culture, language, creed, race, or sex can come to a consensus regarding, What is or what js not observable through their sensory extending devices. Their consensus sets ‘up the intra and intersubjective support for the existence of theoretical entities inthe sciences. ‘The best example isthe demotion of the planet Pluto into an asteroid, The old consensus. ‘that lasted for more than seventy years claims our solar system consisted of niné planets. This consensus has been revised recently by experts in Astronomy. Now we have only eight planets, Hoi long this new consensus will last— nobody kuows for certain! This example exemplifies the nature ofall empirical claims—theie truth is only contingent and never certain. aModule 4- SAQ Name: Total Score: ‘A. Match the correct examples with the type of eonceps. £1. Enpirical concept 8 ood orb, right or wrong G2. Abstiact concept b. unicorns, mermaids and aswang "Bd. Evaluative concept ¢. absolute, being, mind and God GOA. Fiettios concept 4. magnetic, temperature and soluble {G__5. Metaphysical eoncept e. stom, particle and electron ‘d_6. Dispostional concept {stick and stone, tables and chairs 7. Theoretical concept &. point, umber, plane and circle B, Fillin the blanks 1 2, 8 9. Empirical conceots are _ ¢bsenyaiie, without the aid of sensory extending devices. Intenciza and _eetensian of empirical concepts’ are observable through the Unsided senses. ‘Abstract concepts are ‘creations of our minds. _Swatuntivn —conoepis include mora, aesthetic and the religious concepts. ‘The intension of dispositional concepts can only be. observed: by performing some operations ~thenatical_cinoepts ere observable only trough hurih intervention using sensory extending devices. ‘The objective existence of _theaetical_concets is estblished trough the intr and {inter subjertive consensus of practising scientists Fictitious concepts are rejected by the use of intra _“and_inter subeciy. tests Metaphysical concepts and _fici concepts are closely related. 10 The extension of metaphysie cannot pis the — intra and cer Adjpcthity tests, Fina and inter subjectivity ~ettious bservable Aintension/extension oretical “Abeoreticat valuative “areations perations ntra and inter subjectivity HELP ‘Do you have any questions? 43Unit: Module 4~ ASAQ A. Matehing type Ba 2g. 4b LF 6d Se Te B, Fillin the blanks intra and inter subjectivity 9: fictitious 1. observable 2. intension/extension . 7. theofetical , 6. theoretical 4. evaluative 3. creations s 5. operations 10. intra and inter subjectivity Unit: Module 4-TTD This activity will deepen your grasp’ on’ the technique of - classifying concepts, Furthermore, it will provide you with the applications ofthe intra and inter subjectivity tests to real life situations, ‘A, Provide ten (10) examples of the following concepts: empiticl, abstract, fi ‘evaluative. Iti all right to consult aa encyclopaedia or a dictionery. ns, and 'B. Apply the intra and inter subjectivity tests to Some examples of concept in-between the fictitious and the empirical. C. Now discharge your obligation as a critical thinker by criticizing your answers in Item A and B. In Item A look for misclassifications or borderline cases. In Item B look for rmisapplications ofthe two tests, Unit: Module 4-TTP It is time for you do some refiéctve thinking, I-want you to examine’ aid make an inventory of some of the entities that you believe to exist, Begin with the most familcr to the unfamilie: Assign some value to your confidence regarding ther existence like certain, probable ‘or uncertain. Now try to imagine if mos of them will pais the intra and inter subjectivity tests, Summing Up ‘This modute has enlarged your understanding of the various types of concepts you wall ‘come across in your study in U P. This understanding is critical when you start developing in ‘Module 7 more sophisticated skill of defining concepts. Now you can readily classify concep's,, along with the seven categories discussed in the module, Remember the categories are not hard ‘and fast becaisc borderline cases are possible. Of the seven types of concepis you have i ted, three of them will have far reaching importance in classifying not only knowledge claims, but also argument as well, these ae empirical, analytic and evaluative concept. 4Module 5 Ambiguous and Vague Terms Introduction This module will help you develop your ability to differentiate between an ambiguous and a vague term, This ability has far reaching consequences in your quest to become a critical thinker. You nged this ability in order to distinguish a vague from an ambiguous statement. fn ation, when you study the theories of truth in Unit Ml you will realize that vague and ambiguous statements are difficult to determine if they are trie or false. ‘This module will each you how to avoid the ill effects of using vague and ambiguous terms. Objectives . After completing this module, I guarantee that you should be able to: Differentiate between an ambiguous from a vague term; 2. Recognize the ambiguity of evaluative term; and 2. Avoid the fallacy of equivacation. There aie two defects that could go wrong in our use of terms, these are: terms can ‘become ambiguous or it ean become vague. Ambiguous Terms ‘You have leamed in the previous modules that a term can have a rich variety of uses different language games. With the possible exception of scientific terms, almost every word in a natural language has more than one use, You have also learned that to detemmine the meaning of ‘term, you have to identify the language game in- which the term is used. You know that this is the only way in which you can determine the intension and the extension of the term, Ambiguity, is amatter of degree. The more uses a term acquires, the more ambiguous it becomes, But when ‘term has acquired too many uses that it becomes very difficult to determine the proper language game in which the term is used, then the term has become too ambiguous. ‘There is'a very embiguovs term, in philosophy, namely, the evaluative term good, This term isthe central concept in moral philosophy. From the ancient times tothe present, the term is heavily burdened with along history of contadictory uses. Many philosophers will use the tem 4ifferently depending on the language-game they are playing, If you are a hedonis, the tem ‘290d is used to refer to bodily pleasure, Thus, any action that will promote pleasure is good. If you ate « humanist the word good will refer to the developnient ofall your human potentials ‘Therefore, if an action hastens the developsnent of your intelectual potential, that action is good. you are a utilitarian, any action that promotes the greatest happiness forthe grestest number it ‘geod. If you are a logical positivist, you use the term good to express your approval of an act Altenatively if you are Kantian, an ation is good if iis done in accordance with your duty. ‘The ambiguity ofthe term good in moral philosophy can readily be sorted out as T just sorted cut 45above, Now, consider how the same term good is used in ordinary context. Almost anything can be deseribed as good. For example, good meal, good dog, good book, good man, good day, good Juck, etc, Here the term good has become too ambiguous. ‘Vague Terms In contrast, when a term is vague, this means that somiething went wrong with the intension of the concept. The set of traits or characteristics that members must Have t3 be included in the extension is not sufficient to determine what to include and what to exclude, For example, the intension of the term some, in Symbolic Logic, states at least one but nat all. How many then is same? If I say:. Some politicians are corrupt. How many politicians am I taking” about? Some Christians are honest, How may Christians aze honest? At least one but not all? In ordinary language, terns like a few, many, almost ail are good examples of vague terms, Uses of these terms leave you guessing how meny items are being talked about. "When a term is vague, the antidote is to elarify the intension of the concept to make it usable for iluding members and excluding non-members: Ifa term cannot do this, itis obviously too ‘vague. This means that vagueness to, isa matter of degree. Some tems are too vague you could not even give atypical example ofits members: Vague terms like obscenity or pornography are and 9. 2, “aessimony is an assertion or set of astetions made by another person, for example, Te judgment of an exper 3. “Sjiuacation_ is 2 linguistic use of words characterized by a deliberate shift of meaning, 8. ambiguous word br 4 is a linguistic: device which focuses on the similarity of things and vents, €g the logical stueture of clementary propesition and the logical structure of fact 5. ty__ isa person whi is an expert on a paticillar subject matter or Field. g Biatein and Nevo. §._Genetaizatin. isa type of statement which states a property cominon tothe members of ' population, For example, People with broad foreheads are Intelligent , 67.___Gieatar___ is 2 type of defiition in which the definiendum or part of i, occurs in the definiens. For instance, Alien isan extraterresirial being. 8. _contmary is a relationship of two statements in which both cantiot be true but ‘both can be false. For example: The blackboard is green and The black board ts white. 9. js is both a science and an art concemed with correct and incorrect ‘easonihg 6 gio value deductive loge. 10. si fn artificial device which leads the observer to attend to something ater than the device itself. The bet examples are words generalization, logie symbol -siroular testimony, equivocation ‘analogy sign authority contrary HELP. [Pm sure that you must have a question by now. 62Unit: Module 7-ASAQ A. Fill in the blanks 9 exclude 2. definiendum 12. negative 13, uninformative S.narrowroroad 7, denotata 3.definiens 1. cireular 10. include 4, genusidifferentia - 14, synonyms/ 1. definiendumn/ S.definiendum =~ ostensive definiens! : 6. species denotata B, Matching type 6. generalization 9-Togie Toymbol 7. cirular 2. testimony’ Siequivocation 4. analo 10. sign 5. authority Unit: Module 7—TTD. ‘A, Lwant you to compose a good analytic definition, that is, in terms of deftnlendic, definience and denotata of the following concepts. You are free to use a dictionary or an ‘encyclopedia. You will notice that these sources do not use the technique of analytic definition. ‘Most of the definitions will not provide you with the denotata. You will have to be.creative and improve on their definitions: 1, snack 4. induction 7. opinion 10. fallacy 2. thermometer 5. deduction 8 faith 11 infant 3: argument, G.knowledge 9. square 12, brother B. Next, I vant youto discharge your obigntion asa eitical thinker by crtcizing the definitions that you have composed using the rules of sound definition. ‘This is part of you traning for hastening the development of meta-cognition. —* ‘Summing Up ‘This movie taught you one of the finest skills in philosophical analysis—producing a ood analytic definition, AS a critical thinker use it well to erticize and evaluate your ovm ‘definition andthe definition of the concepts of other thinkers you will encounter inthe business of living. Remember never participate in any discussion or debate unless you have agreed inthe, definition of the key terms that you are going to use. Ths is one of the important traits of a critical thinker, :_Unit I: Analysis.of Knowledge Claims What is this Unit all about? This Unit alms io provide you with a yery sold foundation for identifying different types of knowledge claims by tating their epistemological roots from the three canta issues in» epistemology. These skills are very important because if you cannot identify the type of knowledge claim you will not beable o use any theory of truth for verifying its taih-value, In addition, you will not be able t6 distinguish the realm of the known, the knowable and the ‘unknowable. Consequenti, you wil be in the dark regarding wa is provable or unprovable, In order to give you an idea of the coverage of this Unit, it comes int five Modules, these are: Module .; Analysis of Statements Module + Ration: and Empiricism Module 3: Types of Knowledge Claim Module 4 : Theories of Truth Module 5 : Your Obligation as a Critical Thinker 84Module L Analysis of Statements Introduction ‘This module will begin with what you are familiar with: types of sentences, Then, it will {focus on the nature of statements including the basic principles for analyzing statements. It will end with an claboration of the three principles of logic governing the truth values of ‘statements. I know you will study these principles well. This will be the foundation upon which I will build increasingly complicated principles and skill, Objectives After completing this module, [know you will be abe to: 1._ Explain the distinction between sentences and statements; 2. Discuss the nature of knowledge claims, 3. Compare and contrast the principles of identi, non-contradiction aid excluded riddle; and 4, Compare and contrast contradictory from inconsistent statements, Unit IT: Module 1 - Display Text ‘You know that all sentences are grammatically classified into five malin types. These are: 1. Interrogative sentence 2. Imperative sentence 3. Exclamatory sentence 4, Expletive sentence 5S. Declarative sentence When you ask a question like: What rime is i? and alternatively, What is my grade in Philo P-You know that you. are’ using an interrogative sentence, But, when you issue commands like Stat the door! and, Put out the ‘fire! You know you are-using an imperative sentence, However, when you are surprised and utter What a game! or, . when you express _ Hleasure and say This is good! You know you are using an exclamatory sentence, Buti you sre daydreaming and you express a desire ora wish like: hope my business succeeds! ot I hope 10 | Anish my PhD in philosophy! These are expletive sentences. Let me quote from Wittgenstein again: But ‘how imany kinds of sentences are there?’ Say assertion, question, and command? There are countless kinds’ couniless different kinds of use of what we call symbols, words, sentences. Arid the multiplicity is not something fixed, aghien once and for all, but new types of language, new language games, as we + may Say come ivto existence, and others become obsolete and get forgotten..the | 6term language-game ts meant to bring nto prominence the fact that speaking of language ls part of an activity, ora form of life! Asserting a Knowledge Claim Let us now focus our attention on one very important use of language, namely, using a ‘sentence 10 assert a knowledge claim. ‘The linguistic bearer of knowledge claims is often called a proposition or & statement in the current linguistic convention. Let us describe this language ‘game, You know that interrogative, imperative, exclamatory atid expletive sentences are merely uttered, We do’not quarrel about ther truth or falsehood because they have no truth value. When you issue a command Siu the doorf the command is neither true nor false;'and even if thé: ‘command is not obeyed,.the command’ is'not falsified. Similarly, when you exclaim What a game! you have not stid anything true or false because you have not made a knowledge claim, ‘These types of Sentences have no truth-values because nothing was asserted and nothing was denied ‘The case is quite different when you use a declarative sentence to assert of deny something in the world that can be either true or false.'In this ease; you have used « declarative seater to assert a knowledge claim, And you know thatthe linguistic bearer of @ knowledge claim is either the proposition or statement. This use of a declarative sentence to assert knowledge claim is very important not only in Logic but in Epistemology as well. Sentence and Statement ‘In Unit 1, you were introduced to the distinction betiveen a word and a concept. You ‘know that for pedagogical purpose, we have described that a word is made up of lesters.and a ‘concept is made up of ideas. You also know that a sentence is made up of words. However, what ‘you are not so familiar with is the view that a statement, which is the bearer of knowledge ‘claims, is made up of concepts. Later in Unit Ill, you will discover that an argument is made up of statements that can be trac or false and sot of senfences which is neither true nor false ‘Concepts as well as statements are constructs; they are convenient linguistic devices invented by philosophers to draw up important distinctions. The uses of these constructs are made stable by stipulative definitions of philosophers playing the same language game. ‘You know tit the concept ‘dog,’ not the word “dog,” can be expréssed by different words inthe same language: The wad canine, for example, ean be used to expreés the concept ‘dog. Alternatively, another word in enother language can be used to express the same concept, for instance, in Filipino—aso. Analogously, the knowledge claim The cat ison the mat can be ‘expressed by another sentence in the same language The cat is on top of the mat. Or, The mat has {cat on top. Or, it could be expressed th another language like in Filipino, dmg pusa ay nasa ‘babaw ng banig. Consequently, we etn have many terms, not necessarily inthe saine language, expressing the same concept end similarly, we can have many sentences, not necessarily inthe same language, expressing the same knowledge claim. This is an important linguistic convention among philosophers of language. ‘The use of declarative sentence to.assert a knowledge claim marks an. important distinction in philosophy. The ptilosopher must conffont an age-old problem of the relationship between language and the world. This problem has bugged philosophers since time "Op. Ch, Witeensein PL 2. Op. Cit, Wit eimmemorial. donot wish to be entangled in the intricacies ofthe problem. Suffice itt say that most philosophers accept that a sentence is not the bearer of trth of falsehood, but i is the staiement it expresses. Some pilosophers as well as logiians prefer to use the term proposition rather than statement. But they agree that rath and falsehood are properties of statements (rif you prefer proposition) expressed by sentences on certain occasions to make a knowledge claim about what is or is not the case, In any ease statement and proposition are used almost synonymous. ‘When you actually use a sentence to make « knowledge claim by asserting or denying something inthe world, this oeeasion constitutes the making of statement. Many philosophers accept that gentences could not be tre or false because a single sentence often contains two or more statements or knéwledge claims. In Module 3 of Unit Il, entitled Truth-Values of Compound Statements, 1 will teach you how to sort out two or more statements in a single senfenée in order to determine the trth-value of the compound. Therefore, it is important to discriminate between te sentence and the statement if you want to play the language game ofthe philosopiers when they conduct philosophical analysis. ‘You know thatthe sentence is obviously material because it is made up of words. What shout the statement it expresses? As I said earlier, statements like-concepts are philosophers? constructs, they do not exist in space and time. However, the construct is important in order for the philosophers to analyze the tmuth-values of statements and.more importantly, as you will discover later, to analyze an. argument. Let ine reiterate that in the literature of philosophy of language and logio, the term proposition is sometimes suggested instead of statement, Moreover, while not exactly identical, the use is very similar. How do we analyze the truth-values of statements? You may tse a declarative sentencé that The cat is on the mat to express the statement that ‘The cat ison ihe mat. In addition, you will succeed in expressing the statement, provided that in the world there isa mat and there is a cat; and the state of affairs thatthe cat is on che ‘mat actually obtains. If so, then you have succeeded in usirg a sentence to assert a knowledge claim that you have verified to-be true. However, if there is a mat and if there is cat, but the State of affairs thatthe cat i.oh the mat does nat obtain, then you have sugceeded in verifying a knowledge claim that is false. But if there is no mat and there isso eat, you have not even succeeded in expressing a knowledge claim at ll! This means that you failed to use a declarative sentence to assert a knowledge claim, The method of determining the truth-value of a knowledge claim by an appeal to something external oit—to ¢ non-verbal reality ike the state of af ‘he fountain head of many important concepts and many theories in philosophy. Principle of Mdentity ‘ ' ‘There is a consensus among formal logicians that there are three principles governing the analysis ofthe truth-value of statements. Aristotle, an ancient philosopher, even called them three Javis of thought! Personally I arn not inclined to call them laws. The first one is the prineiple of identity that states that Ifa statement is true, then iis true. Alternatively, the converse, If a statement is false, then itis false. Tis means that the tuth-value of a statemet is stable over ‘ime. For instance, when you have determined that the statement All bachelors are unmarried mates: is true, then the truth-value of the statement is retained indefinitely over time. This of course assumes that the verbal convention regarding the use of the concept: bachelor has Temained unchanged. “A statement is not true in one instance-and with the blink of an eye turns o‘out to be false. If this were the case, it would create havoe in logic. The principle of identity is applicable only to a world that is cosistant, regular, and unchanging. ‘The Principle of Non-Contradiction ‘The second principle is, the principle of non-contradiction,,this guarantees that Statement cannot both be true and false at the same time, and in the same respect. “This.is a fundamental prineiple not only in logic but often in ordinary disoourse as well, This principle sounds very simple and very easy to apply yet very many intelligent péople often violate it. They often assert one stetement and in the same breath, (or line of reasoning), they assert another which conteadicts their former statement. ‘Non-Contradiction and Inconsistency Even among philosophy majors, the principle of non-contradiction ‘is often confused ‘with the concept of inconsistency. Wrien you assert a knowledge claim that The blackboard is green, the contradictory knowledge claim is: The blackboard is not green or It is not the case that the blackboard is green. The knowledge claim is not contradicted by The blackboard is white. two statements are contradictory, it follows that ifthe affirmative is true, then the denial is always falsé. Or when the affirmative is false, then the denial is always.true,. So if The blackboard is green is true, the denial The blackboard is not green must always be false what ever else isthe colour ofthe blackboard, In contrast, statements that are only inconsistent can both be false, but they cannot both be true. Consider the statement The blackboard Is green. This statement is inconsistent. with ‘many statements, among them is the statement The blackboard is yellow: When two staterments are inconsistent, this means that both statements can be false but both cannot be true because the blackboard cannot both be green and yellow at the same time, Notice that ifthe eolour ofthe blackboard is black, both statements are false. Whereas when two statements are coniradictory, this means that when one is false, the other must be true and vice versa. Logi relationship rath functional, ‘The Principle of Excluded Middle ‘The principle of non-contradiction prepares the way for the acceptance of a thitd principle, namely, the prinefple of excluded miiddle. The principle states that a statement can Ihave only two truth values, either it is true or it is false. and nothing else, °A third yalue, presumably probability is excluded from the consideration and analysis of the statements in the ‘wo valued deductive logic. The principle of excluded middle is an important principle in this, formal logic. t guarantees that the statements in the symbolic system will only have two truth- value. However, not all symbolic systems. accept the principle of excluded middle, Some are called many-valued logic. A good example is the calculus of mathernatieal probability and its ‘empirically interpreted component—-statistis. Moreover, as you will diseover later, the principle of excluded middie does not apply to émpirical siatements, ‘The distindtion between a sentence and the use of a sentence to make’a knowledge claim or a statement inchiding the three principles of thought will be useful to you up to the end of the ‘book. Remember them wel. 68Unit 11: Module: I ~ Self Assessment Questions Name: . Total Score: ‘The SAQ built into the design of al the modulés in this book will provide you with ‘enough exercises in crder to ensure that you internalize the skills, concepts and principles Aisoussed in the Display Text, The 8AQ is selfadministered and the ASAQ will provide you with immediate feedback on how well you are doing. Fill inthe blanks with the appropriate answers below. |. Among the numerous uses of language, there is one very impdrtant use, that is, using a declarative sentence t0 assert oF. something in the world. 2. When you assert or deny something in the World you have make &_toasiadqe clact 3. According to the current convention among logicians the linguistic bearer of knowledge claim is cther _rapnitien oF 2 4, There isa consensus among philosophers of language that sentences could not be the bearer of truth or falsehood because a single sentence may contain two or more —tatemens 5. A conce qt canbe expressed by different words or terms inthe same language or in different languages. 6. Similarly, a statement. 6an be expressed by different sentences in the same language or in different Inguages. : 7. Amargumentis made-up of statements that canbe ether true or false and not sertencas_ that isneither true not false. 8 The principle of identity states that if statement is true, then itis __tmag : 9. The principle of non-contradiction states that no statement can both be seve and sae, ___ atthe same time and inthe serie respect. 10. The principle of excluded middle states that a statement can only have two —touth_salues : 1. toca is concep often confused withthe principe of non-contradcton 12: A statement that is inconsistent can both be _ aye, but they cannot both be tive, 13. Concept, statement and argument are philosopher's toncisuct< in order tomark important distinction in philosophy. ‘14. The knowledge claim The cat is on the mat is true only if in the world there is aot, and a sat and the _cectey of aus. asserted bythe knowledge claim obtain. 15. If the truth value of knowledge claim is determined by appealing to something extemal like eanzsachal catty. this method isthe fountain heed of many important theories in philosophy. t 16, The calculus of mathematical probabiliy des nt follow the principle of excuded mild, : [Pesinded midaie tates oF eas ave attemets inconsistency Aiatements/ "constructs concept. [Aruthvalues sentences, Aalsehrue knowledge claims [non-verbal realty” concept Aneffalse asservdeny -proposiionstatement evidence truth falsehood oUnit It: Module I~ Answer to the Self Assessment Qu. ‘This is your feedback sheet It will provide you withthe correct answer for every item in the'SAQ. It quickly provides you with the information regarding yoir progress. Let me remind! ‘you ofthe rule to follow in using the ASAQ. You must check with t only after you have waitten, ‘own your own answer. In this way the programming ofthe book will work far you. Fill in the blanks 16. excluded middle 14, states of affairs 8. true statements I1.inonsistency ' 7. statements? 13. constructs 4. concept 10: truth values sentences 12. falseftrue 2. knowledge claims 15. non-verbal reality 5, conéept 9.tuelfalse 1, aéservéeny 3. proposition/statement evidence truth falsehood Unit 1: Module 1 - Things To Do Now you are'ready to-apply and actually experience how the concepts and ski ‘Toit really work. Plegse complete the requirements of the items below. ‘A, Give 10 samples of contradictory statements, B, Give 10 samples of contrary or inconsistent statements C. Now, I want you to discharge your obligation as a critical thinker and crit you have given in A. and B. ‘the Samples Unit I: Modulé 1 Things To Ponder Now is the time for you to do your own philosophical thinking! ‘The Things to Ponder incorporated in the design of the book will develop your ability for independent thinking. ‘A. What do you think is the reason behind the principle of nén-coatradiction? Can you think of | cases where it does not apply? BB. . What about the principle of exelided middle, can you think of casés where it does not apply’? . Do you think you ean use a non-declarative sentence to express a statement? Summing Up ‘This module introduced you to an iniportant construct among: logicians, namely, the concept of starement as the bearer of knowledge claims after which you were taught the three principles governing the analysis ofthe truth-valued of statements: the principles of identity, non- contradiction and excluded middle. Your study of these principles will further be reinforded i the next module. Note Pad Do you have an important reminder? 0Module 2 Rationalism and Empiricism Introduction 1 will trace for you the philosophical roots ofthe thres central questions in the theory of| knowledge, This is the indispensable framework in order for you tobe able to differentiate types of knowledge claims. 1 will begin with the question about the source of knowledge, followed by the nature of knowledge, and finally the validation of our knowledge claims. Only in the context of the three cent entiate the rationalist from the empiricist philosophets. ‘This is the philosophical stage setting for a clearer distinetion of their respective knowledge las in terms of formal and empirical. This distinction betwee the two types of knowledge is, sill accepted in the sciences today, It is reflected inthe great division between the formal and ‘empirical science. : : Objectives ‘Through this module, I’m sure you will be able to: 1. Explain the three central issues in Bpistemology; 2. Compare and contrast Rationalisen and Empiri 3._ Differentiate the two types of knowledge claims. sm and Unit It: Module 2 - Display Text ‘Three Central Issues : ‘There are two major traditions in Modem Philosophy: These are rationalism and ‘empiricism. Rationalisin is represented by Rene Descartes (1596-1650), Baruch Spinoza (1632- 1677, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716). Empiricism is represented, by John Locke (16321704), George Berkeley (1685-1753) and David Hume (1711-1776). It is often argued that Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) synthesized these twe-major traditions in modem philosophy. ‘When we attempt to compare and contrast rationalism and empiricism, the best way to-0 $0 ‘would be in terms of the three central issues in Epistemology. ‘Let us do just that, The first central issue: What is the source or sources of knowledge? The second: Given the source, what can be known? And finally the third: “How do we validate our knowledge claims. All theories of knowledge from the ancient times down to the present must provide an answer to these three central issues. Consequently, any comparative analysis of theories of knowledge must begin from these three central issues as well. This i the bottom line. Rationalism Let us consider how the rationalists would provide an answer to the three’central issues in epistemology. The rationalists contend that reason is the only source of knowledge. And the type of knowledge this source can guarantee is formal knowledge found in the formal sciences. ‘And the rationalists accept only one theory of trtb, viz., coherence theory of truth, They believe thatthe five senses are not genuine source of knowledge. ‘The rationalists argue that knowledge claims guaranteed by, the faculty of the five senses are unreliable; oftentimes, it is even n2ontradictory. They would support their criticism by giving examples of perceptual illusions. lassie examples are: a tower appears shorter from a distance and would appea:.tallee when you wwe near it; an oar half submerged in water appears bent but, in fact, itis not; or the mountaia that, ‘ooks blue at some distance but is not; the rail road track which appears to converge ata distance >ut in reality is paraliel. From these examples of perceptual illusions, the rationalists conclude ‘hat the five senses cannot give rise to genuine knowiedge because the knowledge derived from oxperience is unstable, unreliable and worse, even contradictory. in contrast, knowledge derived fromreason gave rise to the formal sciences like algebra, ‘eometry, mathematics and logic. “These sciences provided the model for eertsin knoviledge asing coherence theory of truth, The rationalists from the time of Plato (427-347 B C) to the 2ontemporary period have considered these formal sciences to be the model for their theory of ‘snowledge, * Empiricism ‘The empiricist phifosophers, namely: Locke, Berkeley and Hume, do not deny that reason Sa genuine source of knowledge. However, they believe tht if we are to have knowledge of the ahysical world, we have to use the faculty of the five senses however unreliable or defective it nay be. This is the only faculty that we have that can come in contact with the physical world. ‘The physical world is revealed through the images we can see, objects we can touch, odors We: 2an smell, flavors we can taste and sounds we can hear. In the language of Hume: All perceptions of the uman mind resolve themselves into two kinds, which I shell call impressions and ideas. The difference betwixt these consists in the degrees of force and liveliness, with which they strike upon the mind, and make ‘heir way into our thought or consciousness. These perceptions which enter with most force and violence, we may cail impressions, and under this name 1 comprehend ail our sensation, passions and emotions, as they make thelr frst appearance in the soul. By idea I mean faint images af these in thinking’ and ‘reasoning; ... That-all our simple ideas in thelr first appearance are derived from simple impressions, which are: corresporident to them, and which they ‘exactly represent "(Bold mine.) Notice that in this quotation, Hume accepted not‘only sensation (five senses) but also passions and emotions as genuine impressions giving rise to genuine ideas. Notice further that what ume wanted to commit to the flames are ideas without corresponding impressions. Yet it seems “hat the logical positivist that followed Hume relegated to the limbo of meaningless statements | deas emanating from passions and emotions, The positivist accepted and emphasized only two abjects of human reason, namely relations of ideas, and matters of fact and conveniently forgot ‘hat passions and emotions are genuine sourge of ideas. To wit: “All the objects of human reason or inquiry may naturally be divided into two Ainds; (0 wit, Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact. Of the first kind aré-the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic, and, in short, every affirmation which is elther intuitively or demonstratively certain, That the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the square ofthe to sides....That three times five is equal 10 the half of thirty... " David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nalue(1738)p.‘Matters of fact, which are the second objects of human reason, are not ‘ascertained Inthe same manner, nor are our avidenee of heir truth, however great, ofa like nature with the foregoing. The contrary of every matter of fat is sil possible, Because it can never imply @ contadletion and is conceived by the mind ‘with the same facility and distinctness as if ever so conformable to reality. That the ‘sun will not rise tomorrow i no less intelligible a proposition and implies no more contradiction than the affirmation that it will rise ‘The empiricist disagree with the rationalists thatthe faculty of reason cami guarantee cmpisical knowledge and that this knowledge does not require verification by the faculty of the five’ senses. The faculty of reason, according to the empiriciss, can guarantee only formal knowledge—mathematics, algebra, geometry and logic. This type of knowledge has no empirical confent. The point that [wish to underscore hete isthe agreement made by Hume regarding the distinction established by Leibniz, 2 rationalist philosopher, between two types of knowledge claims, namely: truth of reason and ‘ruth of fact. Hume calls these knowledge els relations of ideas and matters of fact respectively: And if there are two types of knowledge claim emanating from two sources—reason and experience, it follows the there should only be (wo theories of truth resporsible for validating two types of knowledge claim. “These are coherence and correspondence theory of truth respectively. ‘The Dogina ‘The dojgma that there are only two types of knowledge claims was perpetuated in the 20th ‘century by the logical positivists.. And while the distinction remains controversial in philosophy, the distinction is sill useful and still honored in the classification of sciences today—formal and ‘empitical sciences. To my mind, the distinction between the two types of knowledge claims, namely, truth of reason and truth of facts has an important use in the study of philosophical ‘alysis. In ecntemporary philosophy, the term relations of ideas has many synonyms, among, the nlost common of which are: matters of logic, analytic, formal and a priori. These terms are ‘used to refer to formal knowledge claims. In contrast, the common synonyms of matters of fact are synthetic, empirical or a posteriori. These torms are used to refer to empirical knowledge claims., In order to avoid ambiguity; let us adopt the convention of using analytic statements and ‘empirical statements to represent the two types of knowledge claims. In addition, the distinction Ynowledge” —-truelfalse fordinary fogical structure? one premise svalidity - -»ertical discourse _~content zone conclusion invalidity __sevaluation 98Instruction: Please compare your answers with the correct ones in the ASAQ. Remember to ‘write your answers first before consulting thé ASAQ for the correct answers. ‘Unit Il : Module 1 ~ Answer to the Self Assessment Questions A. True or False, 1. Trae, 2. True, 3, No.3. is false because FDL hes nothing todo with argument in ordinary discourse, Once an argument is represented you do away with the content. 4, Troe 5. True B. Fillin the blanks. ‘normative 3. valid/invaid 5. invalid 8. knowledge 6 etioary gia etc! 7 one pretend discourse __ content ‘one conclusion inv Z tuclfalse critical evaluation Ifyou have'iot made any error, you should be congratulated. Some of the questions are tricky! If however you did not get @ perfect score, read the part of the module you did not understand well. May I suggest that inthe next module, read the Text more times than you did. In addition, don’t goto the SAQ unless you feel confident that you can make a perfect score. ‘Summing Up ‘This module gave you a good idea of the subject matter of FDL. You know now that FDL. is @ normative sefenge and nat a descriptive one. Tis main concern is thie dearch for the essence of all argument which they found in ther argument forms. ‘You know that FDL cannot help you understand arguments that occur in ordinary discourse: This is the subjest matter of Informal 99Module 2 Representing Compound Statements Introduction have introduced to you many varieties and types of statement—from the ordinary garden variety to the sophisticated epistemological iypes. In this module, I wll introduce you to one of the finest logical classifications of staternents—compound statements. These statements belong. to the analytic variety. This classification has a very long history in philosophy because itis part of the historical development of formal deductive logic. This module will provide you with the basic skill for analyzing compound statements. You will Iearn how to isolate the logical form ‘rom the content of compound statements by the simple technique of representing them. Without these foundational skills, you will never learn how to analyze a deductive’ argument, the main subject matter of Unit HI.” , Objectives ‘After studying this module Iam sure that you wil be able fo: Distinguish logical structure from the content of compound statements; Explain the convention for representing statements and logical eénstants; Apply the convention for representing simple statements; Apply the convention for representing compound statements and Apply the convention for representing negation. Unit M1; Module 2- Display Text In Module 1 of Unit Il, you have feamed the distinction between a sentence and @ statement. You Know the reason why statements are the ones that are either true or false and not the sentence. inthis module, we will deal with the representation of statements, both simple as well as compound. This isin preparation for the more complicated skill of determining the truth- ‘Values of compound statements, And, finally the determination of the validity of argument forms in terms of truth table method in Module 7 ofthis Unit. ‘You must learn how to represent statements in order to isolate the’ logical structure of the statement and do away with its content, Once the logical structure is revealed, you can now create the truth table to reveal the logical form. of the compound statement. Remember that formal logie is not interested in studying or analyzing the content of the argument but only its logical form. Convention for Representing Statements and Logical Constants ‘The skill of representing statements is the first step in your study of valid and invalid argument forms, In the development of this skill, we will stipulate the following convention: 100A. You will use a single capital letter to represent a simple statement. A simple Statement by definition contains no connecting words like: either/or, andy if ..then, ‘and if and only if. There are only four connecting words in FDL, they are also called logical constants. B. We will stipulate the following symbols fo represent these logical constanis: 1. The symbol © to represent the connecting word and, The technical tem is conjunction; 2. The symbol v to represent the connecting word either/or. The technical term is alternation; 3. The symbol -> to represent the connecting word if..then :...The technical term is conditional; 4, And the symbol = to represent the connecting wort if and only if. The technical term is biconditional, Remember these are conventional symbols for representing the four logical constants. ‘These symbols have specialized uses in symbolic logic. They must be memorized! Represent Simple Statements ‘You know that every statement either contains a connecting word or it does not. Statements without any coftnecting word however long are simple statements from the point of view of formal logicians. Simple statements can be represented by using a single capital letter following our convention, Let us give a clear illustration: Consider the statement Brothers are male siblings itcan be represented bj any of he 26 ‘eters ofthe alphabet, for example, B ort could be any capital eter like X Y Z, ete: You ean stipulate any capital leer inthe slphabet to represent any simple statment. For example, irlangle has tree sides with three angles ean bo represented by T; ot Man is rational animal can be represented by M; and Bais are marinas can be represented by B. Notice how the Coctent disappears when you represent simple statement witha capital letter, This would be ‘more apparent when you representa compound statement in which the content disappears and the logical structure is revealed Represent Compouind Statements How do we represent a compound statement? We have to stipulate another convention {or representing a compound statement. Supposing we represent the simple statement Plato is a Philosopher by the capital letter P. Suppose further that we'represent another simple statement Aristotle is a philosopher by the capital letter Q. Now we aze no longer talking about Plato ot Aristotle but about their representations. Finally we'conjoin the two simple statements by the symbol + of the conjunction, The result js: P * Q. You know that conjunction is the technical symbol for the and connecting word. So it reads P and Q. This is how we represent a conjunetion to reveal its logical structure. The representation ofthe logical struchire of P « Q takes the place of the compound statement; Plato is a philosopher and Aristole is a philosopher 101or the shortened version of the compound, Plato and Aristotle are philosophers, Noticé thatthe content has disappeared with our representation of the logical structure, We can now concentrate om the logical form of the conjunction, more particuladly their truth values, ‘Siippose instead of a conjunction, we use alternation and the symbol v, then we have the following: P v Q representation of the logical structure, “You know that alternation is the ‘echnical representation for the either/or connecting word. Thus, the compound reads either P or @ or simply P or Q. It represents the logical structure of the compound statement: Either Plato or Aristotle is a philosopher, or, altematively the longer version of the compound: Either Plato 4s a philosopher or Arisiotle ts a philosopher. Now know you have a fee! of how to represent a. ‘compound statement in order to reveal the logical structure, ‘You oan do the same with the conditional, tus: P ->'Q. You know thatthe conditional is the technical representation for an fthen connecting word. The representation reads if P then Qorsimply, P then Q. Lastly, et us do the same with a biconditional. We will have P= Q to represent the logical structure ofthe biconditional. It reads P if and only if Q. Now you know hhow to represent the four compound statements in order to reveal their logical-structure. These are: eonjunetion, alternation, conditional and biconditional, Remember that by representing a ‘compound statement you isolate logical structure from the content of the compound. statement. ‘This is your preparation so that you can inspect the logical form of the compound by extracting their truth table. You will embark on this skill on the next Module. Represent Negation ‘Let me now introduce you to'the conéept of negation. This is represented by the tilde symbol ~. Negation is a powerful too! in logic, as you will soon discover. You can negate a simiple statement or a compound statement. For example, let us negate a simple statement R. ‘The negation of R is represented in the following way: ~R. The convention for reading this representation is: not R. Consider another statement S; we have the representation ~S. It réads not S. Notice how easy it is. You can do the same for all the representations of simple statements. ‘A compound statement can be negated, oo. The negeiion of a compound statement takes the following form: It isnot the ease that P or Q. Or symbolically, we can use the tilde symbol ~ to represent the negation of the compound: ~ (Pv Q). Notice that if you want to negate the whole ‘compound we bracket the compound with a parenthesis inorder to mark the scope or domain of the negation to avoid confusion. The rest ofthe compound statements ean be negated in the same way, to wit: ~ (P —> Q). It eads IIs not the case that if P then Q. Let us apply it to the ‘biconditionel: 11 isnot the case that P if and dnly if Q is represented as: ~ (P = Q). And the representation: ~ (P + Q) reads ti not tha case that Pana Q. Wf che phase lt isnot phe case that is becoming too redundant, it can be replaced by Ji alse that oI isnot true tht. However, you may want to negate an element of the compound, To do so you can remove the parenthesis. You can do the following: ~P —> Q. It reads if not P then Q. Or you ‘may wish to negate both elements like: ~P > ~Q, it reads ifnot P then not O. However if you nogate the compound together with its elements, you have to bring back the parenthesis, like thi ~ CP > ~ Q), You should read this one as: It is false chat if not P then not Q; or another variation: fis not trxe that if not P, then not Q. 102Let us summarize whet you have leamed. You have learned the representations of the {out compound statements: 1, An and compound statement is represented by P « Q. Logicians have a teetnical term for the compound which they call 2 conjunction, 2. An either/or compound statement is represented by P v Q. The technical term for its called alternation. 3. Anif-.. then .. statement is represented by, P—» Q. The technical term for it isa conditional 4, Anifand only ifstatemont is represented by P = Q. Itis called a biconditional. ‘There are only four logical constaits. They are conjunction, alternation, conditional and biconditional. They constitute all the connectives in symbols logic, The introduction of these represeniations is unavoidable. The study of FDL cannot be dove without them. I know that they are unfamiliar and counterintuitive. [gave you the best explanation possible to make these concepts easy understand and to apply. My advice is for you to memorize them. Tt can't be helped, I will be using these representation in the suceeding modules. 103Unit HT: Module SAQ Name: Total Score; Fillin the blanks, 1. We represent a simple or a compound statement in order to do away with the content from the _togieal —_ structs of the statement, 2. Weusea carina setter _ to represent a simple statement, 3. The symbols we have adopted to represent the four connecting words are the following: 3.1 + represents the connecting word and. 3.2 represents the connecting Word either/or. 3.3 _=> represents the comnecting word ifthen. 3.4 represents the connecting word ifand only if 4. The technical names for the four eonnecting words are: 4 2 4.2 Mermotion 43 conditional 44 Bi-eendnora 5: A statement tat coniains a connecting word is called @_compourd statement 6. Suppose P and Q are representations of two simple statements. Create four different ‘compound statements. 61__Pee 62_pw 63__ PW 64__P2@ 7. The representation of a compound statement serves to isolate the Joga fam, from the 8. If P represents a simple stalement, then the negation of P can be represented as 9. IF P VQ represents a compound steement, then the negation ofthe compound can be represented as (eva) 10. “If wish to negate the compound statement as well as its elements, Ican represent it as = Pyea) “PvQ _cTogical srustare conjunction 2=Q- compound ——_eondtonal -¥ 2X ~Py~Q), alteration -> Ceapital eter -bieonditional PvQ). logical structure content 104‘Unit DT: Module2 : TED ‘AW Using our convention, represent the following’ statements using the frst letter of the underscored word, 1, IfT study Philo. J, them I will pass the course Poo 2. We have a Freedom Constitution, E 3,, Itt does not rain, then the ground will not be wet wR >a} 4, Either I study oI go to the movi Sv is rains. _D SQ 1 5. The dam will be fall if and only if 6. "Iti false thatthe, walls are made of concrete and wood,» (Caw) 7. People Power succeeded, 8. You will be a logician if and only iFyou study logic. Ls. B. Using our convention for negation, rewrite and negate all your representations initem B, 1) __¢eac3 2) me 3) ME © 6p vo) 4) (Sunn): 5) coopera) (92R\ 6.) ttn Pea eee cee een ee eRe C. Now read the representations of negations in item C. 1). 2), 3). 4), 5). cee 7), 8). | HELP | Do you have any questions? 105Unit IM: Module 2— ASAQ ‘You will find the correct answers to the SAQ below: ill in the blanks. 61.P*Q 62. PVQ _ 1)logical stugjure 4.1 conjunction 63 P>Q 64 P=Q’ 5)compound® 43 conditional ale 32 9 10) ~(~Pv~Q) 42alternation 348 33 > — 2)eapitalleter 44 biconditional 8) ~P 9.) ~PvQ) 7) logical form — 7.)b. content ‘Comments on. Unit II: Module 2-TTD. ‘You wl inthe omect answers tothe Things To Do below: ‘A. Representation of statements 2) F LS 1)P3c 6) ~C+w 7) P 4)SVM 3) -R>-W 5) DeR B,_ Negation of the representation in item B. 2) -F 8)-(Le8) 1) 4P 40. 6) -4C#W) 7) -P 4)~®YM). 3) CROW) 5) ~DeR) C. Reading ihe representations ofthe negations in item C 2)notF 8) Its notte cise that 1.) Its not the cage 6, tis no te that it is Lifand only if thatifPthen C.” false that Cad W TymotP 4) leis false thet SofM 3.) Is not the case. 5.) Tes not tre that D if that if not R then and only ifR not W, Reminder. Afer comparing yout answers and you have nd mistake, you are fst ‘becoming a logician. If you did not pet a perfect score, do not worry. I know that the Module is really unfamiliar, Just read the part of the display you did not undersland well 106: Module 3 ‘Truth Values of Compound Statements Introduetion ‘This module will provide you with the basic techniques for determining the truth-values ‘of compound statements. These techniques are very important, because without them, you will never understand, much less apply, some of the more complicated techniques: in deductive argument. For instance, the concept of argument form as well asthe concept of validity is rooted in the tut table ofthe four compound statements. Therefore, in order for you fo progress to the ‘more complicated skill of determining the validity or awalidity of deductive arguments, you have to ground yourself well in these basic techniques. Objectives After completing this module, 'm sure you will be able to: 1. Apply the principles of identity, excluded middle and non-contradition in the analysis of the rth values of compound statements; 2. Explain the coficept of negation and double negation; 3. Differentiate the truth able of the four compound statements; and 4 Diseuss te logical form of deduetive arguments Unit I: Module 3 - Display Text In the first module of Unit Il, you were introduced to the three principles governing the ‘ruth-values of statements. These are principles of identity, excluded middle and non- contradiction, ‘This module will pursue the application of the three principles in the analysis of the truth-values of eompound statements. ‘The Principle of Identity Suppose you represent the simple statement: Puppies are young dogs by the capital ieter P. .And, supposing you know that puppies are indeed young dogs by definition. So if P is tre, then is true. Altematvely, if puppies are not young dogs, so Ps else. If Bis false, then P is falsé, The principle of identity states that statement P implies tself., This can be. represented as P-»P-or ~P->~P and this statement, in virtue ofits form, is always true, Therefore P-> P is a tautology.-- This means that truth value of a statement is retained indefinifely over time, ‘This means further that trath-values are more or less stable overtime. This is guaranteed by the ple of identity, Ifthe trath-values of statements are not stable, the other principles, namely: excluded middle and non-contradiction will not work. ‘The Principle of Exeluded Middle ‘The principle of excluded middle guarantees thatthe truth-value of any statement like P is either true or false only. This means thatthe premise and conclusion of a deductive argument can only be either true or false. Tt cannot admit of probability values. The principle can be 107represented as: Pv ~P. Either puppies are young dogs or they are not, You do not have a third fruth-value, Supposing you know that P is true, then, without further investigation, you also ;know that the negation ~P is false, following the principle of excluded middle. Why? Because ‘you know that the truth of P is stable overtime following the principle of identity; and you know ‘that P cam be either true or false only. Logicians have a technical name for this relationships itis called truth functional relation. This means that P and ~P are truth functionally related. ‘Now consider the reverse if the affirmative P is false, then itis the negative ~P ihat is ‘ruc. When you sée the negation sign before « statement it does not necessarily mean the statement is false, A negated statement can bere or it canbe false. In short, Py ~ P is always, teue because in all Jossible substitution of is truth-values the statement is true. "This means that Py~P isa tautology. ‘The Principle of Non-Contradietion ‘You know that the principle of non-contradiction will prevent you ftom assigaing two ‘ruth-values to a statement at the same tine and in the same respect, This meas that P eannot be Doth true and false ot the same time and in the same respect, Although P ean be true at one ‘instance and false at another; but they cannot bother be true and false at-the same time. So Puppies cannot both be young dogs and not young dogs at te same time and in the same respect, ‘This would be absurd! This principle of non-contradiction is represented by ~(P © ~P). It reads: I is not the case thar P and not P. ‘The principe is ealling our ettenton 10 axy conjunction ofthe form.P + ~P that itis always false beéause a conjunction is tre only when both conjunets are true as you will soon discover in the succeeding paragraph, P » ~P, therefore, is selt-contradictory. The denial of a sef-contradictory statement of the form: ~ (P' =P) is always true, hence a tautology. Negation and Double Negation In the previous module you were introduced to the technique of negation.. It is now time for you to seé some of its complicated applications. Let us represent the truth-valve of P and its negation as follows: P TF FT ‘The table reflects the following auth functional relaiionship: IEP is true, then ~P is false. Or if~P is ruc, then P is false. You,know that P cannot be both true and false at the same ‘time for this would be a violation of the principle of non-contradiction. However, ifP is denied ‘twice, like in the example: 1s faze chat puppies are not young dogs: then it can be represented by ~ =P. This is «double negation, Take note that when a statement is denied twice, it implies its affirmation. Therefore, ~ ~P is equivalent to.P. ‘The convention for reading the double negation ~ ~P is not not P or It is not the case that not P. If, however, P is negated three times, this means itis denied, if negated four times, itis again affirmed 108‘Truth Table of Conjunetion Let us consider the representation of a conjunction: P.« Q. How do we determine the fogical form of this compound? Consult the truth table below: | — F F ae ma ‘The first two vertical columns of P and Q contain all he possible substitution instances of the truth values of the two statements P and Q. \f you examine the table closely you will see a shaded horizontal in which the conjunction is true only when both conjuncts P and Q are both true. Inall other combination ofthe truth-value, the conjunction is false, This means that We are allowed to conjoin two or'a set of statements, provided the statements are true. This is the only requirement, It is important to note that the premises of 2 deductive argument however ‘numerous are connected by conjunction.. This means that if one of the premises turns out to be false, the whole premise set is false. ‘Truth Table of Alternation ‘Next let us consider the representation of an alternation P v Q. How do we determine the logical form ofan alternation? Examine the truth table below and find out i PQ PvQ | TT. T | TE z POT oT Dd [Notice from the table that an alteration is false only when both alternants are false. nail other ‘combinations of truth-values, the alteration is true. This means that the minimum requirement in formulating a true alternation is at least one of the alternants must be true; it-does not matter if the ther is false. ‘Truth Table of Conditional ‘Now let us consider the represeitation of a conditional P+ Q. How do we determine the logical form ofa conditional? Again examine the table below: P_Q PoQ Srorer steers FT. T FR. T 109"Take note that from the truth table, the conditional is false only ifthe antecedent P is true and the ‘consequent Q is false. All possible combinations of truth-values of the antecedent: and the ‘consequent, the conditional is true. .» The Logical Form of Deduetive Argument ‘Most logicians will agree that the logical form of all deductive arguments is logically. isomorphie withthe logical form of the conditional statement” Please concentrate onthe shaded horizontal when the conditional is false. in all other truth combinations the conditional is true, ‘Now I want you to compare the ta able ofthe conitonal withthe table of validity below for Judging wheter an arguments valid on ‘ass Brie Set — | Conclaion [Argoment T | True. Tr Vi | False True, Valid Iv | False, se Walid Notice that an argument is invalid only when the premise set is true and the conclusion is false. This corresponds to the only case in which a'conditional statement is false, namely: when the antecedent is true and the consequent is false. This means that the table of validity is logically isomorphic with the truth table ofa conditional statement. "This means farter that he premise set of a deductive argument is joined to its conclusion by the conditional connective, Remember the often-cited definition ofa valid argunient, ifthe premises are tue, the conclusion cannot be fase.» In fee, you can even have an example of valid argument were the premise and conelusion are false, e. Case IV. But such an argument, of course, while valid, does not have any empirical gor evaluative content, Thus, the concept of valid argument form zefers tothe truth table ofan argument where there is no casein which the premise sets tre and the conclusion is false, ‘Truth Table of Biconditionat ‘i Lastly, let us now consider a biconditional P ifand only if Q or P = Q. A biconditional is asserting a necessary condition that P is true if Q is true and a sufficient condition that P is true only if Q is true. Thus, Q is both the necessary and suficient condition for the truth of P. Such that if Q is true, you know that P is also true; or if Q is false, then you know thet P cannot oa eam TRE BLT uE Bd Notice that a biconditional is true only under two conditions, namely: whe both elements P and, (Qare true ot when both P and Q are false; in all other combinations, the-biconditional i false. A. biconditional is defined as P= Q is defined as (P —>-Q) » (Q — P), This would graphically represent the concept of necessary and sufficient condition. no‘Negation of Compound Statements, Let us now consider the negation of a compound statement. Please reall that we have sdopted the convention of affixing the tikie symbol ~ to the represesttation ofa simple satement to constitute its denial. For instance, the negation of Pis ~P. Similarly, if we want to negate 2 ‘compound statement, say P + Q its negation willbe represented as ~(P « Q), It reads It is not the case that P and Q. and should not be read not P and Q. Not P and Qs represented as ~P « Q. Here you are negating P only and not the whole compound. The parenthesis in ~( P * Q) fies that the whole compound is being negated. The denis! of a compound statement with its truth table is represented below: ‘The seme procedure holds forthe other compound statements. To wit: PYQ ~PvQ P2Q ~P#Q P3Q ~P3Q TOF Tee TOF POT ROOT Fo OT 1m summary, you aie now in a position to represent he tree bic pines of symbole ogi together with their tuth table. 1. The principle of identity is represeited by P > P. It reads: if P then P; ifP is true, ‘then Ps true. ‘This means that the truth of any statement will imply itself. Thus: PoP TTT FTF ‘You cannot falsify the representation of the principle of identity, since’ it is always true, In fact this isthe most elementary form of tautology. 2, The principle of excluded middle is represented by P v ~P. It reads: or not P. This means that a statement P can have only two truth values; either itis true or fale Below is another tantology. ‘You cannot fal mae Bae aay 3.. The principle of non-contradiction is represented by ~(P « ~P). It reads: itis false that P and not P. This means that sssigning two truth-values to a statement is always false. P+ ~P is a self contradictory statement. However, the denial of a self tory statement isa tautology. Thus: un~e + ® TTFE TRFT ‘The principle of non-contradiction is preventing you to assert a self-eontradictory statement by assigning two truth-values toa statement, + Name: Fill in the Blanks 1. The principle of identity can be represented by p>? 2. The principle of excluded middle can be represented by Pyne. 3. The principle of non-contradiction can be represented by __~ (P+) 4, "When a statement cannot be false in all substitution instances of fs truth values, the statement is called a 5. When a statement cannot be true in all st is called 6. The double negation ofa staiement’P implies its __ truth 7. The triple'negation ofa statement P implies its _ Sauce bad 8.° The representation ~(P ¢ ~P) isalways __ true, 9. A conjunetion is true when both conjuncis are uy. 10, An alteration is false when both alterants axe : 11. When the antecedent is true and the consequent ig false the conditional n instances ofits truth values, it is _ fate 2 12, A Biconditional is false when both elements are either tue or _ false, 13, Technically, the argument form refers to the {4, An argument form is invalid when the premise set is rue, ~_ and the conclusion is. alex : 15.__Cengunctign __ is the connective of the premises of a deductive argument. Thise ‘autology negative True ‘ruth falsehood ° false selfcontradictory Pop ~Pe-P) PvP + truelfalse truth table true/false conjunction true nnUnit Ul: Module 3- TTD Fill in the truth tables of the following representations, Ferra rgree it ot EE OE PROF BEF 3)P.Q P3Q 4) PQ P=Q TEE Th ERE HEE Unit 1: Module 3- ASAQ ‘You will find the correct answers to the SAQ below: ‘Fill in-the blanks. Ti false 4 tautology negative © te 6. wath 7.falsehood 10. false 5S. self-contradictory LPoP 3. ~@Pe-P) “2. Py -P 12. truelfalse “> 13.truth table__14. true/false 15, conjunetion 9. true Answers to Unit IMI : Module 3— TTD Flin the truth tables, WP.QPvQ 2)P Q.PeQ rr TTT TROT TE-E FT T PT F ee eee 3) PQ PQ “4) PQ PQ rr tT TTT Tr OF TR OF Fr T ' FT F FROT PROT ‘Saraming Up ‘This module gave you the rudiments of the truth values of compound statements. It demonstrated thatthe logical form of all deductive argument is logically isomorphic. the logical form of conditional statements. These skills are important because, without them, you will not be able to acquire the more complicated skill of determining the validity or invalidity of an sgument, 13Module 4 Representing Arguments Introduction This medile will ntodce you tothe basic rudiments of representing argument in order to isolate the logical structure of the afgumert fom is content. If you eannot isolate the logical structure fom the content ofthe argument, you wil not beable to inspect the argument form and Judge whether it is valid or invalid. Representing argument is an indispensable skill if you wish to leam the more advanced and sophisticated skill of proving validity in terms of the truth-‘able method Objectives ‘After studying this module, you should be able to: Represent an argument vertically of horizontally; Discriminate arguments structure ffom argument form; Distinguish valid from invalid argument forms; Explain the characteristic ofall valid argument form; and Explain why the logical form of all deductive argument follows the logical form of the conditional. Unit it: Module 4- Display Text Ifyou can represent a statement, whether simple or compound, you ean also represent an argument. Please remember thatthe purpose of representing a compound statement isto isolate ‘the logioal structure from the content of the statement. Similarly, we represent an argument ‘order to reveal its logical structure and isolate it fom its content. This is an important tect Which you need in order to develop the skill of determining the Validity of an axguinent form, | ‘Because after revealing the logical structure, you can easily determine whether the logical form is ‘valid or invalid. “This technique must be mastered because validity of deductive argument rests solely on the logical form and not on its content, : veepe Representing Arguments Please consider the following argument Ewe can represent statements, then we can represent arguments. ‘We can represent statements, "Therefore, we can represent arguments ‘The first step in representing an argument is to repiesent the simple and compouind statements, Premise i. is a compound statement while premise ii. and conclusion ii. are simple statements, ‘Suppose we-repretent the first premise i, by using the first letters of represent and argument, namely, capital letters R and A, respectively. And suppose we represent the conclusion indicator therefore withthe logical convention of three dots -. . The next step isto represent the argument 4by revealitig its logical structure. Once an argument reveals its structure, the logician can now inspect the logical form and determine if itis valid or invalid by extracting its truth table. Notice that by representing the argument, we have done away with the content. This only shows that formal deductive logic is not interested in the content of the argument, The vertical representation of the structure of the argument will look like this: ROA Again Tet us represent another argument with the same logical structure but different content: i. TE we study logic, then we improve our reasoning power. We study logi iil. Thus, we improve our reasoning power, Let us use capital fetter $ for study and R for reasoning, then'the representation of the argument {sas follows: . 4 SOR a Please'examine the representation of the argument; notice that they have the same logical structure, The fist premise i, states @ conditional; the second premise i, affrms the antecedent of the conditional and the conclusion R is deduced from the two premises. The logical form of any argument with this logical structure is valid. Why? Because if you construct the truth able of the argument it will not have a case where the premise set is rue and the conclusion false. Remember the content of the argument isnot par of the analysis of validity. Logicans have a technical tenn for this argunient form, namely, modus ponens. This means thatthe strength of 4 deduetive argument rests solely on the logical form and not on the content of the argument. In fact the content isirelevant. Tavalidl Argument Form In contrast, if we argue in the following way: i> If we study logic, then we improve out reasoning power. i._We improve our reasoning power, iii, Therefore we study logic. ‘We represent the structure of the argument in this way: i SR R 28 ns‘The argument form of any argument with the same logical structure above, whatever is the content is invalid. This argument form is technically called by logicians as the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It iS an example of a formal fallacy, Notice that the argument affirmed the consequent and not the. antecedent S. That made the argument invalid. So the logical form of any argument with this logical structure is invalid. Way? Because if you onset the th table ofthis argument you will have a ease wheré the premise sei rue and the conclusion i false. Now let us consider another argument with a different logical structixe, This one is called addition. Consider the argument: Some arguments are valid. ‘Some arguments ere invalid ili. Therefore, some arguments are vatid and some arguments are invalid, We represent V for valid and I for invalid, The argument structure of the represeniation of the argument will look like this: kV iil iii Vel Please compare the argurient structure of this argument with the azgument structure of mmiodus ponens. Any argument with the logical structure of modus ponens and addition has ¢ logical form that is always valid whatever it's content. You represent an azgument in order to reveal its logical ‘structure. Once the structure is revealed, you can determine if the argument form is valid or invalid. This means thet in all possible substitution instances of the truth-value of premises and coricusion of the argument, there is no case in which the premise set is true and ‘the conclusion false. You know that technically speaking, valid argument forms refer to the truth table of an argument wherein there is no case where the premise set is true and the conelusion is false; although, there are times when we speak of a specific argument as valid or inwalid in a rathér ambiguous way. ‘The Characteristic ofall Valid Argument Form ‘The logical structure of various arguments may differ, but if they are valid, they share one ‘common characteristic in their tuth tables, namely, there is no ease in which the premise set is ‘rue and the conclusion is false. Thus, if an argument form has a true premise set and a false conclusion, itis invalid, This is what mean by representing the argument in order to revea! the logical structure, once the structure is revealed we do away with the content of the argument and. ve can concentrate of the logical form if tis valid or invalid by plotting the truth table. A more technical discussion of the issue of logical form viz. a viz. truth table will bé made in Module 7 of this Unit ‘The Logical Form of all Deductive Argument Formal Deductive:Logic has another convention for representing the structure of an argument. Let us consider our first example in this module, 16i RoA You know thatthe premises of an argument, however numerous, ae joined by conjunction. if vee apply this to the argument above, the result isa horizontal representation of the structure of the argument. To wit IRA) eRISA ‘The premise set i, and ii. are joined by conjunction and the therefore indicator, the three dots Which represent the éonclision indicator was transformed into the symbol of the eénditional =>. This means that the main connective of the argument is the conditional. This would also highlight the fact thatthe logical form of all deductive arguments follows the logical form of. the conditional. This is the convention for representing the structure of the ergument in horizontal form. You will discover later that the horizontal structure of the argument is necessary if you wish to actually derive the truth table of an argument in order to determine if it is valid or invalid. Module 7 of this Unit will provide you with a step by step procedure for judging validity or invalidity with the use of the tru table, ‘The horizontal representation of the structure of the argument clearly shows the logical relationship between the premise set and the conclusion. They are joined by the conditional connective ->. Consequently, it follows the logical structure of a conditional statement, the ing the antecedent and the conclusion being the consequent. In addition, the concepts of validity and invalidity conform to the truth table of a conditional statement, namely, 2 conditional statement is false only when the antecedent is true and the conseiquent is false, Similarly, an argument form is invalid only when the premise set is true and the conclusion is false. Remember there is no degree of validity, either an argument form is valid of else it i invalid, 47Unit Ul: Module 4-SAQ Namie! Total Score: A. Fill im the blanks. 1, We represent @ compound statement in order to isolate the from the 2. “Similarly, We tepreseit an argument in order to isolate the from the 3. The premaises ofan argument, however numerous, are joined by. 4, The conclusion indicator is represented by the symbol 5. We can represent an argument vertically or: 6 5. Two arguments can have different content But they ean have'the same 1. ine horizontal representation of an argument, the conelusion indicator is changed from, at : 8, Tn ahorizontal representation ofan argument, the premises can be treated as and the conclusion as : 9. An apgument is Vaid in vine of ts ‘nd not because ofits content, 10. is the measure of argument strength, 11, Modus ponens and addition ae Jogial forms. 12. An angument is vatid if there is no ease wire the premi conclusion is set is and the conjunction valid 7 Togieal form ‘ horizontally, logical form: logical form logical form! truefalee Logical form/ antecedent - content ff content consequent 'B. Ifyou can represent the four arguments below in their horizontal form without any error, you are prepared to learn the more complex skill of determining validity in terms ofthe truth table method. 1) iP 2)i) P9Q_ 3) LY PVQ@ 4) i) POR HQ QR ii) POR i. iit) 2 POR ii) Qos : iv) “Rvs Pra~> (ed) 3 {iievar Pony (ass 2, TeP9@)+ CaARYT—> CPR) 4, CC(P-9R)» (O59) + (RSI COVA) HELP {ESSERE neaesesneeseceeeneet EA SSE eee eecatantsntoneeeeeeementaseoee ‘Question? iusUnit I: Module 4— ASAQ Ay Fillin the bianks- 3) conjunction 11.) valid 4) 16) logical form S.) horizontally 6.) logical form" 9) logical form 2.) logical forms 12) trueffalse 1.) Logical fomm/ 8.) antecedent/ content “bay ato content ‘consequent B, Horizontal representation L PQ >eeg. 2. (+ + QR] > PR) 2 [PVQ *P>R) + Q48)] > Rvs) 3. [@R) # (Q4S) * RvS)] > PV ‘Summing Up ‘This module taught you how to represeat an argument either in the vertical or horizontal mode. You know that you have to fepresent an argument in order to isolate the logical form from the content. You were also taught that argument strength of a deductive argument rest on the argument form alone. Now the technique of horizontal representation of ari argument would be ‘ety useful in determining validity in terms ofthe truth table method, Note Pad Do you have an important reminder? Comments? 49Module 5 Basic Deductive Argument Forms Introduction ‘This module will introduce you to set of basie deductive argument forms. You have to evelop the ability to determine whether an argument is valid or invalid by mere inspection of the logical structure ofthe argument, This ability to distinguish valid from invalid argument form is ‘an indispensable tool so that you could do the saine to more complicated argument structures the conditionals, Objectives ‘After studying this module, you should be able to Differentiate the basic types of valid and invalid argument forms; Formulate the argument of conjunction; Formulate the argument of simplification; Formulate the argument of alternation; Formulate the argument of adding an alternative; Formulate the argument of dlsjunctive syllogism, : Formulate the invalid argument of subtracting an alternative; . "Formulate the invalid argument of denying an alternative; and Formulate the invalid argument of adding a conjunc. eee eS EEECEECE i ‘Unit IIL: Module 5 - Display Text - In Module 4 you leamed to isolate the logical structure of an argument and its content by a simple technique of representing the argument, You know how to represent an argument tither in the vertical or horizontal structive, You lesrned that an argument is valid if there is no case where the premise setis trie and the conclusion is false in the truth table, You also know that the argument form or logical form of an argument refers to its truth table. In this. module, you are now prepared to differentiate valid argument structure from those that are invalid by: ‘mere inspection. Conjunction will now sharpen your ability tb discriminate between a valid and an invalid ‘argument structure. Suipposing you know that two statements are true, These statements may be any statements however unrelated, the only requirement is both statements must be true. The logician Frege once said that the referent of all true statements js true and the referent ofall false * statements is false. In what follows we shell be talking only of truth and falsehood of argument ‘ot about their meanings or empirical content.’ So consider a pair of tivo tue statements: Amphibians are animals and Birds have feathers. Let us represent the two statements a A and B. You can conjoin A B because conjoining two true statements preserves the tuth-value of the conjunction. This valid argument is technically called a conjunction, The structe of the argument is depicted below: 120.AB ‘Simplification Now, if conjoining two true statenients preserves the truth-vaiue of a conjunctios, separating their conjunets preserves the truth-values too. Thus: Therefore, from a conjunction A * B you can separate any of the conjunets either A or B, Consequently, al! argument structure like the one above is valid, This valid argument structure is called simplification. 7 Alternation Suppose you know that two statements are true, namely, Wales are mammals and Snakes are reptiles. ‘Then, fom the two te statements you can exeate an alteration: either Wales are snanmals ot Soakes are reptiles. The agment sructure of alteration is depicted below: iw iis iif. . WS Remember, if you kriow two staiements W and $ to be true, you ate entitled. to form an slternation, Similarly, if you know two statements to be true, You are also entitled to form a ‘conjunction. You know that from a conjunction, you can validly infer any of the conjuncts, From an alternation, can you infer any of the alternants? Unfortunately, you eannot, The invalid + lugumnent structure is called subtracting an alternative, From an alternation, you cannot infer tty ofthe altemants, since an altemation is true even if only on¢ of the altermants is true. The stemant you may infer may be the false on, and you will have a case where the premise is (rae ‘nd conclusion false. Ths invalid argumentstructure is depicted below: 121‘Adding an Alternative Now suppose you know that the statement FPJ is running for president is. true, Moreover, you know that the statement Danding is running for president is false: Can you still form a valid argument like the one below? EF Fv ~D Surely, you can! Remembef an alternation is tue if only one of the altemants is true. Iti false only ifbothalterants are false. This valid argument is called adding an alternative. ‘Adding a Conjunet Supposing you knowr that a statement is true.’ Can you add a conjunct? Unfortunately, you cannot, since the statement you might add might be false. Suppose R is tue, then R ReL is sin invalid argument. It is caited adding a conjunet, Remember yous ean form 2 conjunction provided you know both statements are true. A statement L, of undetermined truth-value, cannot bbe added to form a conjunction. Disjuinetive Syllogism Detaching an alternative is valid when you know the alteration ig tr, not because both faltemants are true. However, one or the other is false. This argument is called disjunctive syllogism: i RvL Denylig an Alternative ‘An invalid argument cften confused with disjunctive syllogism is called denying an alternative. It is invalid because even if you know thit the statement FAY is running for ‘president is true, you cannot infer tat the statement Danding is-rumaing for president is fast ‘because it can sl be tue. Remember an alteration is true when bot alterants are tre. i RVL, im‘Another variation of the same invalid argument is: if you know that the statement Danding is ‘running for president is true, you cannot infer that FP is running for president is false. Please remember thatthe argument denying an alternative can easily be confitsed with the valid argument of disjunctive syllogism ‘You have just studied 12 basic valid and invalid argument forms. You have to memorize izes before going to the next module. T have designed the SAQ to facilitate your memory and spplication of these argument forms, 123Unit I: Module 5- SAQ. Name: Total Score: A. Identify the name of the argument by puting the mumber on the space provided in the lis below. 2) PeQ 3) PeQ 4)P 2Q P Q 2PVQ 3) P 6) Pe 7)PVQ * 8) PvQ a Pv=Q 2. PeQ P 2Q 9) PvQ 10) PvQ 11)PvQ 12) PvQ ~Q - Q P ae 2Q AP -Q denying an altemative invalid _dsiunetive syllogism - valid simplification - valid subtracting an altemative - invalid enying an altemative~invalid “simplification - valid alternation - valid = subiracting an aternative-invalid aang an alternative - valid adding a conjanet - invalid disjunctive syllogism - valid —eonjunetion - valid 'B. Represent the following arguments using the first letter ofthe underlined word. Identify the ‘argument and determine if itis valid or invalid, 1.) Erap is running for president. J4V. is running for president. ‘Therefore, Ecap and JaV are running for preside: 2) Glorie and Edia are running for vice president. Therefore, Gloria is ninning for vice president. 3.) Gloria and Egja are’running for’ vice: president: Therefore, Ei is running for vice president. 4.) Tatad is running for vice president. Osmena is running for vice president, Therefore, either Tatad of Osmena is running for vice president. '5) Manoa is running for president. Therefore Marcos and Raco are runing for president 6) Bither Roso or Mans is a nuisnce candidat. Marcas isa nusance candidate ‘Therefore, Roco is not a nuisance candidate. 7.) Either Roco or Mareog is a nuisance candidate. Roco is a nuisance candidate. ‘Therefore, Mateos is not a nuisance candidate. 8.) Either Erap or J4V will win the election. J4V will not win, Therefore, Erap will win, 9.) Bither Erap or JGV will win the election. Brap will not win. Therefore, JdV will win: 10) Je wil inthe election. Therefore, ithe J4V wl win or Erp wl ot wi, 11) Either Marcos or Roco will win. Therefore, Marcos will win. 12.) ‘Bither Mateos or Roco will win. Therefore, Roco will win. 124‘A. Names of the argiment forms 72.) denying an altemative - invalid 9) disjunctive syllogism - valid 2.) simplification - valid 8.) subtracting an alternative invalid 11) denying an altercstive - invalid 3.) simplification - valid 4). altemation - valid 7) subtracting an altemative - invalid 5,)" adding an alternative - valid 6.) adding a conjunct ~ invalid 10, disjunctive syllogism - valid 1.) conjunetion ~valid 1B. Representing arguments WE 2) GeE 3)GeE 47 3 G E oO a Bed =TVvO conjunction —valid simplification-valid simplification - valid alteration - valid 5) M 6) RvM 7) RvM. 8) Evi sMeR M R a : M aE ‘adding a conjunct _ denying an altemative denying an alternative disjunctive syllogism invalid invalid valid 9) Evd 10) 7 1) MvR 12) MvR = 2 IVEE 2M R isjunctive syllogism ‘adding an alternative _ subtracting an alternative “valid valid ‘invalid Unit HI: Module §- TTD This leaning activity will develop your skill of creating an argument from’ valid ‘xgument by providing the text like the ones found in Item B of the SAQ, Moreover, you can check if you have made an error by representing your own argument and checking it with the’ valid argument structure. 1.) conjunction” 2) alternation 3,) simplification 4.) disjunctive syllogism. 5.) adding an alternative 125‘Summing Up. In summary, let us provide some guidelines to itate recall ofthe argument forms you have just studied, 1 2 ‘When you knovr two statements tobe ru, you can validly frm a conjunction ofan alternation, When you have a trye conjunction, you can validly infer any of the conjuncts ~ simplifention. When you have a te altemation, you eannot valily infer any of the alterants ~ subtracting a alternative When you have a tre statement, you ean form an altomation with another true or fale siatement ~- adding an alternative. When you have a true statment, you cannot form a conjunction because you do not now the truth value ofthe statement you ae conjoining-~adding a conjunct. ‘When you have a true alternation, you can deny one of the alternants and affirm the other-disjunetive syllogism, When you have @ tus alteration, you eannot affirm one of the altemants and deny the other—denying an alternative. Note Pad Write your important reminders here. 126| Module 6 Complex Argument Forms Introduction ‘This module will provide you with the technique for diseiminating the more complicated argument dealing with conditionals. These are the typeof arguments you are likely to encounter when you read logic books. This will be the culmination of your stdy of deductive argument. Study these argument pattems well I know you will need them in your quest to be a formal logician. Objectives After completing this module, 1 know you will easly be able to: iscriminate argument involving conditonals; Differeatiate modus ponens from the fallacy of affirming the consequent, . Differentiate modus follens from the fallacy of denying the antecedent; Formulate the invalid counter part of detaching the consequent; Formulate the argument of hypothetical syllogism entity the fallacy of misplaced middle; Discriminate constructive dilemma from pseudo dilemma I; and Diseriminate destructive dilemma from pseudo dilemma II Unit UT: Module 6 - Display Text a Modus Ponens and Affirming the Consequent Let us turn our attention to the mote sophisticated argument involving the conditionals, ‘These arguments are more complicated than the argument involving conjunction and altemati Uknow that you ate already familiar with the argument called modus ponens and the invalid acgument called fallacy of affirming the consequent. Let us review them. Depicted below is the argument structure of modus ponens:, é ROL il ; From the argumen} structure of modus ponens you cold see that premise it affirms the Imtecedent. However, you know that the reverse, which ig affirming the consequent, is an invalid argument. To wit: LRoL iatModus Tollens and Denying the Antecédent ‘The counter part of the valid form of modus ponens is called modus follens. The argument structure is depicted below: i Ro isk ih LAR According to fora logicians, the vlid form is when you deny the consequent, then you have the valid argument of modus follens. Or, you affirm the antecedent, and you get the valid argument of modus ponens. Ifyou do the reverse, affirm the consequent or deny the antevedent, ‘you create an invalid argument. ‘Thus, ffyou deny the antecedent, i Ro ik ii aL ‘This argument is invalid. itis called denying the antecedent. It is often confused with ‘modus tollens. Remember, when you affirm the consequent and deny the antecedent, the rest is an invalid argument. Detaching the Consequent ‘There is another invalid ergument to look out for when conditionals are involved, i detaching the consequent; Rot iL You cannot infer the consequent because the consequent and antecedent of a copjunction ean ‘oth be false yet the conjunction ean sill be tre. Hypothetical Syllogism Let us look at a more ‘complicated valid argument, for instance, the hypothetical syllogism, The argument structue is depicted below: R>C Fallacy of Misplaced Middle 4 A fallacy often confused with hypothetical syllogism is called the fallacy of a misplaced ‘middle, The argument structure is given below: RoL Cob ii, ROC 128Constructive Dilemma Ansther example of a complicated valid argument form is called constructive dilemma, ‘The logical structure is depicted below: i RVL i iw RD iiLoc iv. :DVC ‘Agaio, I know that intuitively you know that this afgument is valid because’ it affimms the antecedent Rand of both conditionals and therefore, you can validly infer the consequent D VC in the conclusion. The logical form of constructive dilemma is @ combination of two modus ponens. : Destructive Dilemma Another valid argument form is called destructive dilemma; The argument structure is shown below: i ~Dv-c i R+D Loc iv, -R VAL ‘also know that you feel that the argument is valid because it denies the consequent ~D and ~C ‘ofboth conditionals and therefore you can validly infer the denial of the antecedent in the conclusion, The argument structure of destructive dilemma is a combination to two modus tollens. Pseudo Dilemma 1 ‘There ate. two fallacious. forms of dilemmas’ that might appear valid but, on closer inspection, are not. They are called pseudo dilemma. Pseudo dilemma I denies the antecedent ‘and pseudo dilemma TI affirms the consequent, Let us take up pseudo dilemma I first, whose argument structure is found below: : i RD ii, LC. Hi, RAL iv. «-Dv-C ice thet this fallacy denics the antecedent of premise i. and i, And so it eannot conclude the Aenial of both the consequents. Had the argument denied the-consequent, it could conclude by denying the antecedent. You know that this valid form is called destructive dilemma and Pseudo dilemma I is often confused with it. 429Pseudo Dilemma I Another invalid argument often confused with a valid one is pseudo dilemma Ii: Dvc HRD : iiL2¢ iv. RYE invalid argument does the opposite, It affims the consequesit of premise ii, and it, and so iteannot affirm the antecedent,,.On the other hand, had it affirmed the antecedeit,it could have concluded by affirming the consequent. This valid argument is called constructive dilemma and psoudo dilemma II is often confused with it, Remember the norm: either affirm the antecedent or deny the consequent of a conditional and you get valid argument all the time.- You have just ‘completed your study of complex argument forms, I have designed a set of SAQ in order to facilitate your memory and application ofthese argument forms, 130‘Unit IT: Module 6- SAQ Name: : Total Score: ‘A, Identify the naine of the argument forth by putting the number on the space provided in the list below. 1 Rok 2RL B.ROL 4.ROL L R L 1 3 L, 2k 5. ROL 6 RD 7. RD & ROD oR Loc Loc Loc ak Rv. -Dv-c Ry Dvc s-RveL ~Dv-C 9. Dvc 10. RL IL RoE RoD Loc CoL L>c eROC aRoC Ry ____denying the antecedent — invalid pseudo dilernme Il invalid ‘pseudo dilernma I- invalid constrictive dilemma-~ valid modus ponens ~ valid ‘affirming the consequent invalid “—tnodus tollens — valid destructive dilemma — valid detaching the consequent ~ invalid ‘hypothetical syllogism — valid misplaced middle « invalid B. Represent the following arguments using the fist letter of the underlined word. Next, identify the argument form and determine if itis valid or invalid. 1 6 1 de Villa runs for president, then Orbos will tun for vice president, de Villa runs for president, Therefore, Orbos will run for vice president. ‘If de villa runs for president, then Orbo3 will un for vice president. Therefore, Orbos will run for vice president. : If Estiada runs for president, then Angara will run, for vice'peesident. If de Venecia runs for president, then Macapagal will run for vice president. Either Estrada or de Venecia will run for president. Therefore, either Angare or Macapagal will run for vice president. 1f Macapagal rans for viee president, then Sotto will run for sonator. tf Estrada runs for president, then Angara will run for vice president. Either Macapagal will not run for vice president or Estrada will not run for president. Therefore, either Soto will nt run‘for senator or Angara will not run for vice president. If Estsada wins the presidential election, then Macapagal will win the vice’presidental election, If-de Villa wins the presidential election, then Orbos will win the vice presidential election. Either Macapagal or Orbos will win. Therefore either Estrada or de Villa will win. IE J4V. wins the presidency, then Gloria will win the vice presidency. Gloria wins the viee presidency. Therefore, JdV wins the presidency. 1317. If Bntile'is declared a nuisance candidate, then Roco will be declared « muisance candidate, 1o0. If Marcos is declared a nuisarce candidate, then Osinena will be declared 1 nuisance candidate, 00. Bither Roco or Osmena will not be declared a nuisance ‘candidate. Therefore, either Enrile or Marcos will not be declared a nuisance candidate, 8. If Lim wins the election, drug pushers will be. salvaged. Drug pushers will not be salvaged. Therefore, Lim will not win the election. 9. If Estrada wins the election, kidnapping syndicates will be abolisheid, Estrada will not win the election. Therefore, kidnapping syndicates will not be abolished. 10. If Tatad wins, then there is a Catholic vote. IF Lim wins, then there is a Catholic vote, ‘Therefore, if Tatad wins, then Lim 11. 1f Tatad wins, then there is a Catholic vote. If there is a Calle ‘Therefore, if Tatad wins, then Lim will ‘Lim -will win. Do you have any questiois? 132Unit It : Module 6— ASAQ ‘A. Names ofthe argument form. 5. denying the antecedent ~ invalid 9. pseudo dilemma Ik—invalid 8. pseudo dilemma I ~invalid 6. constructive dilemma — valid 2. modus ponens ~ valid 4 1 1 modus tollens valid detaching the consequent ~ invalid 10. hypothetical syllogism ~ valid | 1 misplaced middle invalid | | B. Representing arguments D0 2p>0 3 BoA D 0 J3M 20 EvJ . sk oss—vaé_demhing he ose Eh ieee xs ana wa 4. M38 i 5. B>M 6. 3G. EA D+0 S fav's myo 1 roan ny podbdimal pmb emma ——_—afining cag imal ina neon ktsb 9 bok moo 5 = Reo my ok a EV~M decncivedicene moles dying anne “a inal ese wie oot the hypothetical syllogism 133Unit Il: Module 6- TTD. | want you to create an argument by providing the text to the following argument forms, (Check if you have made an error by representing your argument and matching it with the valid argument forms. 1. modus ponens 2. modus tollens 3. constructive dilemma 4. destructive dilemma . 5, hypothetical syllogism. Let me provide you with some guidelines to facilitate recall of the coinplex argument forgas you have just studied, 1, In @ conditional statement, you can either affirm the antecedent or deny the consequent- modus ponens and modus tollens. 2, Two invalid forms are often committed; when you deny the antecedent you commit ‘fallacy and when you affirm the consequent you also commit fallacy. Constructive dilemma is a double mocius ponens of affirming the antocedent, Destructive dilemma is a double modus tollens of denying the consequent. ‘Pseudo dilemma I commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Pseudo dilemma II commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. From a conditional, you cannot infer its consequent—detaching the consequent. In hypothetical syllogism the consequent of the first premise isthe antecedent of the second premise, thei you have a valid syllogism, 9. When the common element is the consequent of both premises you commit a fallacy — 1isplaced middle. a Note Pad Do you have any reminder? 134Module 7 Truth Table Method Introduction ‘This module will tegch you how, to apply the sophisticated technique of determining the validity or invalidity of any argument form. ‘The technique is known as the truth table method. tis quick and efficient method of determining the validity of any argument form. ‘Objectives Pm sure tht after you have studied this modile, you should be able to: 1. Cotistruct the table of substitution instances of truth values; 2. Determine validity and invalidity in terms ofthe truth tble; and 3. Apply the falsification method for determining validity Unit INI: Module 7— Display Text All the logical skills that I have painstakingly built up from Module I of this Unit will culminate inthis module, Here you will eply al the skills, concepts, and principles you have leamed in order to be able to perform the very complicated task of determining validity or invalidity of eny argument forma in terms of the truth table method. In the earlicr modules, you ‘earned the skill of representing an argument cither inthe vertical or horizontal format in arr to reveal the argument structure, The argument structure will graphically depict the number of premises and the conchision. ‘In addition, it would reveal the type of statements used in the premises set and the conclusion, More importantly, from the inspection. of standard logical "structure of the argument, you ean judge winether the argument form is valid‘or invalid. This ‘module will each you the skill of determining the validity or invalidity of eny argument form With precision using the tuth table method. Let us begin from wha is fan ‘You'know by mere ingpection of the logical structure of the argument called modus ponens that it has a valid argument form. To wit Rol L Inorder to conclusively demionstrate that the argument form of the above argument is valid, ou have tous the truth table method. Stictly speaking, the argument form or logical form of an argument refers to its truth table and not to its argument structure, If the trth table of an argument does not have a case where the premise set is true and the conclusion fale, the argument form is valid, ‘The Truth Table Method ‘There are several steps that you have to follow in order to use the truth table method cffcienty 135First, you have to represent the argument in horizontal form like this: [R1)eR] > : Next, you have to count the number of simple statements in the argument. Notice that you have-two, R and L. Now you have to construct a table forall the possible substitution instances of the truth-values of R and L. The table below will illustrate this: » B st wana If you have three statements in your argument, for instance, R,L and Q, you will have ‘the following table with eight rows: R LQ i a may pa Sa ‘These are all the possible substitution instances of the truth-values of ah argument structare with tee siemens." You could do the sane table of substation instance nan angument Sock wit fou, five or sk statements. koow thet you could imagine how complete able wed ‘es with four statements, joy wil have 16 ows; wth fv, you wl have 32 rows; Wi se Jou vilave 64 rows and wih you wl heve 360%. i Finally, after completing your table of substitution instance, you have to assign the truth- ‘Values tothe statements in argument structure. Notice how the table facilitated the assignment of truth-values to the structure. To wit Values Premise set Conclusion Argument L_ Rot @op RL) Taare nei FOF F aie F ROT F Please Observe that there is no horizontal in which the premise set is true and the cdnelusion false. Consequently, in all possible substitution instances of the truth-value of the statements of ‘argument, the argument form is valid Its thetefore a tautology. ‘Technically speaking, valid argument forms refer to the truh table above although we speak of specific argument as valid or invalid depending on its specifie truta-values, 136Let us consider the invalid form of. afirming the consequent. You know that this ‘mgument is often confused with modus ponens: ROL iii, 2. R First, let us represent the logical structure argument in horizontal form: IR3D + oR Next, we construct the table of substitution instance: . w. TT TE FT FOF ‘And then, we assign the truth-values tothe argument. To wit Truth values Premise set Conelusion ‘Arguiment RL RoL Ro +L MsY+y 9k TT. T T T Tr Fr F T FOR OT F T Please examine the shaded horizontal. Notice that you have a ease where the premise Set is true and the conclusion is false. This makes the argument form invalid, And any argument form ‘where you can find a specific case where the premise set is true and the conclusion false, the argument form is invalid. Although, in an invalid argument form, it may have a specific ‘argument that is valid. Argument form refers to all the possible combination of specific cases like the table above. An argument form is valid if and only if there is no specific case- where the premise set is trué and the conclusion false. Just in case the argument form has a specific argument where the premise set is true and the conclusion false, then the argument form is inyalid. Consequently, the term valid or invalid should be used to the argument form ony. It is Uunise to use the terms valid or invalid to a specific argument. In symbolic logit the main ‘emphasis is in the validity or invalidity of argument forms rather than a specific argument. 1 want to introduce you to a short’cut method of using the truth table in order to determine ‘whether an argument form is valid or invalid. Obviously, this method is needed when dealing with argument forms with three or more statements. Let us simply call it the falsification ‘method. You kiow that an argument form is invalid if a row can be found in which the premise set is true-and the conclusion is false. The falsification method capitalizes on this by simply attempting to falsify the conclusion while demonstrating'that the premise set is true. Let us consider this argument: [PvQe QvRJ> PVR) 137‘Your intention is o falsify the conclusion while retaining the truth of the premise set like this: [@vQ* QvRI>@vR) T F ‘You begin your analysis from the conclusion, If (P y R) is false this means that both P and R are also false, Ifthe premise st is true this means that both alternation (Rv Q) and (Qy R) are ‘rue. To wt (+ QvR] >@yR) TTT. FFF : IfP and R are false, the same values Should be assigned to P and R in the premise set, thus you are left with only Q. Notice that whatever the value of Q, either true or false, you have discovered a cow where the premise set is tue and the conclusion is false, ‘The argument form therefore is invalid. IP ¥Q*Qv RoC rR . PITT TTF FREE Let us consider another argument: (RD >0}5R+9 ,_ Remember your first step is to falsify the’conclusion while fetaining the truth of the premise set: : [R>DsL 919 @+0 T F If (R~> C) is false, this rans that R is trae and C is false. And if the premise set is true, then both conditionals ae also true, IR>L)+ L350] > R50 TrOT OTE TPE Please observé tht whatever value we assign to L, we cannot retain the truth of the premise set While maintaining the falsehood of the conclusion, The argument form therefore is valid. IL, is tue, the second conditional will be false but the conjtmetion of the premise set will be false. However, ifL is false, then i isthe first conditional that will be false, and the conjunction of the premise set willbe false. ’ : ‘A word of eaution i appropriat ere. When you have discovered a horizontal in which the premise et i trae andthe conclusion false, you have eonelusive evidence thet the argument form is invalid, However, if you do not succeed in several attempts falsifyiig en argument, it oes not necessarily mean it is valid. There are cases where.a false conclusion offers other possible combinations of truthyalues. In such a ease you must go about eliminating posible falsifying rows in a systematic way. The folloing example wil serve to illustate this, [R>D2 +0) > RO T F 138‘You know that the first step is to falsify the conclusion while retaining the truth of the premise set. Notice that if the conclusion is false, there are three possible combinations of truth-value. To wit: [R23 01> RO ieee, TRF RFT PRE Letus iow assign the truth-values of Rand C inthe frst row. IR3)* o> RO TT_T_TF TRF ‘Your next step is to assign the possible truth-values for L, like this: [R3+LoQ > Reo TITT TRE FTF Please observe thatthe truth-values in the box cannot be true and, therefore, you cannot maintain the truth of the premise set while retaining the falsity of the conclusion. It seems that the argument could not be falsified and you might jump into the conclusion that the argument form is valid, Please remember that there are other combinations of truth-values in the conclusion, ‘considering that itis a conjunction. i“ [RID* C315 R29 FITTTTT F FFT eee eee ee "Notice that in the remaining combination of the truth-values of Rand C, you were able to falsify the conclusion, while retaining the truth of:the premise’set, The argument form therefore is invalid. Remember only one example of a horizontal wihiere the premise set is true and the ‘conclusion false is sufficient to judge an argument form to be invalid. But not being able to succeed in doing so it does not necessarily mean that the argument is valid until you have exhausted all the possibilities. These possibilities are dictated by the possible distribution of \truth-values of a false conclusion, Jf the conclusion is a single statement, it has only one if the conclusion is a disjunction or a conditional, then there is only one possible combination of truth-values to make it false. However if the conclusion is a conjunction, it has ‘three combinations and if tiga biconditiona, it has two. {must congratulate you for finishing this Uni. I know this Units the most dificult of ‘all the Units in this book. ‘The concepts are unfamiliar, the principles are-abstract, and the skills are complex, But you must aaree with me tat it was very inelletually stimulating.” Now brace yourself for a very rewarding SAQ and learning tctivties 139Name: Total Score: In this sot of SAQ, you will have to deploy al the skils, concepts, and principles that you have learned from the frst Module. 7 you could provide the correct responses without any eo, ‘his means that you-have internalized thé philosophical skills used by logicians in analyzing ¢ deductive argument. Perhaps, without knowing i, you have become a logician! ‘A. Instruction: T want you to represent the argument in the space provided below. Next, |ant you to identify the name ofthe logical form depicted by the argument. ‘Then I want You {0 determine whether th argument form is vali or not by constructing it truth abe. 1. Either logic is a normative or a deseritive science. Logic is not a deserintivessience, ‘Therefore ogi is a normative science 2. Biter the standard of logic is noimative or descriptive, The standards are descriptive, ‘Therefore, the standards are not normative. If you can represent an argument, then you can determine if it is valid. You can Tepresent an argument. Therefore, you can determine if it is valid If you can represent an argument, theri you can determine if it is valid. You cannot ‘epresent an argument. Therefore, you cannot determine if it is valid. 5. 1 you can repreient an argument, then you can determine if itis valid. You én determine if itis valid. Hence, you can represent an argument. 6. Ifyou can isolate the logical form of an argument, then you can judge ifit is valid. If ‘you can construct the truth table, then you can judge if it is sound. Either you can isolate the logical form or you can construct the truth table. So T ean judge either the ‘argument is vali or sound. ‘logic is a nomnative science, then itis prescriptive. If logie isa descriptive science, then itis empirical. Either logic is not prescriptive or not empirical. Therefore, logié is neither preseriptive nor empirical {1F1 can isolate the logical form of an argument, then I can determine if itis valid, If1 ean use the truih table method, then I can detect if the argument is sound. Either I car ‘detect an argument to be valid or sound. Therefore, either I edn isolate the logical form or I can use the truth table method, 9. "Ihlogie is « normative science, then itis prescriptive. If logie isa descriptive science, then itis empizical. Ether logic is not normative or not descriptive. Therefore, eth. logic is neither prescrintive nor empirical. 10, If ean represent an argument, lean judge ifit is valid. Tf can judge ifan ‘argument is valid, then T can use the truth table method. ‘Therefore, if can epresent an argument, then I can use the truth table method, 14011,11 can represent an argument, I can judge if it is valid. IF ean use the truth table ‘method, then I can judge if it is valid. Therefore, if | cen represent an argument, then Jean use the uh able method. 12.1f you.can complete this Unit, you will be @ logician. You will not be @ logician, Therefore, you cannot complete this Unit. 1, £0ND)+-DT9N 1% 2 £ U0) + Dae wa : 3% LER RIDV meds pores “9.4 4 7 LiRay) oR ws 5 LR, ee ou 12, B. I'm sure you have made no errors in your representations of the arguments, but check them anyway. Here is what I want you to do to master the truth table method. 1. Now, 1 want you to create the truth table of Nos. 1.,..2, items are easy and should prepare you for the more cont » 4 5.and 12. These ‘ruth table: 2. Next, I want you to create the truth table of Nos. 10. and 11. These two items are a bit complicated. 3. Finally, want you to use the falsification method of Nos. 6, 7., 8.and . These items are too complicated forthe ordinary truth table method. 1U I: Module7- ASAQ ‘A. Representations of the arguments in horizontal form, 1 (WyD)*=D) +N disjunctive syllogism 2. [(NvD)+D] »~N denying an alternative 3. [R>VeR] ov ‘modus ponens i 4. [R>V)e~R]>-v denying the antecedent 5. [R3V)eVoR affirming the consequent 6 (Lov) + (P98) 0(LvTI +0¥5) constuetve dilemma 7. IW 3P) + 05 B+ (Pv-B)>(-Nv-D) destructive dilemma 8. [L>V) + (198) * (VvSy] > tvT) ‘seid dilemma I 9. (NP) * D-+E)»(-Nv~D] > CPv-~#) pseudo dilemma II 10 [R4V1)*(VoT]+R57 |hypotiitical syllogism 1 1. [RIVe(T> VRID misplaced middle 12, (C+D) + ~C ‘modus tollens| 1B, Answers tothe truth table exercises Truth table of numbers: 1, 2., 3., 4-5. and 12, LOND (Nv De Dp oN a seeet detent da: chee Een ear TFROTTRTT TT FOOT FITEF TE FOF FFREF TF 142Disjunctive syllogism is conclusively valid because, in all possible substitution instances | afte truth-values, there is no row where the premise set is true and the conclusion is false. NOD (Nv D) «Dj > -N Denying an alternative is invalid because we have immediately discoverdd a row where the piemise set is true and the conclusion false when the truth value of N and D are true. 3° RV IRM eR ov Te Tenet TF TFFFDTE FT PDT FFE TT FRO FT FFF TF Modus ponens.is conclusively valid 4° RV [R>Ve-R > v TT TTT TF TREE 2 TT ee ee ‘the conclusion false when Ris false and Vis true. Denying the antecedent is obviously vali. & RV R> ey c FF TPF i FT TF FR-TT TT TT yYeVsT>@2 D TTITTT TIT TRTRPR TTFE FR FTTTTTT FRFTF TTF EF Thee Mate T tiie Peal eT TFTFE TET F FOIRFTTT FORT 143FRPP PTFPTFR TPR TRIER Hypothetical syllogism is demonstrably vali, ho RYT RSM + (TSH 4R5D ToT TTT manasa F F T T F F aa Misplaced middle is invalid when R’ and V are true and T is false. ‘There is no need to Application of the falsification method number 6. 7. 8. and 9. 6 (LY) +o spe(v ty aw) FTF § @Fg @ ert. § rr ‘You cannot falsify constructive dilemma, ‘This means you cannot find a row wherein the premise sets true and the conclusion is fle: 7. (N+P) + D +E). (PV ~B)) > (-N Vv ~D) TTT? Te RF FF Destyetive dena canot be ised >VYsFos evi soavD FIrITTQRTT TTT PRR EF Pseucio dilemma 1 is falsifiable. When the values of L are false, T is false, V is true and Sis true, you have a case where the premise set is true and the conclusion false, % [NSP s O>H + (Nv Dd] > Oy TITTFOTTT.F TT .F FFE Pseudo dilemma IL is falsified ‘Summing Up | sincerely wish to congratulate you for finishing this Unit. It means that you have internalized all the skills, concepts, and principles in dealing with deductive argument. Now you +n prove to anybody whether an argument form is valid or invalid, And, of course, you know 20w to operationalize this in terms of the truth table as well as'the falsification method. Again alease keep tp the good work! You are now prepared to emberk on a very untidy world of ‘gumenttion in rel fe sitions, This is the realm of informal logic. Here you do not have a fied and defiite ssteron for judging whether an arguinent is good or bad. But itis this realm where you will ateralize the skil of composing argument, the met-cognitive skill of evaluating ‘te srength ind composing a counter argument, and finally, to the mega-cognitive skill of evaluating both te original argument andthe counter-argument 144Unit IV: Analysis of Natural Arguments What is this unit all about? ‘This Unit wil provide you with a step by step procedure. for composing an argument, criticizing its strength as a preparation for composing a counter argument. The step by step procedure is similar but not identical to a computer template. This is one of the most ‘complicated and sophisticated cognitive skills in philosophy. When you car deliberately ‘weaken an argument’ that you have composed as a preparation for composing a counter ‘argument, you have reached the level of meta cognition. That is to say: she subject matter of your critical shinking is your own argunients, Many itlligent people never reach this level ‘of cognitive growth for the simple reaso that they have not been glven the opportunity to reach this level. Remember that arguments and counter arguments are the main Intellectual ‘instruments used by philosophers inorder to advocate their philosophical theses as well a5 to destroy one, Philosophers must reach this level or lose their calling. This means that you ‘cennot fully develop into a critical thinker unless you have acquired these cognitive skill. In orderto give you an idea of the coverage of this unit, it comes in eight modules. These are: Module 1: ‘The Subject Matter of Informal Logic Module? : Theory of Argument : Module3 + On Induetion Module 4 + Generalization Module 5 Fallacies—Counterfeit Arguments Module 6 : Theory of Appraisal for Simple Arguments Module 7 : Composing Complex Arguments Module 8 : Composing Policy Arguments MsModule 1 The Subject Matter Of Informal Logic Introduction Tnformal logic is the study of various types of arguments in their natural seting— ordinary discourse. This logic identifies, inteprets, analyzes and evaluates arguments in various language games without using any ofthe templates of formal logic. Objectives 1’'m sure that after you have studied this module, you will be able to: 1. Differentiate the subject matter of formal logic from informal logic; 2. Explain the subject matter of informal logic; and 3. Discuss the counter-examples of the fallacy of affirming the consequent; Unit IV: Module 1 Display Text ‘The Subject Matter of Formai Logie You have discovered in Module 1 of Unit I tat the subject matter of formal deductive logic is tight, precise and well demarcated. It is inthe world of logical forms—the domain of vali logical forms. ‘The standard of vali argument forms are presumed tobe universal—irue Jor any and all possible worlds, Formal logicins do not quarel about what is or whet isnot an srgument—their definition of an argument is precise and stable over time, They do not quarrel about whether an argument has saisfed the norms of validity or not. This can be done with logical precision: Formal logic has become a formal system, not unlike mathematis, ‘You have also studied that a deductive argument depends on its logical form for its strength. The content of the argument is irrelevant to the determination of validity or invalidity of argument forms. In fact, when-you represent a deductive argument, you deliberately delete - the coritent in order to inspect the logical structure of the argument. The logical structure of the argument will reveal the number of premises and the type and kind of statements used in the premises and conclusion. You know that what is valid or invalid in a deductive argument isthe logical form—wihich consists of its truth table. Justin case the truth table of an argument does not contain a horizontal where the premise set is true and the conclusion felse, the argument form is valid. Ifit does, the argument form is invalid. ‘The Subject Matter of Informal Logic In conirast, the subject matter of informal logic is the content of the argumient that formal {ogie discards.when an argument is represented and the logical form is inspected. Informal logicians study arguments in their siatural seting—arguments that accue in ordinary discourse. ‘According to Govier: Real arguments in natural language are not amenable to fully precise treatment. They deal with toples of controversy, disputed facts plausible 146ypothesis, approximately correct analogies. To evaluate them, we must sort out arabiguities, see how diverse factors fit together, weigh pros and-cons, consider the credibility of those on whom we may depend for credibility and expertise. Formal logic is; by its very nature, incompetent to address such matters. At best, it will apply to some argument in natural language, after virtually all interesting questions about the interpretation, content ‘and substantive truth they contain have already been resolved. ! To.use the language of Wittgenstein, we have an assortment of different types of + seguments occurring naturally in various language games imaginable, You know that this is ‘ery untidy subject mater because: : Informal logic proposes to identifi; understand, analyze, and evaluate argument 1s they oécur in the context of discourse in everyday conversation, discussion, controversy and even debate... without the paradigm of logical form as template, Analysis of the Content of the Argument Let us provide a good example in order to highlight the subject matter of informal logic. Let us consider an invalid argument form called affirming the consequent, and provide it with. content, to wit: Ifitrains, Angat Dam will be full, 2,_Angat Dam is full, Therefore, it rained, From the standards of formal logic, the argument form above is invalid, And ail argument with this logical structure is said to_be invalid whatever the content. But if you analyze the content of, the argument, you will notice'that the clainr of conclusion 3. 1¢ rained, is supported by the two premises 1. and 2. quite strongly. Let us consider the valid form of Modus Ponens: 1, Jfitrains, Angat Dam will be fall. 2. Itrained 3. Therefore, Angat Dam is full The argument form may be valid, but if you analyz the content of the argument, the conctision 3. Angat Dam is full does not necessarily follow from the two premises 1. and 2. for the simple reagon that the rains may not be strong enowgh’to fill up the Dam. ‘This arguraent does not fit the definition of Copi when be said: For an argumeit o be prevent, one ofthe asserted propositions must be claimed 40 follow from other propositions asserted to be irve, which are presented as ‘grounds for, or reasons for believing the conclusion? ‘This means tht in the valid form, you cannot offer the two premises 1. and 2. as grownds for, or reasons for believing the conclusion, Because if you do, then the conclusion will not fellow "Quoted from Ralph H. Johnson, Manifest Ratlnaty, (London: Lawrence, Eibaum Associates, Publishers, 2000) ©. Fi p12 Op. eCopt p28 147from the premises. Whereas in the invalid form, if Angat dam is fll, you know with certainty that it rained oven if you have not observed the rain. Hence, itis inthe invalid form of affirming the consequent, where the two premises 1. and 2. can be used as grounds for: or reasons for believing the conclusion, More Counter-Bxamples ‘The following arguments are all invalid since they are all.instantiations ofthe fallacy of affirming the consequent. However, when you exaraine the content ofthe’ argument, you will find out tha the conclusion is supported quite strongly by the premises. 4, Ifthe figure ig a triangle, then its a geometric figure ‘with three sides and three singles 2,_.The figure is a geometric figure with tee sides aid three angles. 4, Therefore, the figure isa triangle, Oragain anther example: 1, If that ian is a bachelor, then that man is an unmarried male. 2. The man is an unmarried male. 1 3. Therefore, that man is a bachelor. Still aiother! 1. Ifitisa puppy, then it is a young dog. 2. Itisa young dog. 3. Therefore, itis a puppy. ‘Numerous cases of this sort coild be multiplied. “Notice that if we are just after the logical form; ‘we would not even bother to analyze the content of the argument in order to determine if the premises pfovide strong support to the conclusion. Thus, we would never even bother to study further arguments ofthis sort, Definition of informal Logic ‘According to Johnson: ‘By informal fogic, I mean‘o designate a branch of logic whose task is to develop non-formal standards; criteria, procedures for the analysis, interpretation, ceveluation criticism, and consiruejion of argumentation in everyday discourse." If you inspect the content of the arguments above, using the perspective of Johnson, it would be very eaiy to judge thatthe premises are tue and the truth of the conclusion is confirmed by the truth ofthe premises, obviously, ina mon-deductive way. {classify the tree examples as znalitic arguments, because the claims of the conclusions are supported by mere analysis ofthe meanings ofthe subject and predicate of the premises and conclusion. In contrast, ‘my Angat Dam argument is empirical. A more intimate discussion of the typology of argument ‘will be conducted inthe following module. Told, p19,Unless you are bitten by the bug of formal logic, any rational individval can see that the premises of cach argument above, confirm the truth of theit conclusions quite strongly. This non-deductive way in which premises confirm the trith of a conclusion is the subject matter of informal logic. Of course, there is no debate about the logical form being invalid. However, informal, logic is not concemed with the logical form of any argument, their concern argument with various types of content iri different language games. And for man Togicians: Informal logie may be seen as a response to formal logic, specifically as ai attempt (0 redress imbalance that occurred when formal deductive logic was put ‘forward as a theory of argument? 7 Unfortunately, the domain of informal lopic is 30 wide and complicated it is dificult to cir the terrain. Arguments can be offered from the analytic, empirical, and tothe fields that has. been declared .non-cognitive by formal logicians and’ epistemologists—the fields of aesthetics, moral philésophy and theology where itis believed that disagreements as well as argumentations eannot have any genuine resolution. Basic Issues in Informal Logie 1k seems unfortunate, that informal logicians have not settled something very basic: the definition of an argument. Many'are allergic to the traditional model of premise set plus logical inference plus conclusion since they believe that this is the mould of formal logic which they are trying to get away from. Others even believe that deductive arguments are not genuine arguments at all, because they are only forms of inference and not genuine arguments. In addition, there is an’on going debate bout how many types of arguments there are— 't ypology. Informal logicians ae in the dark concerning the ettetion of how a promise should be related tothe conclusion. Or, the issue of when we can say that a premises) is relevant (or tof) to a conclusion is unsettled, They are in search for a theory of premise relevance, Furthermore, informal logicians are in search for the criteria for evaluation and criticism of auguments. “The theory of appraisal is still being conceptualized and debated. In short, the subject matter of informal loge is in turmoil. ‘To my mind, if we define an argument by looking for its essence in otdinary discourse, ‘we will nt find it, I believe we have to follow Wittgenstein’s advice to look and see and don't think. Otherwise, we would be committing the same inistake of the formal logicians who claim that either your argument is deductive or else itis defective and start rejecting all non-deductive ‘arguments as counterfeit arguments, Let us be conta with a definition being held together by family resemblance of traits tnd characterites since this would see the purpose of clasifying arguments in ordinary discourse, In addition, the study of arguments as they occur in ata languages shold by * much a possible language game speafe. The concept of ergument, the sada of good end ted argument, andthe criteria for evaluation andertiism may vary rom oe lngusgs pore smother. We ahould not approach the study of argument with any preconceived dese mind Because if we cannot find our preconceived ies in ordinary dlocours the pilecopters inclination is to invent it. We have to ook for similarities 26 well difrences ‘These we important reminders of Witgenstin in ode io avoid stents "bid, p31 149Unit IV: Module 1 elf Assessment Quest Name: ‘Total Score: Fill in the blanks. 1, The content ofthe argument is 2. In fact, when a deductive argument is represented, the content is automatically in order to inspect the logical form, 3.. You know that what is valid or invai consists ofits, 4, Justin ease the truth table ofan argument does not cdntain @ horizontal where the premise set a deductive argument is the which is___and the conclusion, {the argument form is valid. If it does, the argument form is 5. Poona logltns an Wat Shee rgupentisdeddtive or ele itis and they start rejecting all non-deductive arguments as 5 6. In contrast, the subject matter of informel loge is the of the argument that formal logic discards when an argument is represented and th inspected, 7. The subject matte of irformel logic are arguments inthe 8. Informal logic isnot concemed with the of my arguments is concer i ‘with argument wit various types of in different language games. {9 Informal logic isa response to the mathematization of formal logic, and attempts to the imbalance that occurred when deductive logic was imposed as a theory of argument. 10. According to Govier, formal logic is to deal with real arguments in ‘because they deal with topics of controversy that formal logic iso deal wits. 11. Infact, according 70 Johnson the task of, is to understand and analyze argument as they are used in Tn everyday discussion without the paradigm of, as template, 12, Letus consider an invalid argument form below called affirming the consequent: 1. Iitrains, Angat Damn will be fll 2 is i 3. Therefore trained. ‘Whea you study the___" ofthe argument; the claim of conchision 3. 1t rained, is supported by the two premises 1. and 2. quit 13, This non-deduetive way in which premises ‘he uth ofa conclusion above is the of informal loge 14, Let ws consider the valid form of Modus Ponens below: 1. Ifitrains, Angat Dam wil be fll Itaine. Therefor ; Angat Dam is full ‘When you stndy the of the argument, conclusion 3. Angat Dam is full does no, pecessarily fiom the two premises 1. and 2. because there might not be ‘enough rain o llup the dam. The argument i 15. This means that inthe valid form above; you cannot offer the two premisés 1. and 2. as 150grounds for, or reasons for {te conclusion, Because if you do, the conclusion will om the premises. 16, Whereas in the invalid form, it Angat dam is full, you know with, that it rained even if you have not observed the rain, shus the premises ean be used as for, or, for believing the conclusion. 17, According to Johnson, designate a branch of logic whose task is to develop standards inthe construction of arguments in everyday discourse, 18. Unforainately, the domain of, is bo wide and complicated itis difficult to chart the terrain, 19. Ttscems unfortunate, that informal logicians have not seitled somthing very basic, namely, the definition of an i r : 20. There is an on going debate about how many of arguments there are—its mal logicians are in search forthe theory of appraisal, that is to say the and of arguments, ‘an argument by looking For its we do, we will not find it. I believe we have to follow Wittgenstein and ‘and don't think. 23, Let us be content with a definition being held together by ‘and characteristics since this would serve the purpose of. ‘courting arguments. 24, Inaddition, the study of arguments as they occur in natural languages should be as much as possible, ‘ordinary discourse, if 'sadvice to of traits naturally 25, We anticipate that he ‘of good and bad argunent, and the or evaluation and eilcism nay from one language game to ‘another 26, We should not approach the study of natural argument in ordinary discourse with any inmind, content” ‘ontentsrongly confininfaibject matter deleted togical form preconceived ideas defineessence/lool/see natural sting redress irrelevant logical fomm/iruth table logical form informal logic! Adefectivelquai tnuelfalsefinvaid content ordinary discoutse/ ”arguménis incompetenv/naturl conteat/follow! logical form believing/ not Janguages/ineémpetent weak certainty! follow informal logic! argument lrounds/reasons informal logic ‘non-formal ‘ypes/typology sMandardslcriteia/ family resemblance ianguage game evaluation’ vary ‘classifying ‘specific HELP. ‘Do you havé any questions? Comments? 151Fillo the blanks Beontend logical form Suredress 11 informal logic! ‘ordinary discourse/ logical form 16, certinty/ groundsieasons 12. contendrongly de S.defective/quasi- arguments 15.believing/ not fellow 18, informal logic ‘Do you have an important reminder? Unit IV : Module 1 — Answers to the Self Assessment Questions TSconfina/subject maner ‘22.define/essence/Idok/see 3.Jogical form/truth table A.tue/falsefinvalid 10.ineompetenvnatural languagestincompetent 17. informal logic! non-formal 25.tandardWetriteria/ - 23.familyresemblance/ 24. language game vary classifying specific Note Pad : 152 Bdeleied ‘7natural setting 8. logical form! content 20:ypesHtypolo 21, evaluation! ccitcismModule 2 The Theory of Argument Introduction 1. The theory of analysis contains a definition of an argument and its ‘ypology. In contrast, the theory of appraisal contains a proposal-of how an argument is to be ssiticized and evaluated. : Objectives After you have studied this module, I’m swe you will be able to: 1. Discuss the theory of argument; 2. Differentiate the theory of analysis and the theory of appraisal; 3. Differentiate the trée types of argument; and 4, Determine where the strength of argument ests, | Unit TV : Module 2— Display Text In the last ten (10) years, the Department of Philosophy of the University. of the Philippines System has been actively engage in teaching its feahmen how to compost an srqument and how to erteize the argument they have composed. These cemplex alls are in soncert with the objectives of the General Education Program ofthe UP System tet of imparting independent, critical and eretive thinking ‘The Theory of Argument ‘The theory of argument, proposed in this book, assumes that any theory of argument must facilitate the acquisition of step by step procedure similar but not identical toa computer template in order to impart a set of analytic skills for coimposing an argument, including the ‘meta-cognitive skill.of criticizing the argument that was composed; and this becomes the reparation for composing a counter argument; and finally, to the mega-cognitive skill of evaluating the strengths of both the original argumént and the courter-argument with the instruction of strengthening the weaker argument. a In order to remain within the main‘stream of the language game of informal logicians, 1 mopose to sketch my theory of argument using the model proposed by Ralf Johnson, ? to lnclude both-a theory of analysis and a theory of appraisal, to wit: THEORY OF ARGUMENT THEORY OF ANALYSIS ’ THEORY OF APPRAISAL, toi, As. abi 5, 1531 accept Johnson's requirement that a tieory of argument must have two main component, viz, a theory of analysis anda theory of appraisal. The ask ofthe theory of analysis i to provide a answer to: ‘¢ How an argument is to be defined? ‘+, What isthe purpose of an argument? # How many types of argument are there? ‘The task ofthe Theory of Appraisal isto provide an answer to: * How should an argument be evaltated and criticize? + How do we determine whether a premise is relevant or not? +, Whatare the appropriate standards for measuring argument stengih?? In gist, the theory of argument proposed in this book contains @thedry of analysis that i pluralistic anda theory of appraisal that is multivalent. Te chart below will facilitate a binds eye view of the theory. ‘THEORY OF ARGUMENT THEORY OF ANALYSIS Definition ‘Typology Purpose a Strength Weakness ‘Analytic Empirical, Evaluative Definition of an Argument, Let us begin from the beginning: What is an argument? I propose the following analytic definitign: ‘An argunent is any discourse, whether oral or written, in which some Statements are ysed a reason, justification or evidence in order to suppor, the claim of another statement. The claim ofthe statement may be something true, {false or probable; something goodnad rightwrong, desirablefwidesirable. The 154‘Part of the discourse used to support a claim is called premise and the part of the discourse supported by the premises is called the conclusion. Three types of argument can be discriminated viz, analytic, empirical and evaluative. 1 believe that this definition is wide enough and loose enough to cover almost all types of arguments that can occur in any language ganies. It has the practical advantage of being able to sort out and classify naturally occurring arguments in ordinary discourse, If our definition is strict and too precise, we may exclude in out inventory genuine arguments that occur in some language gemes, Ifthe definition is to loose it might include a discourse without any discemible ‘premise or conclusion, From the definition above, it would seem to follow that any discourse with a discernible isi, this may be an opinion, belief, knowledge claims, judgment, act, choice, decision, proposal ete. which is supported by reasons, justifications or evidences is an argument. In addition, the claim of the conclusion is not limited to truth, falschood, or probability, but is meant to include evaluative claims like good/bad: right wrong; desirablefundesirable;justnjust; «te. Por fastance, an explanation where there isa discernible claim that is supported by reason(s) sorevidence(s) is en explanation that contains an argument. The same is true with anatraton. A Ascourse which contains a claim that is supported by reasons means that the strength of the support can be evaluated a either very good, good, fair or bad, depending on the support _rovided by the reasons to its claim, The discourse therefore is or contains an argument. ‘This is the most fertile and most fruitful research agenda for informal logic. To my mind, this isthe basic aim of informal logic: ¢) to understand how a conclusion is supported by the premise(s) in a-discourse in-a natural language ‘nd b) to develop the criteria for judging ‘whether the support offered by the premise(s) is very sirang, strong. far, weak or poor. The next step is to find away of classifying these arguments and find the criteria for judging argument strength foreach discemibe type. ‘What is the purpose of an argument? agree with informal logicians that: ‘The practice of argumeitation is teleological. Argumentation clearly serves to Jtelp us achleve many different goals, among them persuasion, justification, inquiry, belief maintenance, decision making, and so forth, © In short, an argument therefore is successful iit has achieved its intended goal. This means that the conclusion is accepted on the basis ofthe premises offered. Remember your obligation as a ‘ital thinker: you are not supposed to accept the conclusion of any argument unless you have evaluated that the premises offered in support of the conclusion are very strong. It would of course be unthinkable for a critical thinket to accept the truth of @ conclusion when she is fully ‘conscious that the support offered by the premises is non-existent. There may be other traits or ‘characteristics included in the concept ofa critical thinker, but the one stated above is the bottom line. Thus, an argument has achieved its purpose if it ean persuade @ critical thinker that the premises offered in support of a conclusion is very strong, How many types of arguments are there? “bid, p12. feThis question is very difficult to answer with any finality, We do'not wish to commit the essentialist mistake. The subject matter of informal logic is arguments in their natural setting. ‘You know thet this is a relatively uncharted territory. -Any classification must therefore be only temporary and even rudimentary. You have to exhaust the numerous language games where there are discemable conclusions being supported by some premises. In addition, whatever category we specify, borderline cases can easily be offered. | propose to offer a typology of arguments from the epistemotogical perspective, that is, to say, from the point of view of the three types of epistemic claims, namely: empirical, analytic: ‘and evaluative. From the point of view of the pedagogy of composing argument, this perspective is the most fruitful. fer all, the premises should be relevant tothe claim of the conclusion. And: unless we are clear about the nature of claim of the conclusion, it would be difficult to decide ‘hat premises are relevant to it or not. To my mind, the question of premise relevance cannot be answered, unless it is done in the context of a particular claim made by @ conclusion in a discourse, Empirical Argument If the conclusion claims that something is empfrically true, false or probable, it may be ‘an opinion, a belief or a knowledge claim; I classify this argument as empirieal. A good example is when you argue from the characteristic ofa sample to the characteristic of the population; you have composed an empirical argument inthe form of a generalization, like the one below: Most politicians are corrupt because all the politicians I'm acquainted with are all corrupt. It seems to follow that if you have an argument with an empirical conclusion thai ean be cither true, fase or probable, then the premises relevant to it must also be empirical premises too. And we shall speak ofthe premises providing evidence (. g. generalization, observation, studies. ‘ete. in order to verify the truth or probability of the conclusion. And with a premise set that is ‘empirical, acceptability requirement is discarded in favor of truth requirement. In addition, an ‘empirical argument cannot admit of a non-empirical premise like an evaluative statement—such 4 premise i imelevant to an empirical clair. Analytic Argument Jf the conclusion is making an analytic claim, and it is supported by an analytic definition (or well formed formula of some formal science), like: This plece of tand must be-a triangle because it contains three sides and three angles. “This argument is analytic because the proof required to confirm the truth of the conclusion is the analytic definition: Alf triangles have three sides and three angles. itvaluative Argument If the conclusion claims that an act, behavior, or event is good or bad; right or wrong; ‘moral or immoral; desirable or undesirable, etc. then your argument is evaluative, Moral, legal, religious, and aesthetic arguments belong to this category. A good example is the argument below: 1561 is morally wrong fo torture a himan being for fun because this is a violation of his/her human right. Every human being should be treated with respect and dignity. There is no known society or culture in the world that will sanction the torture ofa human Being for fin. = ‘The conclusion: tis morally wroig to torture a human being for fun is supported by jeasons which may either Be empirical or evaluative like a moral rule. The premyjses violation of Iman rights, Bvery human being should be treated with respect and dignity are evaluative mises, the later being a moral rule. And there is no known society or culture. that will Sanction the torture of @ human being for fun is an eropitical premise. Notice that when you accept the empirical premise to be true ard the evaluative premises tobe correct, en you cant telp but accept the conclusion to be tight. The support offered by the premises tots conclusion ‘svery strong. ‘A variation of an evaluative arguiment is when the conclusion is in the form of a command like: You should not denude the forest or the conclusion may be @ legal or policy roposal Environmental destruction should Be considered a heinous crime or Abortion should be legalized. When the claim of the conclusion is evaluative, the essoriment of premises may be a tion of empirical and evaluative, Unless the premise is empirical, the truth requirement ‘snot relevant to an evaluative premise or an evaluative conclusion: The relevant criterion here is aceeptabitity—the strength of the inter-subjective consensus of the concemmed audience thatthe premises are corrector the conclusion is correct. The technique of persuasion here is: When you accept the premises as correc, then you must also accept thatthe conclusion is corest too. Tn an evaluative argument we speak of reason() justifying the claim of the conclusion, It is inthis type of argument where degrees of support may belong to a continuum of very strong, strong, moderately strong, weak, poor, or no support. If we start ctr classification of argument from the perspective of the type of claim of the conchision, the question about what relationship will obtain between the premise set andthe conclusion can readily be answered. In tum this will shed light on the question of premise televanee, Thus, the seemingly problematic issue of whether truth condition or only scceptability isthe requirement forthe premises to be relevant to the conclusion can readily be settled, ‘Theory of Appraisal ‘An important addition 16 the conceptual arsenal of @ critical thinker is the Theory of: Appraisal. You know that the basic aim of the theory of appraisal isto provide the criteria for ndging the strength of support offered by the premiso(s) othe eléim of the conclusion In order to facilitate the evaluation of argument strength we must examine the claim of the conclusion, nd ask; q ‘© What is the nature of the claim of the conclusion? Is it analytic, empirical or evaluative? = What is the required evidence or justification to prove’ the claim of the conclusion? : . A good Theory of Appraisal must be able to sort out the various kinds of epistemic claims and Jéetermine the required evidence or justification to establish the claim. Next, the theory must provide the criteria for estimating the epistemic force of reasons/evidence that supports 1stt different iypes of claims. It seems to:follow thit ifthe evidence offered by the premise set 1 verify, confirm of justify the claim ofthe conclusion eofncide with the required evidence, then the argument becomes conclusive. The'closer you are to the required evidence, the stronger the argument. Let us give a good example: Supposing the conclusion is Most politicians are corrupt; and you know thatthe required evidence needed to completely verify the elsim is 50% plus 1 of the population of politicians is corrupt, The closer the evidence offered in your premise to the required evidence the stronger your argument becomes. Without ths inital information, ‘our technique of evaluation and ertiism cannot takeoff the ground, ‘This means that the Theory of Appraisal can only be developed in the context of the different typés of argument. This ‘means, furcher, thatthe criteria for evaluation end criticism must be individualized to the type of ‘argument under consideration, This is also the best way to conceptualize the cohcept of premise relevance. How do we determine whether a premise is relevant or not? Suffice it to say for now that a-premise is relevant to a conclusion, just in case it ean ‘erifyleonfirm/justify the claim of the conclusion. 25. A critical thinker should have control and masiery ofthe for argument strength, 26, The eriteria for judging the strength of an empirical argument is measured in term’ ofthe offered by the premises to ‘the ruth (or probability) ofthe ‘conclusion 27-The criteria for judging the strength of an analytic argument rest on the truth of the (enalyte definition or & WEF of some formal seience) supporting the f ining gh of eave gees eon tof regarding the mordl principle offered to Jay ea evalave lan. reasonslevalueted _supported/argument _cleim/elevant ‘purposelypes leveluation/criticism - empirical pluralistcfmultvalent discowrse/statements/ lsupporteddiscourse/ enelysis/appraisel natural setting/ supporvlaim/premise} evteria/support evaluative pluralism conclusion lanaltic/analytic empirical persuade/very empirical definition analytic/evatuative ” strong evaluative evaluative appraisal clainvrequired citerio/stength lrequired evidence/ _kinds/required evidence verifyfeonfieny stronger evidence typology justify lcémplete/eitera’. __andlytic statement public acceptance! evidence/verify measuring + “intersubjective HELP. 160Unit IV: Module 2-ASAQ Fill in the blanks [Eveasonsfevaluaied 7. supported” 12.caimeleva Tpapeselypes [3.evaluation/criticism argument 4 pluralistic/multivalent: 6.discourse/statement j9-supported/discourse/ I.analysisiappraisal S-natural setting/ ‘support/elaim/premi eriteria/support 1S.evaluative plural ‘onclusion [H.analyticfanalytic, 1. empirical’ —_‘10persuade/very 16. empitical definition analyticevaluative strong evaluative 17. evaluative 1B.appraisal 2Oeclainarequired ——_1S.efterinlstength [e2required evidence/ 21 kindsrequired evidence 24.verifyleonfirm/ ‘stronger evidence 23.typology justify 5. completeleriteriy 27.analytie 2B.public acceptance) 26.evidence/verify measuring Statement inter-subjective 13, empicial consensus ‘Summing Up ‘The next two modules, namely, Module 3 On fnduction and Module 4 Generalization will provide you with the phitosophical background of the nature of empitical reasoning, This background will sharpen not only your skill in composing empirical arguments but also in your evaluation and criticism of empirical afguments, “Note Pad Do you have an important reminder? 161Module 3 On Induction Introduction ‘This module will provide you with the epistemological framework for dealing with ‘empirical arguments, It will discuss in detail the principle of induction and the nature of ‘empirical arguments. I hope that in doing so, it would not only facilitate composing this type of ‘argoment but also in evaluating.and eriticizing them as well so that you.can-discharge ‘your obligation a a critical thinker. Objectives Tm sure that after yourhave studied this madule, you will be able to: 1. Apply the principle of induction; 2. Explain the nature of all inductive reasoning; 3. Discuss the reliability of industive inference; and 4. Diseiiss the required evidence for confirming many, most, almost al, and all claims. ‘Text ‘The Principle of Induction . In philosophy, the term induction is ambiguous. It has several important uses, The epistemologist used the term induction to refer to a general principle which states chat events in nature are regular, not random. ‘This means that the past, while not a carbon copy of the future, nevertheless resembles it. Inthe language of Fabn Stuart Mill We must frst observe that there i a principe implied inthe very statement of ‘what indition i: an assumption with regard fo the course of nature and the order of the universe, namely, that there are such things in nature-as parallel cases: that what happens once will, under a sufficient degree of similarity of circumstances, happen again, and not only again, but as often as the same ‘circumstances recur. This, I say is an assumption involved in every case of induction. And, if we consul, the aetudl course of nature, we find that the assunption is warranted... This universal feet, which is our warrant for all inferences from experiance is that the course of nature is uniform: thet the universe is governed by general laws; and the like ...' ‘This principle of induction quoted above is the fountainhead of all empirical arguments. ‘This principle allows you to connect one particular event with another event. You know that all direct experiences are about particulars, without the principle, events will be isolated, unconnected and unrelated from one another. It is the same principle that allows you to ‘compose an argument using as premises whet you have observed to'a conclusion that is Op. Ci, Meaning and Knoivledge,pp.330331. 162‘unobserved. One example is when you use as evidence what you have observed to be true in some instances to @-conctusion that the.same observation will obtain in most cases yet ‘observed... You have used the principle of induction to justify your conclusion whether you are ware of itor not ‘Nature of Inductive Reasoning Strictly Speaking, any type of empirical argumnent which does not contain reference from the observed to the unobserved; from the known to the unknown or from the familiar to the unfamiliar js not part of what is meant by en inductive reasoning. ‘This means that in an inductive argument, what is claimed in the conchision goes beyond the eviderice found in the premises, In most cases, 'inductive argument must content itself with mere probability. Hence, te are reserving the torm inductive argument to one where the conclusion is made probsble, on the basis ofthe truth of the premiscs. The term probability is used here in the sense of epistemic probability, nd not a mathematical one. In order to appraisé the logical quality of an inductive argument you have to analyze the ontent, This is obviously a much more difficult and complex task confronting informal logicians. And unlike in Unit II where I provided you witha isting of different types of valid as ‘well as invalid.argument form, T cannot provide you with the-same classification for inductive sigument. Obviously, there are pattems of inductive arguments, but these patterns will not ‘guarantee the logical quality ofthe argument. Reliability of Inductive Inference In order to have @ good feel of what it is like to argue from the observed to the unobserved, let me give you my example of a box with 100 marbles init. You ae provided with the information that the marbles have the same size, weight and brightness. What you do not know is the color ofthe marbles. Let us suppose further thit you want to get a sample from the box, so that you can determine the color of all te marbles inthe box. You want to randomsize your sclection of your sample, so thet all the marbles in the box will have an equal probability ‘of being chosen. So you shake the bor, before drawing a marble. ‘This would give a mesture of assurance that your sample is representative ofthe whole. Suppose, for example, tat the fits narble drawn is colored white.” What ean you sey about the volor ofthe rest ofthe marbles in the box? : Well, one white marble is the required evidence for the truth of a singular statement: A nnarble is white. And since you know that one marble is white, you have the complete evidence forthe truth of the claim: A marble is whit. And you have indirect evidénce forthe claim: A few tnarbles are white, In the particular eleim: A marble is white, you have not made an inductive inference, whereas in the few claim, you Bave made ar inductive inference from the observed to the unobsorved. Of cours, if you want to find out the color of all the marbles inthe box, you will nat be ‘tisfied with drawing only onc marble. Let us assume that you drew, after shaking the box, fine more, marbles which are ell white. Your sample has now ten white marbles. Given this ‘te, what can you infer about the color ofthe rest ofthe marbles in the box? Do you have the tequired evidence to make probable a general claim: Most marbles are white? The term most has a strct ‘us; it medins 50% plus | or the evidence of St. white marbles, On th basis of the ‘ummple often white marbles drawn at random, I believe that you have a right to claim that there tte 41 more white marbles in the box that you have not observed, provided you accept the 163sssumption that the saraple is representative of all the marbles inthe box. ‘The evidencé in the sample of 10 white marbles confers certainty toa many claim and probability to amos cla Supposing you inereass the number of your sample to thirty marbles and discovered that all of them are white, too. With this evidence you increase your confidence in your claim that ‘Most marbles are white by dubbing it highly probable, And you kave made the claim Almost all marbles are white probable. At the same time you are laying the evidential support forthe universal claim All marbles are white. With thirty white macbles, you have rendered 2 universal statement lightly probable, too. But supposing that you are not still satisfied with tity white ‘marbles because you really want to find out the color of all the marbles in the box, then you increase your sample to eighty white marbles! Your general statement: Mast mdrbles are white jis now certain, considering that the required evidence is only $1 white marbles, The claim: Almost all marbles are white becomes certain to0 ot very highly probable, depending on how you'construe alriost all claim. If almost all claims are construed as requiring the evidence of 80 ‘marbles, then it is certain; if it is construed between 80-90 marbles, then it is.true beyond reasonable doubt. But the universal statement All marbles are white is still only highly probable. Let us suppose further that you are not still satisfied and you inerease your sample to ninety-nine white marbles. Only one marble is left in the box! The claim: Almost all marbles are white is now certain and the universal claim: All marbles are white is true beyond a shadow of, a doubt, but its still not certain. The required evidence of certainty is complete enumeration. ‘The evidence of ninety-nine white marbles will not make the lest marble white, The last marble ‘may turn out to be of a different color. Reinember that one counter-example will destroy a universal claim. You know that itis easier to falsify than to verify a universal claim. Normally, wien you come across a universal claim Al! with open domain, the required evidence could not be produced, And producing a single counter-example can easily challénge such a claim. Remember this insight well, Tt wil ‘prove very dseful when you are evaluating arguments later in the Unit. Required Evidence for Different Levels of Generalization To recap, the required evidence forthe claim Some marbles are white is at least one white marble. The tequired evidence:for the claim Many marble are white is at least 10 marbles, ‘The required evidence for a general statement Most marbles are white is @ majority of50% plus 1, The requited evidence for Nearly all or almost all marbles are white is about 80-90%, And the required evidence for Al! marbles are white is complete enumeration, Short ofthe requited evidence, your claim of rnany, mosi, almost all or nearly all and all would have varying degrees of probability depending on how close your sample isto the required evidence. What about: ‘A few" marbles are white and ‘Several’ marbles are white; what is the required evidence? You have studied earlier that these claims are systematically vague which ‘means tha their domsins would change depending on tae context. Inthe context of 100 maxbles, 4 few may mean from five to about eight, The teims a few and some in ordinary language are aimost synonyms. Please note thatthe term some doés not mean at least one bur not all in ordinary language. This is the use of the term some in formal logic. In ordinary language, the use of some, several and a few appeat to be synonymous. I cannot deieet any nuances in thelt ses. 164The pont to be made is that when you have comps evden to conf your alization, you have not made an ladietve inference, The element of arguing om the fbserved (6 the unobrerved or fom te haewa foe unknown is mising hes you hae fomplt evidence to support acai. SAQ Name: ‘Total Score: Fillin the blanks; 1. The meaning ofthe erm induction refers toa general principle which states hat events nature are riot" This means that the pest, wile nota carbon copy of the, »mevertheless 2. According to John Stuart Mill the principle of i about the couse of nature andthe in the universe that ere ae ach ings in nature as ase; that what happens once wil, under a suicent degree of similariy oF GreunBtances, aenin 3. ‘This principe of induction is the ofall empirical angumens. 44 This principle allows you to ‘one eve with another event; without the principle, events in nature will be and from eachother. 5. This is the principle that allows you to compooe an argument wing as what you kave observed to suppor a contusion tats : 6. When you use as evidence what you have to be true in some instances to a conclsion tha the same observation wil obtain in mon cade yet you have used the principle of induction to te claim of yout conslsion. 7. An argument which has no reference om the observed f the fiom the to the unknojyn; or-from the familiar to the. is not part of hats meant by an argument 8 ‘This mean that in an Tnduetive argument what is in the conélusion goes beyond the found inthe premises Principle to Woelf This is aclassiccase ofthe fallacy of___- 9: The required evidence forthe claim marble is whites 10, The required evidence for the claim Many marble ae wie wasanple oP 11. The required evidence fora general statement Most marbles are white is a hajoriy of 100 marbles. : 12, The regired evidents for Neory al or almost all marbles are whieis about 1B, And the required evidence for Al! marbles are whites 14, Normally, when you come across a upiversl elim Ail'with open dora, the could not be produced. And producing «single Taya universal claim 15. Your generalization of mary, mos, almost al or nearly ail nal would have varying degres of depending on how close your sample is othe 16, When you Fave the 10 confirm your generalization, you have an inductive Inference, because the element of arguing fom the to the. or from the. to the: is missing. |premises/anobserved _regulai/random ‘one white marble 50% plus 1 fomectromect “Rivetontis cere aT ie fenbetoge) Tg el ee 165 ‘can easilyrequired evidence! counter-example assumption/order! let Unit IV: Module 3—ASAQ. Fill in the blanis 5 premiseshmobserved Tegularrandom 9. one white marble 11. 50% plus T ‘eonnect/inconnected/ future/resembles _° 10. ten marbles 6.observed/uno isolated 16.required 3. fountainhead justify 15. probabitity/ cevidence/ 13. complete ‘is required evidence! roquired evidence not made/observei/ enumeration counter-example undbserved/known/ © unobserved/known/ 8. elsimed/evidenee 2. assumption/order/ ‘unfamiliaxinductive unknown 12. 80-90 marbles paallelhappen Unit IV : Module 3-TTP i ‘Try to imagine what the world would be like if you lose the ability to use the principle of Induction, If you cannot use the principle, you will not be able to detect any kind of regularity like cause and effect, or chronological sequence of eyents. Consequently, if you cannot detect regularity, will you still have a concept of the past and the present? What about the future? Comments on Unit IV: Module 3 - TTP ‘The problem of induction is a very fetle source of philosophical speculation among my ~ Philo I students. The issue has always produced a very lively controversy in all my classes, ‘Students often.end up debating with each other. Some of the consensus often reached is: it is impossible for humans to survive if they have'lost the ability to use the principle of induction. Others claim that even dogs and cats have a well developed ability’ to use the Principle, The Philosophical issue of whether we, can of cannot justify the principle becomes irrelevant, | considering that we cannot survive without it. Still, others claim that if we carinot use the principle, we would not only lose our concept ofthe past, present and the future, but we would also not remember our name, and so we will exist like a baeteria oblivious to all extemal stimulations, 1 Summing Up Your study of the’ principe of induction provided you with the foundation for dealing with all types of inductive reasoning, All resoning from the observed tothe unobséeved, from the known fo the unknown is inductive. Most ofthe reasoning you will encounter inthe business of living is not deductive but inductive, Many of the arguments that you ae going to gompos? ‘ae also inductive, 16Module 4 Generalization Introduction | know that you are now a bit familiar with term generalization. -1 know too that you ave made a lot of generalizations in the past since this is most common type reesoning. But ‘what you may not be familiar with are the requirements for making a good generalization. ‘This module will not only teach you how to construct a good generalization but also, how to evaluate the strength your own generalization as wel. Objectives ‘Affer completing this module, you will easily be able to: 1, State the requirement of a good generalization; 2. Evaluate the reliability of generalizations; and 3._ Avoid commiting the fallacy of hasty generalization. | Unit IM: Module 4— Display Text Generalization ‘’m sure that most of the generalizations that you have made are not as clear-cut @s out example of the marbles in the box. Oftentimes, you have argued in the following manner in the past All crows I've seen are black, therefore ail rows are black The evidence you offered is, All crows I've seen are black You know the premise.to be teve, becaise in five different ‘occasions, you have sten about $0 crows. But you also know that the required evidence for the conclusion AU! crows are black is complete enumeration of all crows past, present and to come ‘which is physical impossibility to produce. Probably Kar] Popper is correct, we do not need 10 verify; we have to falsify by looking for a counter-example, i. ., a crow that is mot black: But falsifying this al claim is as dificult as verifying it because in both cases you aré looking fora ‘row that is not black, ‘ To begin with, at présent, we do not know how many crows there af in the world. And consequently, it would be very difficult to completely verify this universel generalization, We Imow the claim is, knowable: hence provable. Although you also-know that the claim is provable only in prineiple, but notin fact. Ii provable in principle betause if you have ‘unlimited resources, you could comratssion a simultaneous investigations in every possible places in the world where crows could be found so that you could do compete enumeration of all rows to discover if all of them are colored black. General Rule However, as a general rule, most universal claims (ether affirmaive or negative) you will ome across do not have the required evidence to completely verity their claim, If you are ‘earful, do not say aif wien the evidence warrants saying only mos. Similarly, do not say mast, when the evidence warrants only claiming a fev, several or many. In my ease, when I'm 16uncertain about the evidence, but I want to make a generalization, I guard my claim by using the vague tem many. So if I argue: All se crows I've seen are black therefore mauy crows are black Who do you think wil disagree with me? IFT elaim mos, I will be required to prodvce 50% plus one and since I do not know the exact number of crows, then I cannot produce the regired evidence. ‘To Requitesnents of a Good Generalization When are we justified in claiming that a charactaristic is true of all cases although we have observed only some of them? Logicians believe that there are two tequizements that must be satisfied to make a good generalization: . 1. The observed gases (sample) must be representative of the whole class/population; 2. “And no conflicting case has been observed. ‘The first requirement is very difficult to satisfy because itis eireular. You will never really know if the sample is representative of the population, unless you completely enumerate the- whole population and then compare it with your sample. ‘How will you know, for instance, ifthe 50 crows'that I have observed, are represenistives of the population of rows if you have not observed all of thein? The problem is confounded because a single noin-black erow, hiding ‘somewhere in the world will falsify the all claim: ‘They say that randomizing the sclection of the simple will ensure represéntativeness ‘Thus, shaking the box before drawing a marble to a certain extent guarantees that each marble in ‘thé box has aw equal probability of being selected; and consequestly, making our sample "ppresentative ofthe whole population. The requirement thatthe sample is representative ofthe ‘whole isa requiremest thats difficult to attain, in fat; at best we can only approximate it Thave a0 quarrel with the second requirément. It seems to me obvious that a single counter-example will falsify a iiversal claim, This is what is rally meant by the requirement ‘No conflicting case has been observed. Fallacy of Hasty Generalization Tm sure you will gree with me that many ofthe genetlizations we will encounter in ordinary life are based on top few eases. Indeed, this seems to be a natural tendency, This mistake in reasoning is dubbed fallacy of hasty generalization. Suppose your teacher in Philo | discovered that the first student he questioned is unprepared with the lesson. On the basis of e single sample, he concludes, without further investigation, thatthe whole classi utprepared. He commits the fallacy because the cheracigitic of a single student was projeted to be. the characteristic ofthe whole class. Ths teacher has not intemalized the epistemic obligation of ‘ot acepting a statement (conclusion) to be tre unles you have sufficient evidence fo it. It seems that hasty generalization is avery ‘empting fallacy because of our human tendency todo. things the easy and Izy way. Ihave just made a generalization, which may be based on a biased sample! ‘The root of many superstitious beliefs is tasty, careless, and even dishonest fgeneralization. A mother takes her child with mumps io an albolario and the child is given some herbal medicine, end after a week, the child gets better, And the mother attributes the cure tothe 168‘albolario. This case strengthens the belief that the medicine of the albolario is better than the siedical doctor in the health center ‘Three Guideliies However, the hazards of making a hasty generalization should not make us hesitate to rake one, provided we are aware thet our genéralizaion is not founded on evidence. Failure to make a generalization can be as bad as making a hasty generalization According-to.one philosopher, if you were poisoned once after eating in a certain restaurant, you would be Foolish tocat there agein. I quite agree! Itdoes not matter if Tain reminded ofthe warning: One swallow does neither a summer make nor éne fine day, unless the consequence of not accepting @ ‘generalization is being poisoned. The prudent thing to do is: We should hesitate to accept a generalization as probable until we have tested it fr relibilty. How do you testa generalization for reliability? ‘The degree of confidence that we are justified in placing in a generalization roid p17, 169pigments in the cat's fur and eyes and the defect in the hearing organ, then his empiicl generalization will be strengthened by the discovery of this causal connection. Philosophers of stience believe that mest of the so-called natural Jays stated as an pirical generalization until the causal relation is discovered and explained. And since Darwin proved the causal connection between lack of pigments inthe eats fur and eyes causes deafness, his generalization has acquired a qualitative change—its truth no “longer requires more empirical semples for its strength. ‘Unit Il: Module 4— SAQ Name! Total Score: Fill in the blanks 1, Most of the universal claims do'not have te to make good their claims. 2. When the evidence warrants claiming only aes, do not claim 3. Wheh you want to make a generalization and your evidence is incomplete, don’t use instead of. ; 4 A most claim requires you to produce the evidence of. 5. The defect in the requirement that a sample must be representative ofthe whole classi ft 6. The requirement thai no conflicting case must be observed is really an attempt to the generalization, 7. When you make'a generalization based on too few samples, you are likely to commit the fallacy called é Randomizing the selection of the sample is an attempt to make the sample ofthe popilltion. 9. The basis oFmany superstitious beliefsis 10, Generally, the more samples you have, the more ‘your generalizatidn, 11, The wider the variety. where your samples were drawn, the more ‘we ean place on the generalization. 12, Where there are no conflicting cases fous, the more ‘we can place on the ‘generalization, 13.1n order to have’ complete confidence in your ernpiriedl ‘generalization, you have: to it Tepresentative _— eirular ‘manylinost Tost explain confidence ‘falsify reliable required hasty hasty confidence evidence eralization "generalization 50% +1 BELP Do youthave any questions? Comments? “bids 9107. : 179Unit IV : Module 4— ASAQ Fill in the blanks. B.representative 5. circular T.manyfmost 3, most 13. explain M.confidence 6. falsify 10. reliable 1 required T hasty 9 hasty 12, confiderice i r necalization 4. $0%6 +1 Unit IV: Module 4-TTD A. Get 10 samples of generalizations that you have read or heard like the ones below: 1. Briday the 13s ag unlucky day. 2777 ae lucky numbers. 3. No.animals with hors and hoofs are cznivores. B. Apply the three guidelines on your examples in Item A. C. Look for 10 typical examples of hasty genéralizations D. Twant you to discharge your obligation as acrtieat inker by erticizing your answers in “Items A,B, and C. : ‘Summing Up Generalization is the miost common form of inductive reasoning. It is also the most abused: The fallacy of hasty generalization is so prevalent that most of the superstitious beliefs wwe enteriain to be true are based on it, In order to avoid commiting the fallacy, you rust ‘many rather than most'when you have insufficient evidence. And when you want to make a formal generalization you must use the three guidelines. Your knowledge of the requirement of a good generalization can be used negatively. When you are presented with an al! or a mos! claim by people (your friends), you can ether present a counter-example or ask them to produce the required evidence, Note Pad Please write your important reminder hete? mIntroduction ‘The skill for detectrig fallacies i very important addition to the conceptual apparatis'of ‘critical thinker. Remember thatthe best technique for demolishing an argument would be to demonstrate that it is fallacious. And once a fallacy is detected in any argument the job of « | thinker is over. Needless to say, a critical thinker should have complete mastery for detecting fallacies, Objectives Tm sure that after you have completed this modile, you will be able to: 1. Mentify and avoid argumentiom ad hominem; 2. Identify and avoid argumentum ad baculum; 3. Identify and avoid argumentum ad ignoranitam; 4. Identify and avoid argunentum adlmisericordiam; 5. Identify and avoid argumentum ad populum; 4, Identify and avoid argumentum ad vericundam, 7. Ideatify and avoid the strayman fallacy; 8. Identify and avoid the slippery slope fallacy; 9. Identify and avoid the red herring fallacy; 10. Identify and avoid the false analogy fallacy; 1. Identify and avoid the fallacy of complex question; 12 Identify and avoid the fallacy of peito principi 13, Identify and avoid the fallacy of false dilemma; and 14, Explain the fallacy ealled non sequitur, Unit IV : Module 5 Display Text Euthanasia Suppose you ae in a hospital engaged in a serious‘and heated debate chout the merits or demerits of euthanasia ‘or mercy killing. with your family members, The. patent consermed is your uncle on you fate’ side. His name is Une Fred. He has been ina coma for timost five months. Because of your compassion fon your uncle, you proposed euthanasia by giving the following reasons : ‘The patient is notin control of hig faculties, ‘tis certain that the patient is terminal. ‘The patent is suffering and isin terible pain, | ‘There is no known medical option to relieve his suffering. ‘The patent is being kept alive by artificial means—life support system, m‘You conclude that it is in the best interest of the patient to remove the life support system so that nature can take its course and allow the patient to die with dignity. This is the humane and kind thing to dot Argument ad Hoininem Suppose one of your aunts in an attempt to rebid your argument, says: “Isinderstand why you are proposing to inurder your Uncle Pred. You ‘have never-beon close to hin You are closer to your other uncles, especially on ‘your mother's'side. Now I know you hate your Uncle Fred. You have an evil ‘mind and a heart of stone. Your aunt’s reaction to your argument is no unexpected,’ She heard an argument whose conolusion is objectionable or even repugriant to her, so there is a very strong temptation to attack the person who composed the argument. “Your auntie committed a common and well- known fallacy called argumentum ad hominem or argument directed to the person. When you reject an argument by attacking the person who offered the argument—either in pointing out 2 character flaw or evil intentions to destroy his credibility, you commit the ad hominem fallacy. ‘An argument must stand or fall on its ovm merit, who composed it is imelevant. Argumentum ad Baculum ‘Suppose you father tells you! ‘you persis inthis line of reasoning Iwill disinkerit you, throw you out of the hose, siop your schooling and not talk you ever again. You are putting sme in a bad lighi with my broshers and sisters by suggesting that your Uncle Fred be murdered ‘Your father just committed the fallacy known as argumentum ad baculum —argument that appeals to the use of force. Your father used threat, intimidation and strong-arm tactics to reject your argument, Surely disinheriting you is not the best way to demonstrate that your argument is weak : ‘Argument ad Misericordiam ‘And your mother joins inthe discussion by: ‘What happened to you my son?. Don't you have any compassion for your Uncle? Think of his six children, What will happen to them without their father? Is there no pity in your heart? Life ts the most precious possession of a “human being. So long as a person ts alive, there is a chance that he might live. Anniracle might happen. Are you depriving your uncle of this chance? ‘Youir mother just committed another well-known fallacy called argumentiom ad misericordiam cof argument that appeals fo pity. Unfortunately, the weakness of your argument cannot be demonstrated by an appeal to pity. 173, i‘Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (One of your uncles added: ‘Som there is always hope. Your are big enough and titelligent enough to ‘now that nobody has succeeded In disproving the existence of miracles, s0 therefore miracles exist, You should not deny your Uncle Pred his miracle of Bie. : ‘Your uncle just committed another fallacy called argumentumm ad ignorantiam—argument from ignorance. Because nobody has disproved the existence of miracles, it does not mean that there fare. If they want prove that there are miracles, the burden of proofis in their cout not on yours, Argumentum ad Poputum ‘Again one of your atints attempting to challenge you said: Can you imagine what will happen if we follow as you suggested: remove the life support sysiem and let your suncle Fred die? Som, we are Catholies—we value human life more than any material things in the worl ‘Aré you suggesting that we abandon this time honored traditional value and ‘murder your Unele Fred? ‘Your auntie just commited a fallacy called argumentum ad populuni—appeal to popularity and ‘traditional tsttuion, Arguimentum ad Vericunidiam Another Uncle followed up your suntie's remark by: Uf we remove the life support system, do you think the Catholic Church will alow such a cruel decision? Surely not! The church belleves in miracles, The Church wil tell you that a,medical breakthrough can happen anytime that will cure your uncle." Let us continue hoping and have faith in our church. Your uncle committed a fallacy knovm as argumentum ad iericundlani—appea! to authority, Not all appeal to authority is fallacious. Its fallacious when it is the wrong authority. The church isnot the authority on whether a medical breakthrough is coming that will sve your ‘ncle from the clutches of death. : ‘Strawman Fallacy, Red Herring Fgllacy and False Analogy Indesperation your mother said: Tour attngt 10 jut removing the fe suport system Is boring You devote human je. You took a your Uncle Fred lt hors who bote Jeg. and since the horse is now useless, he deserves to die, May I suggest that the person we are calhng about is aman being with tse worth eden horse who has sorved hs usudnse 1%“This is the strawman fallacy. I easier to confront a strawman thon a real man. So the fallacy is committed’ when you deliberately misrepresent an argument to weaken it—you created @ strewmen end passes ites the genuine argument, The issue now became the intrinsic worth of hhuman life, Neediess to say, the weak substitute-the strawman is easier to ofiticize. And if the discussion wes shifted to the strawmian, that is, the value of human life, and as a consequence, your original argument in support of euthanasia was neglected, then another fallacy called red herring fallacy is committed. If itis shifted to the analogy of a horse with a broken leg and the case of your Uncle Fred, this is another fallacy called false analogy, Because you are being accused of treating your Uncle Fred in the same way You would treat a horse with a broken leg. ‘Slippery Slope Fallacy : Your father egained his composize and said How can you even mike such a proposal? If we aliow you to do tt to ‘your Uncle Fred, you will doit also fo me, to your mother, (o all your relatives ‘ad friends— where will it stop! Are we going to kill everybody who oulived hisher usefdress—the rerminaly tl, the aged, the cripple and infirm? What about farally deformed infants! Aré you going to deprive them all oftheir right 1olife? hope you see now how wrong Your proposal is! ‘This is the slippery slope fallacy. Notice that the fallacy consists in arguing that if we allow one ‘ase of euthanasia to happen, you mist allow it also to happen to other cases, The first easé must be wniversalizable and you plunge down the slippery'slope to a terrible disaster where anybody ‘who outlived his or her usefulness will be terminated. And since you do not want the final ‘outcome of administering euthanasia to all terminally il, the aged, the cripple, the infirm and deformed infants, you are enjoined not to take the frst step. Unfortunately, there is no evidence ‘that, if we take the first step, all the predicted consequences to the gruesome end will follow. Fallacy of Compe Question ‘Suddenly the wife of your Uncle Fred blurted out erying: Who among your relatives are you contemplating to kill next? “This isthe fllay of complex queiton. The question assumes the tuth ofa hidden conclusion that since you proposed euthanasia to your Uncle Fred you are also contemplating on doing the same to your other relatives similarly situated Petitio Princip ‘Another Unele in a very even tone said: Removing the lfe support system of your Uncle Fred is wrong because. it 4s wrong to take the lf of another human Being even ifthe motive iso alleviate Pain and suffering, Only God has that right! ‘The argument stated cleanly is euthanasia is wrong, because it is wrong, This is the fallacy known a5 patito principif or the fallacy of begging the question, If euthanasia is wrong, you ‘must produce reasons that would support the claim. Smuggling the conclusions inthe premise set will not strengthen the argument. You cannot support the elsim of the conclusion by using the 15conclusion as your premise. For some strange reason, circular reasoning ofthis Sri common, ‘Appatenly, many people think tat repeating the conclusion several tes makes Up e ound pument Fallacy of False Dilemma ‘Your mother admonishes you by: Bither you do not value human life or you do not love your Uncle Ped; it seems 0 us that you do not love your Uncle Fred. Therefore, you do,not value suman life ‘Your mother obviously presented you with the fallacy of falsedilemma, The argument is very convincing since its form is valid. Unfortunaiely, the dilemma being forced on you is false. There are other possibilities like your strong compassion for anybody that is suffering and has no chance of surviving the ordeal Non Sequitur. : To recap, all fallacious arguiments share Gne essential thing in common. The conclusion oes nit follow from the premise set. That is to say, the premises offered do not support the claim of the conclusion. A blanket term was invented for this: tis called mon sequitur, ,So if {you have detected a fallacy, and you have forgotten the name, just call ita non sequitur. 76Unit IV; Module SAQ Name: Total Score: A B. Fill in the blanks. 1. You commit the fallacy of. ‘when you attack the person Who composed the argument, rather than the argument. 2. When you are forced to reject your own argument by threat and strong-arm tacties, the fallacy is called 3. When your argument is rejected by an appeal to the emotional and mis consequences ofthe Conektision, the fllacy is called 4. You commit the fallacy of ‘when you infer the wath of a conclusion because it cannot be disproved, 3. When you base the soundness of an argument on popularity ofthe conckision, you commit the fllacy called 6. _ When the strength of an axgument rests on some authority, be sure thatthe authority is the relevant one; if not, the fallacy is called 7. You commit the fillacy when you deliberately distort an argument to weaken it and offeritas the real argument. 8. When the strawaman substitute becomes the focus of ettention and the participants lose sight of the original argument, the fallacy is called 9. When you ate offered an analogy that i not accurate, and a conclusion is dravim as ifthe analogy is exact, the fallacy is called 19. When you are asked a question that smuggles the trath of'a conclusion, the fallacy i called 1]. When the conclusion of your angument is rejected by citing a series of consequences leading toa final outcome which is dsistous, the fallacy is called 12, When you compose an argument by citing as evidence the conclusion of the argument or by repeating the conclusion several times, the fallacy is called 13, When you are offered an argument forcing you to accept only ivo alienalives, where, in fact, there are others, the fallacy is called 14, All fallacious arguments share one thing in common the eonchision does rot follow fiom the premises. This is called able ‘strawman false analogy "ad verieundiam complex mon sequitur ad populum ad hominem question ‘redherring slippery slope ad misericordiam —_petitio principii false dilemma ad baculum ad ignorantiam Match the categories on the left with the descriptions on the right. 1. Ad hominem a. Popular appeal 2. Ad baculum i. Appeal to ignorance 3. Ad ignorantiam ©. Appeal to pity 4: Ad populum . Use of force 5. Ad misericordiam «©. Appeal to false authority: 6. Ad verieundtam f Attack the person, 7. Petito principtt 22 Itdoes not follow ‘8. Non sequitur 1b, Begging the question 7C. Identify the fallacies committed inthe following arguments. Nobody ever succeeded in disproving the existence of God; therefore, God exists. Have you stopped cheating in your exams? .- I've seen the Titanic three times because itis a good movie. Itis obviously a good movie, otherwise, I would not have seen it three times, Please give me a passing grade because, if I fil, my old and sick ‘mother will be very disappointed. Erap does not deserve to be the prsideit because he isa, ‘womanizer, a gambler and an alcoholic, Vote for JaV because, according to Bro. Villanueva, he is declared by Jesus to be the next president, Use Oral V because itis used by 8 out of 10 movie stars. fcandidate Y will not win the presidency, there will be a people power revolution. ‘VP LErap cannot even put his own household in order, so how ean he put the affairs of the country in order? 10. Either Lim or Roco wins the election; Roco will not win; ‘Therefore, Lim will win, ‘ad populun false snalogy ‘ad ignorantiam — peilflo : false dilemma ad hominem ad misericordiam —* privicipit ‘ad baculum complex question ad vericundiam ee eS | Do you have any questions? 8Unit IV: Module 5 —ASAQ A, Fillin the blanks. 7. straw ‘9 false analogy 6. advericundiam 10. complex 14.non sequitw —5.ad popu 1. ad hominem ‘question 8. ted herring LL. slippery slope 3.admisericordiam 12. petitio principit 13. false dilemma" 2..ad baculum 4. ad ignorantiam, B. Matching 12d 3. 6 4. a5. 65 6.6: 7b B C. Identify the fallacy. "Tad popilum 9. false analogy 1. ad ignorantiam 3. petttio 10. false dilemma 5.ad hominem’ ° 4. ad misericordiam —principié 8.ad baculum 2. complex question 6. ad vericundiam ‘Summing UP The best technique that ciitieal thinker can use to criticize an argument is, to demonsttae that iti fallacious. This is the best weapon of @ critical thinker in is conceptual ‘arsenal. When you drop the Latin terms for fallacious arguments your opponent in any Aiscussion or debate will be taken aback. And even if you have forgotten the Latin terms, just use the blanket term non sequitur and more likely than not it wil do the job as wel. Note Pad Do you have any question? . 7 179Module 6 Theory of Appraisal for Simp! ‘guments Introduetion module will provide a ertical thinker withthe skills of composing simple argument that s/he is going to need in the business of living. In tum, these are also the kinds of arguments, that arg likely to be offered or used against hinvher in ordinary conversations, discussions and brain storming sessions, etc. In addition, it will give a critical thinker with a very practicat theory of appraisal in the context of a particular type of argument, In this way shhe will be provided with individualized skills for evaluating and criticizing a particular type argutent, ‘This isthe omly module in this book containing three displays with three seperate SAQs, these are: Display No. 1 Empirical Argument, Display No. 2. Analytié Argument and Display ‘No. 3 Evaluative Argument. And the end of the module, your are provided with-an integrated ‘SAQ for the three displays, . Objectives ‘After studying this module, you should be able to: 1. Compaze and contrast empirical, analytic and evaluative arguments; 2. Explain where the strength ofeach type of argument res; 3. Apply the premise and conclusion indicator; and 4. Apply the techniques of appraisals for each type of arguments. Unit IV :. Module 6 ~ Display No. { Empirical Argument ‘To assess an argument, critical thinker must either criticize or evaluate it. When you cridcize an‘argument, your main concem is to show the weaknesses of the argument. The best way to demonstrate the weakness of an argument is to demonstrate that it rests on a fallacy, You have, studied this in the last module, In contrast, when you -evaluate an argument, you demonstrate not only the weakness but also the strength in order to revise, modify and improve the argument, But whether you are criticizing or evaluating an argument, you should develop the ‘skill for estimating the strength of ai: argument. Without this skill; criticism and evaluation will 0 on aholiday. Simple Empirical Argitment ‘Tae best starting point, therefore, for a Theory of Appraisal is to know where the strength of the argument rest, In Module 4 entitled, Generalization, you have learned the requirements for making a good generalization, Iti time to-put this knowledge to good use. Now, when you use an empirical generalization as the main premise in your argument, and draw'a ‘conclusion with probability estimate—this, argument is obviously an empirical argument, This type of ‘argument is one of the easiest to compose and quite common. Although it must be emphasized that this (ype of argument does not appear in such a neat structure depicted below in a natural liguage: Let us provide some examples to allow the concept to sink. Empirical argument 180begins with’an empisical generalization or generalization with percentage estimate as the mai premise. To wit: 1. Generalization: Exactly 80% of U P students are Catholics. Premise: Peter, Paul and Mary are UP students, Conclusion: Therefore more liely tham nor (with 80% probabiliy), Peter, Paul and Mary are Cathoties. 2. Generalization: Most UP students study hard for their exam. Premise: “Jane and Pam are UP studenis. Conclusion: Therefore, more likely than not, Jane and Pam study hard for thelr + exam, 3. Generalization: Nearly all U P students want to get high grades. Premise: Jose isa UP student, Conclusion: Therefore, Jose ivanis to get high grades. 4. Generalization: small fraction of UP studenis cheatin their exam. Premise: Pepe is a UP student. Conclusion: - Therefore, more likely than nor, Pépe will not cheat in his exam, 5. Generalization: Many UP students love their alma matter. Premise: June, Manny and Nina are UP students. Conclusion: — Thereforé, mare likely han not, June, Manny and Nina love their alma matter. 6, Generalization: UP female students will probably curn out to be good housewives. . Premise: Marieris isa U P female sindent 7 Conclusion: Therefore, more likely than not, Marleris will turn out to be a good housewife, 7. Generalization: Thére are more than 6,000 UP freshmen in Diliman in 1998, and only ten freshmen are’ atheists. Premise: Earl is a UP freshman, Conclusion: Therefore, more likely than not, Earl is not an atheist believe that these are the typical empirical arguments that you would encounter in the business of living although it need not be in this neat structure of main premises\plus minor premise, and a conclusion. These are some of the patterns that you can adopt when you compose ‘Your ov argument justin case you have discovered a good generalization. In this Way you can ‘extend your generalization to cases you have not observed. And in composing your argument, I ‘enjoin you to emulate the neat siructure presented above without the’ qualifier main premise, ‘ninor premise and conclusion. For example, you can argue: ‘Since Earl is a UP freshinan; and since there are more than 6,000 UP freshmen in Diliman in 1998; but only on freshmen are atheists, therefore, more Tikely chan not, Earl ts not an atheist. 181Conclusion and Premise Indicator Ina well-composed argument, a critical thinker will make use of the conclusion indicator to stress the conclusion, and use the premise indicator to mark the premises. Given below are some samples of commonly used conclusion indicators: therefore accordingly then hence 0 implies consequently thus itfollows ‘And the list below is normally used as premise indicators: ' because for inasmuch as ~ since inview ofthe fact as shown by | want you to memorize these indicators. They will help you develop your skill in identifying the premise and conclusion of an argument. They will also help you develop your skill in ‘composing arguments. Notice thatthe strength of simple empirical arguments above is a matter of degree. This ‘becomes obvious because the premises and conclusion ofthis argument are empirical statements Which can be true, false or probable. You know that empirical staiement does not obey the principle of excluded middle. Picase observe that the empirical generalizations used as the main premises above are only probability estimate which are strictly speaking not really statistical, ‘This however will not prevent you from using an honest to goodness statistical generalization as ‘your main premise. It is obvious, that the stength of this type of argument hinges on the reliability of the main premise. “As a critical thinker, you have to estimate the degree of confidence you can assign to the generalization using the three tests we have digeussed in Module 4. When the generalization found in the main premise passed the three'tests, we can confer a high degree of ‘confidence in the support that the main premise offers to its conclusion, Obviously, when you discharge your obligation as a oritical thinker, by criticizing ‘argument of this type, you have to reject the generalization offered. You have, to demonstrate that the evidence offered in support of the generalization is lacking or that the generalization failed the three tests. If you can do ether of these, the argument will have no leg to stand on. Induetive Argument. Another type of empirical argument, which is also.quite common too is an induetive argument. It is time now to apply the technique of determining the strength of this type of. argument, The example below will illustrate the techniques: 1) Maria isa U P freshman batch 1998 and comes from & poor family. 2) Ana is also a U P freshman batch 1998 and comes from a poor family. 3) Pepe is also a U P freshman batch 1998 and comes from a poor family 4) AILUP freshmen batch 1998 that I am acquainted with come from oor families, And there is no conflicting case. 5) Therefore, most U P freshmen batch 1998 come from poor families, 192How do you judge the strength of this argument? First, look atthe conelusion, The conclusion asserts a most claim, What is the required evidence to establish conclusively @ most claim? Please remember a.most claim requires the evidence of S0% plus 1 of the population UP Jjeshmen batch 1998 must belong to poor families. However, more likely than not, you do not have such records. If you do, and the generalization most is confirmed, then you have a very strong argument—almost immune from erticism, Next look atthe premises. Are all the premises true? Since there is no-reasat to doubt the truth ofthe premisés, let us al gent them to be true. Do the premises contain the required evidence sufficient t verify the claim ofthe conclusion? Can it confer a high probability value ‘af the claim ofthe conclusion? Unfortunately, it cannot, since we do not know both the number of UP freshmen batch 1998 that come from poor families and the proportion of our sample with respect the actual population. Furthermore, we do not know if the sampling isthe result of biased observations. This means that we do not know if the sample is representative ofthe population. ‘Now given all these shortcomings, would the evidence found inthe premises make the conclusion more likely f0 be the case than its opposite? That is to say, would the premises support the opposite of the conclusion, viz., Mast UP freshmen of batch 1998 do not come from {poor familtes? “I do not think so! For the simple reason that we have not been provided with, any evidence to support the opposite of our conclusion. ‘Supposing instead of claiming most you modify your conclusion to Many UP freshmen of batch 1998 come from poor families. Notice that suddenly, the argument strength considerably increased because the required évidence for a many claim is considerably less than a most claim, ‘There is a good logical lesson to be learned here. If your evidence will support only a many claim do not claim most, guard your conclusion by claiming many rather then most. Notice that by claiming many the same premisé set, draniatically increase its support to the conclusion, presumably, from Mule support to strong support. ‘Now supposing you use your conclusion 5) as a main premise in an argument like the one below: 1) Most UP freshmen batcli 1998 corse from poor families. : 2) Isabel is a U P freshman batch 1998 currently enrolled in Philo 1. 3). Therefore, more likely than not, Isabel comes from a poor family. Of course ois know that conclusion 5), now used as a main premise 1) inthe above argument, ‘as dubious probability value. But lt us grant the main premise to.be probable and premise 2) (0 be.true, how much support can the premise set provide to the conclusion? Does your generalization most include Isabel? To Strengthen the argument, you can add new evidence, Supposing you discovered that 80% of Philo I students currently enrolled in batsh 1998 come fiom poor families, the argument now looks like this: 7 1) Most UP freshmen of batch 1998 come from poor families. 2) Isabeli UP freshman batch 1998 curently enrolled in Philo 1 [Notiée that the addition of the third premise, which isa statistical generalization, dramatically increased the support provided by the premise set to the conclusion. Unfortunately, there is the 183possibility that the conclusion can stl be fase, that sto say, all along Isabel comes from ach family. Why? Beoause a critical thinker can insist that the percentage estimates of 80% need not apply to individual members of the 1998 batch of freshmen enrolled in Philo {because i isa characteristic of the population and not ofits individual members. That isto say, it need rue apply to Isabel because Isabel may belorg tothe 2024 who are rich. The same commaent epics to all statistical generalization used as a main premise in en inductive argument. This analy, above isan important addition tothe conceptual arsenal ofa eiticl thinker. In short, the best technique for challenging in empirical argiment is to demonstrate that the required evidence forthe level of generalization asserted has not been met. Or the tres teats required fora good generalization were nt followed : 184Unit IV» Module 6— SAQ Empirical Argument ‘Name: Total Score: Fill in the blanks 1, Acca thinker must citer _~__or_anarguract in onde io appraise it 2. When erica thinker cicizes avargument, hivbr mala concem i to show the of the argument And the best wy to dernnstate the weckines of an Sgament eto deriontate that tests on : 3, When ecriical hiker evaluates an argutent, he damonstees not ony the ___bat also the strength of the érgument inorder o the argument 4. The bes starting point in ether eteteing or Svauaing an arent sto develop the skill of cstimating the ofthe argument 5. When you use an empifel generalization a main premise in your argurien, an draw'a conclusion—tis argument is obviously an ‘argument 6, Some emplical argument begins with en exipviel gene ‘the example below: Generalization: Exactly 80% of UP students are Catholics Premise: Peter, Paul and Mary are U P students Conclusion: Therefore more likely han not (with 80%6 probability), Peter, Paul ‘and Mary are Catholics. ‘When you have discovered a good generalization, you ean, ‘your generalization to cases that you have not__"_by composing an argument. 7. The strength of the argument above rests on the of the main premise, In order to estimate the degree of confidence you can assign tothe generalization you have to use the ‘we have discussed in Module 4, 8. When composing an argument, acritieal thinker will make ise of the’ to siress the conclusion, and uss the ‘to mark the premises. 9. The following terms: therefore, so, this, and hence ar indicators 10. In contrast, Because, for, in as much as and since are indicators 1. The strength of empirical argument isa mater of Tualess you have complete to completely the tith of the conclusion. |2, When you discharge your obligation as a critical thinker, you have to demonstrate thatthe offered in support ofthe generalization is, or that the {genefalization failed the 13. Consider another type of enipiical argument called arguinent gives below: 4) Maria is a U P freshman batch 1998 and comes from a poor family. 2) Ana is also a U P freshman batch 1998 and comes from a poor family. 3) Pepe is also a U P freshman batch 1998 and comes from a poor family. 4)-All UP freshmen batch 1958 tat {am eeqinted with come from poor families. And there is no conflicting case. 5) Therefore, most UP freshmen batch 1998 come fiom poor ilies. ‘The required evidence to establish a moi claim is Look atthe premises, ‘would the evidence offered in the premises make the conclusion more likely than its ‘opposite? (yes orno). If instesd of claiming mose you change the elaim to ‘many, how strong isthe argument? 18514 Statistical generalization used as main premise are apply to individual members. ‘of the population, it premise Grlicizelevaluate ineluctivelS0% * 7 lweaknesslimprove ‘weakmnesses/fallacy Imain premise? degreelevidence/ verify lextend/observed characteristic! strength need not HELP Do you have any questions? Comments? 186 conelusion evidence! incomplete!Unit IV » Module 7—ASAQ Empirical Argument Fillin the blanks ‘ 10. premise Teriticize/evaluate 15, induotivels0ve 1 S:weakness/impiove 7reliability/three tests .weaknesses/fallacy 9.conclusion 6.main premise! T1.degresfevidence/ verify 12.evidencel extend/observed 14.characteristicl incomplete! 4s need not 187Unit IV: Module 6 play No. ‘Analytic Argument Next, we take up the nature of an analytic argument. It has the same simple structure as empirical arguments. ‘The difference is in the content, The major premise ig not an empirical generalization but an analytic statement. And you have learned in Unit Il that anelytic. Salements are often definitions or well forsied formula (WEF) of some formal system.” Such statements obey the principle of excluded middle—analytic statements are either true or false only. You know that the truth values of aalytic statements are non-empirieal. Typical ‘examples of analytic argument are the following: I. Definition: The sum ofthe tree angles in ary triangle is 180 degrees. Premise: This piece of land isa triangle Conclusion: Therefore the sum of all the angles i 180 degrees Goiting married twice is bigamy. Peter got married twice. Conclusion: Therefore Peter isa bigamist, 3. Defi All animals with feathers are birds, Premise: , Bagles have feathers Conclusion: Therefore all eagles are birds, 4 Defitition: 4 father is a male parent Premise: Juan is a male parent. ‘Conclusion: Therefore Juan is a father, 5. Definition: Animals with mammary glands are mania Premise: Whales are mammals. Conclusion: Therefore whales have mammary glands. ‘Notice thatthe analytic arguments above stat with an analytic statement in the form of # definition or a well formed formula (WFR) of formal systems and these aze used as the main premise of the-argiment. ‘The premise is an empirical statement usually an instantiation of the definition or the WEF. Ifthe definition is analytically true and uncontroversial, and ifthe minor premise js also tre, then observe that the truth of conclusion is proven by the premises. In an analytic argument, either the conclusion is proven or it isnot. Unlike empirical argument where additional evidence or premise dramatically strengthens the support to the conelusion, in’ at analytic argument addtional evidence des not increase its sength, (I'm aware of course thal some of the examples: above have invalid argument forms. This was deliberate) To use traditional language, the conclusion foliéws conclusively from the preinises. This isthe only ‘ype of argument where the strength does not admit of any degrees. Either the conclusion is an instantiation of the WEF or itis not.._So either an analytic argument is very good or else it is very baid—there ate no degrees or middle grounds ‘The best technique available for a critical thinker for challenging sin analytic argumer to demonstrate thatthe definition is controversial or show that thé premise is not an instantiation of the definition. 188Name: Fill in the blanks |. Many simple analytic arguments have the same as empirical argument. The main premise is not an empirical generalization but an statement ora ‘of some empitical or formal system, Definition: AN, animals with feathers are birds. Premise: Eagles have feathers. + Conclusion: Therefore all eagles are birds. 2, The main premise above is a formal definition or WEF ofan empirical scence. The minor premise isan__of the defiition or the WEF. If the definition is andthe instantiation is then the truth ofthe conclusion is 4. Unlike empiriel arguments where the offered by the premise to the conclusion is oftentimes a matter of, analy argiment is either very orvery Either the conclusion san of the definition ort isnot. The strength ‘ofthe argument does not admit of any 4 The best echnique available for a eritical thinker Tor challenging an analytic argument isto demonstrate thatthe truth of main premise is ‘or show thatthe minor premise is an instantiation of the major premise. onrovetsal” structurlanalytie) suppor/degree/good] instalation? not WEF bad/nstantiation/degree comreet/proven Do jouhave any questions? Comments? 189.‘Unit IV: Module 6—ASAQ Analytic Argument Fill in the blanks [Feontroversia” —_—Tstructurs/analyi) Ssuppor/degrea/good —Tinstantiatontel not WEE bad/nstaitaton/degree ven 190Unit IV: Module 6- Display No.3 Evaluative Argument Evaluative Argument 7 Let us focus our attention on the nature of an evaluative argument, Please recall our éefinition of an argument: An argument is. any discowse, whether oral or written, in which some Statements are used as reason, justification or evidence in order to support, the claim of another statement. The claim of the statement may be something true, {false or probable; something good/bad, right/wrong, desirable/undesirable. The ‘part of the discourse used to support a claim is called premise and the part of ‘the discourse supported by the premises is called the conclusion. You are about to study evaluative arguments—~arguments with a conclusion that claims that something is good or bad; right or wrong: desirable or undesirable; moral or immoral etc. The premises of an evaluative argument need not be true or false; oftentimes, the main premi ‘maxim, a moral rule or moral principle. The similarity of the simple structure of analytic and ovaluative argument makes the treatment of these arguments in the same module expedient. It is much more difficult to estimate the strength of an evaluative argument because it is ‘more contextual—the appeal is on the strength of public acceptance or the strength of inter- subjective consensus of the intended audience. Public acceptance is difficult to estimate, However, if the m it 1 @ moral rule, or @ moral principle, then you have a ‘an accepted generalization of the intersubjective consensus of people playing a language game while shering a form of life, The inter-subjective consensus ‘about what is good or bad; right or wrong; moral or immoral; desirable or undesirable, etc. is, ‘often codified into a set moral rules or principles, Evaluative argument isthe most neglected type of argument emanating from the disdain of formal logicians about the non-cognitive nature of evaluative judgments in the realm of the moral, ethical, religious, and even political a ‘You may not be aware of it, bit I know that you have composed a lot of evaluative tguments. I know I have, For exemple’ when you give reasons in order to justify an act or behavior as gqad or bad; or witen you give reasons when you accept a duty ot obligation to be right or wrong, oF wen you givé reasons when you judge a decision to be just or unjust; you fave composed an evaluative argument, In fact, in my investigation ‘of the three types of ‘xguments, its the evaluative one thet isthe most commonly composed. Deontologieal Argument i ‘The skill I want you to concentrate on isthe ability to judge how reasons justify a claim that is good, right or correet. Consider the argument below: ‘Moral Principle: Never punish an innocent person. Premise: Pedro is accused ofa crime but he Is innocent. Conclusion: Therefore, Pedro should not be punished, ‘Notice thatthe conclusion is a commaind inthe form of a proscription; ike its affirmative form, Prescription, both, commands are neither true, false, nor even probable, Commands have no 191truthvalue, . Notice further, thet the main premise isa statement of a moral principle. Ant ‘minor premiséis an empirical statement. In contest, tho main premise ofan analytic argument an enalytc stetement or a WFF and in an empirical argument, itis an empirical generelizaton ‘ora statistical one. Where does an argument of this sort derive its stngth? The strength ofthis argument is measured on whether there is wide public acceptance or strong inter-subjective consensus of the moral principle: Neyer punish an inmocent person. The quickest way of determi strength of the morat principle ‘is to answer the following questions: First: Would.you punish an innocent person? Next, consider our societal context: Would our sociesy/eulture allow the ‘punishment of an innocent person? Finally, Is there any culture/society in the world which ‘would allow the punishment of an innocent person? I believe that the moral principle has a very strong inter subjective consensus—from the personal point of view, the societal perspective and up to the level of the universal audience. Ibelieve that all logal and judicial systems of all civilized countries in the world accept this prisciple as immutable. If there is a strong intersubjective consensus, then accepting the correctnéss of the premises will eompel you to accept the conclusion as eorrect as well. It would be rather absurd to accept the preinises and reject the conclusion because ths is tantamount to saying that Pedro ‘should be punished even though he is innocent: In an evaluative argument, the trath condition i not relevant either to its premises or conclusion. It is audience acceptability that is paramount ‘Consider another example: Moral Rule: Never break a promise. Premise: June promised come tothe party at 9:00 p.m. Conclusion: Therefore, June should come at 9:00 p.m. ‘The Strength ofthis argument rests on whether or not the Moral Ruile: Never brea a promise has strong public acceptance. Compared with our first example, the moral principle Never punish av innocent person will not be defeated by an exception tothe rule, whereas, it seems to me thatthe rule Never break @ promise, in our culture, is sometimes defeated without any serious consequences. In fact, we have another saying: Promises are mdde to be broken to justify breaking a promise. The strength of public acceptance of the moral rule isnt as strong as Never punish an: innocent person; consequently, the justification provided by the premises to the ‘conclusion is only moderately strong. ‘The’strength, therefore, of an evaluative argument depends of the strength of the inter subjective consensus of the maxim, rule or principle. A moral rule is weakened if there is & cconfecting moral rule or if the moral rule admits of exception. It isin the context an evaluative argument where the concept of premise acceptability rather than truth condition ig most prominent. ‘The moral rule or principle in the main premise cannot be falsified, because evaluative statements have no truth value. The criterion to be used here is audience ‘acceptability —orinter-subjective consensus of the concemed public. Some evaluative arguments have concealed moral rule functioning as the main premise. Atypical example is: Premise: Pedro and Jun are both efficient Philo I teachers: Premise: Pedro and Jun both finished their M.A. atthe same time, Premise: Pedro was promoted and was given tenure, Conclusion: Therefore, Jun ought to:be promoted and be given terre, 100. 192‘he strength of this argument rests on’ whether the concealed principle of fairness i.e. the same ‘nerit and the same qualification, deserves the same promotion—can pass the audience acceptability test Prkmise: Maria and Ana were bth caught cheating in ther Philo exam Premise: Marla received a grade of "50." Conclasion: Therefore, Ana should receive a grade of "5.0" too Here, it seems that the moral rule that functions as a concealed main premise is: The same fens deserves the same punishment. Obviously, it would be unfair to Mara, if Ana should te treated differently by receiving a passing grade. The evaluative argument we have beei discussing above makes an appeal tothe nature of the-act itself. This argument pattern is called deontological ‘Teleological Argument ‘The other type of argument pattern makes an appeal to the consequences of the:act. This {salled teleological. Here an act is right, ift produces some desired consequences. Argument of this kind begins with a definition of what is good. Once the definition is accepted, right action, js defined as any action that promotes the good and conversely, any action that impedes the good from being attained is wrong. So the rightness of an act depends largely on the consequences of the act. An example of a teleological argument is found below: Definition’ AU actions in accordonce with God's will are good. Premise: _ The 10 commandments are in accordance with God's will Conclusion: Thus, you ought 1o obey the 10 commandments. This argument has an explicit definition of the term good in accordance with God's will. And any action that promotes God's willis right action. And any action that impedes God’s will is wrong, It seems clear that if you accept the premises, you must accept the conclusion as right, An example of a teleological argument is provided below: Deftition: The development of human potentials is good. Premise: Man has an obligation to devel his human potentials Conclusion: Therefore, any action that promotes the development of human ‘potentils is right and any action that impedes the development is wrong that if you accept the two premises as correct, you must accept the conclusion as correct ‘Types of Evaluative Argument ‘Two types of evaluative arguments can now be differentiated.. These afe deontological and ieleological arguments. In the deontological argument, an evaluative claim is good or right in terms of its conformity to a méral rule or principle, The consequences of the act become ‘important. In contrast, the teleological argument would not be able to decide: whether an evaluative claim is right without considering the consequences of the claim. It would first provide 2 definition of what is good and define-an action that promotes the good as right. And the decision procedure for determining the rightness of an action is in terms ofthe consequencés 193‘ofthe act. A mote refined distinction ofthese two types of reasoning will Be given in Unit V. Bthical Systems. The best technique available to a critical thinker for criticizing an evaluative ‘argument isto prove that the moral rule or principle appealed to does not have strong publis approval. Or that there is another moral rule that will neutralize the force of the moral ru ‘offered in the argument. But ifthe argument is teleological, your technique is to demonstrate ‘that the projected consequence(s are unlikely to happen. ‘Techniques of Appraisals Jn summary, let-us review the techniques for judging argument strength. When you evaluate the sirength of an argument, the frst step isto be very clear regarding'the claim ofthe conclusion. Whet isthe conclusion trying to prove? Is it an empirical, analytic or evaluative claim? In this way, you will be able to judge whether the premises offered to support the covclusion are relevant or irrelevant. To be sure, the premises deployed may be tras, but they dio not prove what is wanted, because the truth ofthe premises has nothing, to do withthe claim oftbe conclusion. “The fist step for judging argument strength isto identify the type of argument. If your sigument is empirical, then you check the claim of the,conclision; if tis a generalization, then try to determine ifthe evidence offered by the premises confirms the generalization. If your argument is analytic, check whether the meaning of the, terms used in the, premises ‘and ‘conclusion are synchronized and then decide if the conclusion is an instantiation of an analytic ofinition or WFF. If your argument is evaluetive, check the claim of the conclusion and see if ‘the moral rule or principle has a strong audience or public acceptance. When you ate offered a ‘premise, which does not provide supporto the claim ofthe conclusion, a fallacy called fallacy of irrelevant reason has been committed. So if the claim of the conclusion is vague, you have a ‘good chance of demonstrating that the fllacy has been committed, ‘The second step is to examine the premises and temporarily grant them to be all true. If ‘they are all true, would the premise set support the claim of the conclusion? Would it provide a strong, a moderately strong or only little support to the conclusion? Your next tact would bbe to show that the required evidence to establish the truth of the conclusion (or its high probability) has not been provided for by the premises and that the support provided for by the premises is very minimal, in fact negligible! ‘The third step is'to challenge the trth ofthe premises: You must demonstrate that at last one of the premises is false. If this could not be done, show that the truth of one of the premises is very difficult to, establish with certainty. Remember an affirmative as well a8 a negative universal statement are difficult t verify but they are easy to falsify; aid « most claim ‘must provide the evidence of 50% plus one. Remember, when one of the premises is false or cannot be said to be true, the entre prefhise set is false, And a false premise set transmits nothing to the conclusion. ‘The fourth step is to challenge the ruth ofthe conclusion. Prove the conolusion false or improbable by giving a counterexample, This is the quickest way to demolish an argument, 1 hnave found this technique of giving counter-example simple to deploy, quick, incisive and very effective, : As a critical thinker, you should make these critical techniques a habit every tishe you | encounter an argument. In this module you have leamed one of the most important skills of a philosopher: And you have just become a formidable opponent in a debate! 198eee ea EEE EEE EEE Unit IV: Module 6 SAQ Evaluative Argument Name: Total Score: illin the blanks 1. Many simple evaluative arguments have the same ‘ag empirical and analytic arguments. The main difference lies in the nature ofthe claim of the conclusion, which is or anil not true or false, * 2. The major premise of an evaluative argument is neither @ generalization, nor an enalytic eGnition ; buta rule ora 3, The premise ofan evaluative afgument need not be or Aad the argument ean admit of ether or ‘premises, 4 The strength ofan evaluative argument is moze dificult fo estimate because the appeal isin the stength of, or. ofthe intended audience. 5. Accrtcal thinker must develop the ability to judge how reasons, claim thats 00d, right or cores. 6. Consider the evaluative argument below: ‘Moral Principle: Never punish an innocent person. Premise Pedro is accused of a erime but he is innocent, Conclusion: Therefore, Pedro should not be punished, Please observe that the conclusion is @ command in the form of a . commands are neither ‘nor even probable. Commands have no 17. The main premise sa statement ofa an statement, 8, The strength of a evaluative argument rests on wiether there is wide or strong «supporting the main premise. 9, If there's a strong infer-subjective consensis supporting the main premise, chen accepting the premise as will compel you.to accept the conclusion 2s, 10. Inan evaluative argument, the cotidition is not so relevant either to its premisés or to its conclusion, Itis audience that is paramount. 11. The moral principle offered in the main premise be falsified, because evaluative | statements have no . The criterion to be used here is audience eee ‘of the coxicemed publi. 12, “There are two iypes of evaluative argument, the frst one makes an appeal tothe nature of the at itself This argument patter ialled he other type makes an appeal tothe consequences ofthe act. This a'gument pattem is called 13, In the deontological argument, an evaluative claim is good or right in temns of {0 a moral rule or principle. The. ‘of the claim becomes ‘and only the minor premise is unimportant, 14. In contrast, the teleological argument would not be able to decide whether an evaluative ‘claim is right without considering the, of the claim, 15, In judging the strength of a deostological argument, a critical thinker must check whether the ‘moral principle has a strong or strong, «Or that there is another moral rule that will, the force of the moral rule offered inthe argument. 19516, But if the argument is teleological, a critical thinker must demonstrate that the projected ‘consequences are. io happen. ‘77 Tn judging the stenglh of ap erapivical argument, a critical thinkér must check the matéhing, between the required evidence to the claim ofthe conclusion and the actual offered in the premises. Ifthe evidence offered in the premises falls short of » eject the argument as unprovable 18. Inj ie avengin afar wale eget aoa lt ust heck wher the ‘conclusion isthe correct ‘of the analytic definition or the WEF. ‘moral/moral principle eowea/eonrect structure/good/oad/ moral principle! ceamotitth= public acceptsnce!_righv'wrong empirical valuc/accepiance! intersubjective proscriptinftrue/ "public acceptance! intersubjective consensus false/tth-value' inter-subjective “consensus trutbfacceptance —_deontologital/ consensus consequences conformity! teleological public acceptance! —_verifylevidencel consequence unlikoly intersubjective required evidence instantiation consensus/neuiralize HELP Do you have any questions? Comments? 196.Unit IV: Module 6-ASAQ Evaluative Argument Fills the blanks “Sirvealsclempiical’ 5 justify Zimoralfmoral principle S.coneeleorect evaluative I structure/good/bad! —7.moral principle! }eannothruth- A.public acceptance! empirical imer-subjective 8. public acceptance/ consensus falseftruth-value _inier-subjective 104ruth/acceptance 12. deontological/ consensus 14, consequences 13.conformity/ teleological 15, public acceptance/ 17-verifylevidence! consequence: V6.unlikely inter-subjeative required evidence 18.instantation consensus/neutralize ‘Unit LV : Module 6 ~ SAQ for Displays No. 1,2, and 3 Instruction, Provide the missing premise or conclusion of the argument, And then identify the argument as eithér empirical, analytic of evaluative. 1. Moral Rule: Acts'of environmental degradation are wrong. Premis Conclusion’ Therefore, illegal logging is wrong. 2, Moral Rule : Never treat people as means to your personal ends, Premise: Emest is aheavy smoker. Conclusion: Therefore, Emest will probably gat lung cancer, 4. Generalization: All laws that are outdsited should be abolished, Prem ‘Conélusion:. Therefore, the law prohibiting the carrying of bolos should be abolished. 5. Moral Rule: Actions that degrade a human being ete wrong. Premise: Giving alms to a beggar degrades a human being, Conelusion: eae 6. Main Premise: Minor Premise: Peter is aU P graduate, Conclusion: Therefore, Peter will most probably be successful, 74, Generalization: Food preservatives cause cancer, Premise: Conclusion: Therefore, Salt peler causes cancer. 1978. Generalization: Almost all great men are promiscuous, Premise: Jose Rizal-was a great man: ‘ Conclusion: 9, Moral Rule: Any interference with God's creation is evil. ise: Cloning isan interference with God’s creation, 1 13, Generalization: All bodies unsupported will fall. ‘Minor premise: The base ball thrown in the air is unsupported. Conclusion: : TVG Eee 02 geee LZ eee CEE] Do you have any questions? Cominents? : 198Unit IV: Module 6- ASAQ Fil in the missing premise or conclusion and identify the argument: 1, Promise: Jllegal logging degrades the environment Evaluative argument 2. Conclusion: You should not engage in pre-marital sex. Evaluative argument 3. Generalization: Heavy smoking causes lung cancer. Empirical argument © : 4. Minor Premise: Law prokibiiig the carrying of bolos is outdated. Evaluative argument 5. Cénelusion: Giving alms to beggars is wrong. 6. Generali Empirical argument , i 17. Premise: Salt peter is a food preservative. Empirical argument 8. Conclusion: Jose Rizal was promiscuous: Empirical argument 9. Conclusion: Cloning is ev Evaluative argument. 10, Premise: Swamplands are habitat of endangered species. Conclusion: Swamplands should be protected. Evaluative argument LL. Premise: Cockroaches Have six legs. ‘Conclusion: Therefore, Cockroaches are Insects Analytic argument 12, Definition: Animals shat can live tn land and in water are amphibians. Analytic argument 13. Conclusion: The base ball will fall Analytic argument ‘Summing Up After completing this module, 1 know you can now discriminate the three major types of arguments. You also know now where the argument suenath of each typeof argument ress. now, too, tht you have acquired the radiments of composing a simple. argument and evalnting it strength. L will buildup ths skill wth more complicated and sophisticated ones in the following module ofthis unit 199‘ Module 7 Composing Complex Arguments Introduction ‘Composing a complex argument, then criticizing its strength as a preparation for composing a counter argument are examples ofthe finest creative gets in philosophy, not unlike composing a poem or a musical score. In the history of philosophy, a single argument can demolish a well-entrencked theory or even anventite system of philosophy. And criticizing the argument you have composed takes you to the level of meta-cognition—the term used in ‘cognitive psychology for critical thinking, Thave not encountered any instructional material either in symbolic logic or‘in informal logic that even approximates the template for composing an argument, ‘And in the literature of ‘oritical thinking there was no attempt to focus critical thought on an argument one has composed. Objective ‘This module has only one objective, you must internalize the steps in composing your ‘own argument, criticizing the argument that you have composed as 2 preparation for eomposiag ‘counter argument. And then the step in evaluating both the argument and the counter-argument to determine which one is stronger, Unit IV: Module 7 Display Text ‘You know that all conseious intellectual activity involves reasoning. It seems that the ability to give reasons comes naturally to all normal human beings. We give reasons to demonstrate the truth of an empirical cleim, We give reasons in order to demonstrate the truth of 4 belief bordering on the unknowable, We give reasons to support a generalization we have ‘made, We give reasons when we justify an act, an obligation or a decision to be right. We give reasons when we evaluate'a duty or a command to be just. We give reasons in order to support a {egal ora policy proposal we want implemented. And obviously, we give reasons for many other ‘human as well as social concems, You must agree with me that in order to fully develop this ‘natural ability, we have to study and practice the correct from incorrect techniques of reasoning, ‘You have leamed all the prerequisite in’ order to develop the ability to compose complex argument. You can distinguish thrée major types of argument, namely: empirical, analytic and evaluative. You know where the strength of each type of atgument hinges, You are also equipped with the technique of criticizing and evaluating each type of argument. ‘The bundle of principles and skills needed for you to compose an argument is numerous but not complex or difficalt. The acquisition of this ability is easy. The steps may be numerous but not difficult when the steps are properly sequenced. The teaching innovation that { have developed is like a compater template with six major steps. You will be required to produce the requirements for each step. Each step will facilitate the task of composing an argument, Grtieizing its strength and composing a counter argument. 200‘This module will shepherd, you to achieve full confidence in using the ‘Template for ‘composing an argument, It will atiempt to achieve a step by step explanation with sufficient ‘examples in order to remove any gray areas in the Template, Unit IV: Module 7 ~ Simulation—P ans In the last module you were introduced to the simple pattern of argument you are likely to encounter in ordinary discourse in the business of living. The time has come for you to develop the skills in composing complex arguments. This is one of the upper limits of the skills in philosophical analysis, Suppose you are asked to compose an argument in suppart of the conclusion: Most politicians are corrupt. At the onset, if you can demonstraté that of the total number Of politicians in the Philippines, 50% plus 1 is proven to be all corrupt, then there is no need to use the Template. However, we do not know exactly how many politicians there ae in the Philippines and the term corrupt cannot readily be defined so there is an expedient need to use the Template. The steps below will feclitate the process, 1. FIRST STEP: EXAMINE ‘THE STATEMENT OF THE CONCLUSION. A State your conclusion in simple language. Sort out the type of concepis used in the conclusion in orderto facilitate the answer othe suceeding items, Pay close attention to the types of concepts in your coinclision. This will set the ‘moniertum forthe rest ofthe items in the Template. If you make a mistake in your classification, ‘more likely than not, you will make a mistake in your classification of the knowledge claim in ‘your conclusion. Ifthe key concepts in your conclusion involves evaluative concepts, then more likey than not the claim of your conclusion is evaluative. Ifthe key concepts are analytic, then ‘nayticclaims: and if the key concepts dre empirical, then the claim is empirical. Here is your conclusion:" Most politicians are corrupt ‘The statement of the conclusion is simple enough and uncomplicated. The claim “most” in he conclusion isnot a vague empirical generalization. We have a fixed meaning of 50% plus 1 for the required evidence for any " most claim.” The term “politicians” is empirical but the erm “corrupt” may have an empirical use; it is also an evaluative term that is emotionally loaded, The term “corrupt” has a dual meaning, viz, empirical as well as evaluative. Thus, ‘conclusion is an empirical generalization with an emotionally loaded term. B. Please define the Key temas in your conclusion wsing the technique of analytic definition xo that you can bave common frame of eference Pay close attention fo what can be taken as vague or ambiguous terms. Remember if there are vague or ambiguous terms left widefined in your conclusion, it Would be very difficult to determine the required evidence to prove the claim of your conclusion (item 1-B). Three terms need to be defined, viz, “politicians” and “corrupt”: and in order to ascertain the domain of the generalization, we need to stipulate the domain of the “most claim by determining the number of the population of politicians and getting the rébuired evidence of 50%6 plus Ito be corrupt ‘The term" politician” in the context of Philippine polities is vague as well as ambiguous. But we have a stindaed use for te term—one isa politician if he Is running or has run and von in any elective position. What about those who lost in the election? What about the 201supporters, who campaigned for their political leaders? What about the active members of a political party? These are the. borderline cases that-make the term “politician” ih thi Philippines both vague and ambiguous, The. term. “corrupt” is best uied iv the legal context in order to avoid the derogatory nation. A politician who was convicted of a crime in the Sandigan Bayan is a corrupt politician In the Philippines, an accused is presumed innocent, unless proven guilty. But this definition can be challenged 10 be t00.narrow. What about those politicians who were net caught and convicted? The coverage of the term “most” wil be dificult to pin down if we do not know how ‘many poliians there are in the Philippines. In the present case, iis dificult to approximate ‘mumber of politicians participating in Philiine poltics. There are ful tine politicians, half ‘ime politicians, part time politicians and occasional pollicians in Philippines pots. C. Can there be agreement in thé meaning (or use) of the terms? Or the very definition of the term is biased, hence controversial? Yagreement could not be settled in the meaning of the key terms in your conclusion, then argumentation will become verbal—i.e. quarrel about words. Candidates for such controversy care * politicians” and "corrupt:” Notice that your skill in classifying concepts, identifying vague and embiguous concepts. and your ability to use analytic definition are the:skills needed here. If you. have not acquired ‘these skills yet, your attempt to acquire the ability to compose an argument will most likely fail 4, SECOND STEP. ANALYSIS OF THE CLAIM OF THE CONCLUSION A. Please classify the conclusion into types of knowledge claims, viz., analytic, ‘empirical or evaluative. If evaluative, is it a legal or policy proposal? Is the claim of the ‘conchision controversial? Ifyou make a mistake in classifying the claim of your conclusion, more likely than not, pou will aiso make a mistake in trying to determine the required evidence to prove the claim of ‘our conclusion (next Iter B.) Gorieraly,'the iype of knowledge claims found in your conclusion can be divided into analytic, empirical or evaluative (moral or religious). Hamlet's claim "To be oF not to be that is ‘the question” is not really a question as he. claims but a tautology, hence an analytic claim Analytic statements are often used o make gn analytic claim. Empirical claims are the easiest 10 tdentif. Any.asiertion, description, narration, observation about yourself: other people, your immediate surroundings and even about the world, are all empirical claims. And if you wish to describe a group of particulars, you have ascending degrees of generalizations avalable to you, from some, many and mast fo all B. What is the conclusion trying to prove? What is the required proof or evidence in ‘order to justify the claim of the conclusion? -If you cannot answer this question, you cannot ‘compose the argument. Let me break down the.question into-simpler steps below. 202This i the most critical sep in.composing a complex argument. This is also the question where mast Philo 1 student finds it dificult to satisfy at the onset, however afler some practice the ability readily develops. Let us break the complex skill into simple skills in order (0 {facilitate the acquisition ofthe complex skill. Consider the conclusions below: Conclusion: Mast politicians are corrupt. The conclusion is making an empirical generalization with a “most claim." What isthe ‘equired evidence for the conclusion? To determine the required evidence you have fo ascériain the level of “most claim’ which is $0% plus 1 ofthe population of polictans. Unfortwately, the’ exact number and tabulation ofall politicians in Philippine pals isnot readily available | the evidence needed ro support the claim 508 plus 1 of politicians are corrupt is dificult to ascerain. : 1. If the conclusion is an empirical generalization, you have an ascending degree of ‘generalization beginning from some, many, most, almost all and all. You can appeal to the required evidence in order to confirm the level ofthe generalization, The conclusion: Most politicians are-corrupt is a very obvious generalization. The required evidence is 50% plus'l ofthe population of politicians should be demonstrated 10 be corrupt 2. If the conclusion is attempting 10 establish an evaluative claim (like religious, aesthetic, political or moral claim), we ean appeal to the strength of the inter-subjective ‘consensus or public approval that can justify the elaim? Not applicable. 3. If the conclusion is a legal or a policy proposal, you can appeal to the beneficial ‘consequences, if ‘the proposal is implemented you can harp on the aversive consequences, if propolis not itplemiented, Ths ls the best way to justly legal or policy proposal. Not applicable. 4, Try'to determine ifthe claim of the conclusion inthe realm of the mown, Inowable or unknowable? Ifthe claim is in the realm of the known and knowable, then itis provable. + Ifthe claim is unkzowable, then itis, unprovable, and you ean stop using the Template. However, if the claim is provable, then try to determine if the evidence can be produced in fact or only in principle. . The claim of the conchision is.in the realm of the known and therefore provable, Hence, the evidence éan be produced in principle. The claim” There ts life after death” if consirued as an empirical claim ts not in the realm of the lniown hence its unprovable. If consirued as a religious claim, the strength of te consensus ofthe coricerned public determines its acceplablity. “The planet Venus can sustain some life forms” is a-clalm that is not inthe realm of the known but in the reaim of the kxowable. Why? Because in principle the evidence for ‘nd agatnst the claim can be produced, although it is not available in fact at the present 203 :Il, THIRD STEP: COMPOSE THE ARGUMENT. Now you are prepared to offer at least three; but no more ihan five premises that would provide the strongest support tothe claim of your conclusion, Remember composing arguinent ‘one ofthe finest creative acts in philosophy. Conclusion: Most politicians are corript. Premise se: 1. Politicians are obsessed with one objective in mind—to win an election and stay in ower. All obstacle o this goal must be eliminated either by legal or ilegal means. 2 Politicians wil bribe so get adherents; will buy votes; will terrorize their enemies and even the voters; and sometimes will murder their political enemy. 3. Politicians will atively solicit campaign fds from any source from legitimate business to drug lords and gambling lords. And once elected they are duty bound io Protect the Interests oftheir patrons even atthe expense of national interest. 4 High moral values and principles do not motivate politiclans. That is why there are no Permanent alliances in Philippine politics. in the name of perpetuating themselves in Power, all moral vilues and privciples are subordinated to the goal of winning an election, ; IV. FOURTH STEP: CRITICIZE THE ARGUMENT This is the step where you have to discharge your obligation as a critical thinker, Remember in criticizing any argument, whether it is the one you have composed or not, your ‘main strategy is to break the support or at leest weaken the support offered by the premises to the conclusion. If you can susceed in showing that the premises offers no support at all, you would havé demonstrated that the argument rest on a fullacy. called irrelevant reason. The specific tactics for criticizing your argument is found below. A critical thinker should master these tats, Remember evaluating the argument thet you have’ composed is one of the finest meta ‘cognitive skills thet philosophy éan offer. A. Seratinize the Conclusion: |, Please re-examine the way the conclusion was witten. Is the siatement of the conchasion biased? Is the definition ofthe Key terms neutral and acceptable? Or is it controversial? “Is there a need to revise the statement of the conclusion? ‘Conclusion: Most politictans are cérrupt. ‘do not believe that there is a need to revise the statement ofthe conclusion. But ‘he terms “politicians,” and “corrupt” nzed refinement. 2. Next, re-examine the claim of the conclusion: if itis an empirical generalization, then. challenge it by demanding the required evidence for any, mast or ail claim in the 204premises set. Ifthe required evidence for the generalization was not offered in the” premise set then reject the argument for having commited the fallaey of hasty «generalization. The required evidence for the "most claim” In the conclusion was not produced in the premises. In faci, no data at all was presented to support the number of corrupt politicians in the Philippines, consequently the argument has committed the fallacy of hasty generalization 3. .The quickest way to demolish en empirical argument is to confront the conclusion ‘and prove it to be false or at least improbable by producing ‘counterexamples, If the claim is aif, eject the conclusion by a counter-example; if the claim i8 most, produce as many counter examples as you can. Unfortinately the conclusion while empirical is: not susceptible to a countér= example or a series of counter-examples because the generalization is not an “all claim.” : 4. Now, ifthe conclusion is an evaluative claim, challenge it by demanding the required evidence for a strong inter-subjective consensus in the premises. If this evidence was not offered in the premises, reject the argument as fallacious—Irrelevanw reason. Not applicable. 5. The quickest way to demolish an evaluative argument is to conftont the evaluative ‘conclusion and show that it is contrary to certain moral principle that is supported by ‘very strong public acceptance and approval. Not applicable, 6. Finally, ifthe conclusion is offering a legal or policy proposal, challenge the estimate ‘of the probability of the anticipated beneficial as well as aversive consequences, ‘Not applicable. : . Serutinize the Premise Set: 1, Please check if-there are duplications in the premise set. If there are, merge the redundant premises into one. There is no duplication in he premise set. 2. You have to classify the assoftment of your premises inté types of knowledge clams, empirical, evaluative or even analytic All the premises are making an empirical generalization about politiciais with emotionally charge language. To wit: “legal or illegal means,” “buy votes,” terrorize their enemies” “murder them” solicit campaign funds from drug and gambling lords” ‘and “moral valves and principles are subordinated. " 3. Are there inconsistent or contradictory premises? i 0s‘There is no contradictory or inconsistent premise. : 4, Make a tentative estimate ofthe strength of the argument by ranking the strength of the support offered by each and every premise, Which premise(s) itive or acceptable, provides the strongest supporto the claim of the conclusion? Is the argument persuasive? “That sto say, likely tobe accepted by the target audience. Premise 1. provides the strongest support tothe elaim of the conclusion, viz, to ‘win an election and stay in power at all cost—legal or illegal means. Premise 2. and are simply elaboration of Premise 1., Promise 2.” will buy votes and terrorize," ‘and Premise 3, solicit campaign nds from legal or illegal means. Premise 4 portray: the character traits of politicians as tacking in high moral values. Soin terms of ‘ranking, Premise 1, Premise 4, offer the strongest support respectively. This is followed by Premise 2, and Premise 3, But.ifwe assume all the empirical premises to be true, then the support offered bythe preinise set would be quite strong. Unfortunately, it would be very difficult to prove the premises 10 be rue. However, the argument is very persuasive because ‘he cldtm of the conclusion ts widely believed and accepted even without empirical evidence supporting it. 5. You have to determine if the premises offered ae all necessary to prove the conclusion. Js there a premise that provides no supporto the conclusion? There is ho premise that provides no support to the conclusion; thus, all the ‘Premises are necessary. 6, [fall the premises are necessary to prove the claim of the conclusion, the next question to ask is Is the premise set sufficient to establish the claim of the conclusion ‘without additional premise(s). You have to demonstrate thatthe premise st is not ‘sufficient to establish the claim of the conclusion by claiming thatthe premise set in ‘ery inadequate to prove what is wanted. Even ifthe premise set is assumed to be true, the set provides only a moderately strong support for the conclusion. The premise set is not sufficient to prove conclusively the claim of the conclusion. There is a need for an additional premise, namely, the 50% plus I percentage of politicians convicted of erimes by the Sandigan Bayan. However, if we do not accept this narrow definition of “corrupt” then the ‘argument will increase In strength. 17. Try to detérmine if there is an itaportant premise missing i the set. This premise ‘must be produced. If you ean do this, you have succeeded in weakening the argument. There is important evidence not produced inthe premise set, namely the number of politicians convicted of poltca/election related crimes. Remember the term “corrupt” was narrowly defined as those politicians canieted by the Sondigan Bayan. Ifwe accept this definition of “corrupt” then the argument has no empirical evidence to stand on. 8. “Ate the evaluative or moral premises supported by strong inter-subjective consensus 206or public approval? Demonstrate that it does not have such support." Or you can offer another motel/evaluaive premise that is inconsistent with the evaluative premise offered. 1 is not the evaluative premise that is supported by public. approval, but the empirical premises such that even without enough evidence the four premises are Believed fo be true by public’ perception. It is a demonstration that indeed in Philippine polities, public perception is reality. 9, Are there empirical generalizations in the premises? Challeige them by demanding for the required evidence for each level of generalizations beginning from many, ‘most, aimost all and all : The premises supporting the conclusion ‘are all making multiple empirical generalizations. However, itis difficult to estimate the level of generalization because there are no quantifiers tike some, many, most or all. But since the claim of the ‘conelusion is” most.” Ill take the level of generaltzation to be” most” 100. Unfortunately, the required evidence for the generalization was not produced ti the premises. Yet it seems thatthe premises are not irrelevant because they provide a very persuasive support to the claim of the conclusion, ‘a. You know that generalization can be challenged by citing that the observed ceases are not representative of the whole or that the sample are not large enough, hence the fallacy of hasty generalization is made. The premises supporting the conclusion, are all multiple generalization but there were no attempt 10 confirm the generalization by scienific means like geting a representative sample or gathering empirical data of cometed polclans fram the Sandigan Bayan. The premises were all based on public perceptions of politicians concocted by the mass media and imposed on the public mind. Nevertheless, the argimment remains persuasive Another tis isto demons tt the observe ates ae Based becuse they ‘yr ot obuerved in evry possible vaio ine ace and etcumsane end hat slater een abt Eee etait No attempt todo scientific study to support the generalizations. Then, fo clinch your point, produce the counter example, Caution: a counter example applies only to an all claim, but very few are aware of this. You could use this to your advantage..In contrast, to challenge a most claim you need many counter examples. Unfortunately the level of generalization is. "most," and a *most clam” is unaffected by counter example(s). 10, Ina legal or policy proposal, criticize the estimate of the ikeliBood of the decurrence of both the beneficial and aversive consequences: Or you can give a counter-example With the opposite consequences than those predicted. Prediction of this sort, _ 207 :oftentimes are riot grounded empirical data. Harp on this weakness. If you cad succeed in doing either, you can reject the argument as non sequitur. Not applicable. 11. You have to demonstrate that the premise set is inadequate because it did roi offer the best reason (or evidence) to support the conclusion, then you have to produce the premise. Remember arguments would dramatically improve its strength with the addition of a novel premise The best reason 10 éonfirm the truth: of conclusion are data ‘of 50% plus 1 bercentage of politicians who are corrupt, that is to say, convicted of political and lection related erimes. 12, You are not ready to demonstrate tat the premise si failed to prove or justify the