- Alvin Plantinga - God and Other Minds
- argument-091227143346-phpapp02
- On the pursuit of wisdom, Nicholas Cusa
- 1994 Alvin Plantinga
- ALVIN PLANTINGA Spiritual Autobiography When Kelly Clark
- Lecture 6 - Student201205 ecs
- Syllogism by Premises From Das Sir (08961556195)
- Poythress and Frame Peripheral Prophets Speaking Out Against Copyright
- علي الوردي - منطق إبن خلدون
- Alvin Plantinga - Theism, Atheism, Rationality
- logic
- 1930 Th Stcherbatsky Buddhist Logic Vol I
- Logic Presentation
- symbolic logic
- مغني الطلاب ، شرح متن إيساغوجي - أثير الدين الأبهري
- Darwin and Hegel
- Evaluating Inductive Arguments
- EXAM WORDS&GUIDE
- CREAC in the Real World
- Darwin and,,,,,,, Hegel
- Melanie Yoc Final PEET 2 Grade.doc
- Philosophy - A Guide to the Study of Philosophy
- Basics Narration
- CT1 Arguments Questions
- Logical 1
- chv20 canadian civics chv20- intro
- Classifying and Justifying Inferences
- Verbal Analysis
- memorandum
- CR Basics
- Dispatches from Pluto: Lost and Found in the Mississippi Delta
- Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future
- The Innovators: How a Group of Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution
- The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America
- Yes Please
- Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
- The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer
- A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story
- Grand Pursuit: The Story of Economic Genius
- This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate
- The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power
- Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America
- John Adams
- The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century
- Smart People Should Build Things: How to Restore Our Culture of Achievement, Build a Path for Entrepreneurs, and Create New Jobs in America
- The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers
- Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore
- The New Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
- Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
- Angela's Ashes: A Memoir
- Steve Jobs
- How To Win Friends and Influence People
- Bad Feminist: Essays
- You Too Can Have a Body Like Mine: A Novel
- The Incarnations: A Novel
- The Light Between Oceans: A Novel
- Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close: A Novel
- The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)
- The Silver Linings Playbook: A Novel
- Leaving Berlin: A Novel
- Bel Canto
- The Master
- A Man Called Ove: A Novel
- Brooklyn: A Novel
- The Flamethrowers: A Novel
- The Blazing World: A Novel
- The Rosie Project: A Novel
- The First Bad Man: A Novel
- We Are Not Ourselves: A Novel
- The Love Affairs of Nathaniel P.: A Novel
- Life of Pi
- The Perks of Being a Wallflower
- Lovers at the Chameleon Club, Paris 1932: A Novel
- The Bonfire of the Vanities: A Novel
- The Cider House Rules
- A Prayer for Owen Meany: A Novel
- The Wallcreeper
- The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel
- Wolf Hall: A Novel
- Beautiful Ruins: A Novel
- The Kitchen House: A Novel
- Interpreter of Maladies
- Good in Bed

Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is a formal activity The notion of form has wider implication in logic. It pertains to the form of proposition as well as the form of argument. The notion of form refers to the norm/ rule/ laws that constitute expression. All expression follows a grammar. Our thoughts are formal – they are structured. The structurality of thoughts presupposes law. They are laws of thoughts. There are three laws of thoughts, they are, 1. Law of identity; 2. Law of contradiction; 3. Law of excludedmiddle Law of identity: p is identical with itself. It asserts that if any statement is true then it is true. (If p stands for a true proposition then p is true only.) Law of contradiction asserts that ‘no statement can be both true and false’. (If p is a true statement then p cannot be false at the same time.) Law of excluded-middle asserts that ‘any statement is either true or false’. (If p is a true statement (¬p) its negation is false, both cannot be true together and both cannot be false together) Proposition is a logical sentence. The form of proposition is constituted of terms. A simple proposition is constituted of at least two terms; they are, the subject term and the predicate term. The subject term and predicate term refer to two different classes. They are related by a copula. Copula is a ‘to be’ verb. Example, All men are mortal. Here, in the above, proposition ‘men’ refers to the subject class term and the term ‘mortality’ represents predicate class. The copula ‘is’ relates the subject and the predicate terms. There are four type of categorical propositions used in Aristotelean logic. Their types are made with reference to the quality and quantity of the propositions. The categorical Propositions are:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Logical form of Propositions A: All men are mortal (Universal Affirmative) All s is p E: No men are mortal (Universal Negative) No s is p I: Some men are mortal (Particular Affirmative) Some s is p O: Some men are not-mortal (Particular Negative) Some s is not-p

1

The conversion proceeds with interchanging the subject term and the predicate term. Convertend Table of Valid Conversion Converse A: All S is P (All students are smart) I: Some P is S (Some smart persons are students) E: No S is P (No student is tall) E: No P is S (No tall persons are students) I: Some S is P (Some students are poets) I: Some P is S (Some poets are students O: Some S is not-p (Conversion is not valid) 2 . No Hungarians are Cricketers (Convertend) No Cricketers are Hungarians (Converse) The given proposition is a premise is otherwise called as Convertend.Two Inferential Process of Deduction: 1. Immediate Deductive Inference 2. 2. the subject term of the premises becomes the predicate term of the conclusion and the predicate term of the premise becomes the subject of the conclusion. The quality of the premise (convertend) remains same. i. Conversion and Obversion are deductive inferences. For Example. Mediate Deductive Inference Immediate Deductive Inference: Conclusion is deduced from one of the given propositions. Conversion: The Rules of Conversion: 1. The quantity of the proposition may change.e. where as the conclusion drawn from the premise is called Converse.

we change its quality and replace the predicate term by its complement. O: Some teachers are not-cricketers I: Some teachers are non-cricketers.Obversion: Rules of Obversion 1. 3 . The term that occurs as subject term of the conclusion is ‘minor term’. Obversion is one of the immediate inferences. Major premises Minor premises Conclusion. which does not appear in the conclusion but appears only in the premises. (Obverse) E: No singers are barbarians A: All singers are non-barbarians. Instances: A: All poets are emotional (Obvertend) E: No poets are non-emotional. I: Some politicians are statesmen O: Some politicians are not non-statesmen. The standard syllogistic argument will have 3terms and 3 propositions. The term that occurs as the predicate term of the conclusion is called the ‘major term’. The term. To obvert a proposition. Syllogism A syllogism is a deductive argument in which conclusion is inferred from two premises. is called ‘middle term’. 2.

in an argument like. It appears in the subject place of major premise and also the subject place of the minor premise. A: All scholars are IITians I: Some scholars are scientists Therefore. it constitutes the 3rd figure.Mood & Figure of Syllogism The standard form of categorical propositions determines the mood of the syllogism For example. Hence. Some hard working persons are sincere (Conclusion) The mood of the above argument is: A I I The different positions of the middle term determine the figure of the syllogism. 4 . Some scientists are IITians. A: All men are sincere (Major Premise) I: Some men are hard working (Minor Premise) I: Therefore. In the above argument ‘scholar’ is the middle term. Ist 2nd 3rd 4th For Example.

which does not distribute any term. 2. Some technocrats are students As you know that A proposition which is universal affirmative prop. which makes it impossible to draw a valid conclusion. If the middle term is not distributed in any of the premises then the arguments commits the fallacy of undistributed middle. In a syllogism there must be at least three terms. 5 .. If an argument involves four terms then we cannot draw a valid conclusion. Example: All students are scholars Some scholars are technocrats Therefore. Therefore. the argument commits the fallacy of undistributed middle.. So the predicate term ‘scholar’ is not distributed in the major premise and it is also not distributed in the minor premise.Rules and fallacies of Syllogism: An argument in syllogism becomes fallacious if and only iff it violates the rules of syllogism. Here forth we are stating about some of the rules of syllogism and some of the fallacies 1. The fallacy is called fallacy of four terms Example: All men are mortal Some scholars are sincere. The minor premise is ‘I’ prop. The middle term must be distributed at least once in the premises. does not distribute its predicate term. There is no term common in the above argument.

The minor premise is A type of proposition which distributes only the subject term. As a minor term it must be distributed in the minor premise. Therefore. 6 . The poet occurs as the predicate term in the minor premise and remains undistributed. 4. Hence. It is because A’ proposition distributes only its subject term not the predicate term. If this condition is not fulfilled them it leads to the fallacy of either Illicit Major or Illicit Minor. the argument commits the fallacy of Illicit Major Illicit Minor: All students are singers All students are poets Therefore.3. No judges are sentimental No judges are singers Therefore. Ex. Their exclusion implies exclusion of the relationship of middle terms. It is the major term and as major term it has appeared in the predicate place of the major premise. If both the premises are negative then no conclusion follows. It commits the fallacy of exclusive terms. the term ‘regular’ in the conclusion is distributed. Illicit Major: All students are regular No hardworking persons are students. All poets are singers The predicate term poet in the conclusion is distributed which is the minor term. If a term is distributed in conclusion it must be distributed in the respective premises. No singers are sentimental The argument is fallacious because in negative proposition whether it universal negative or particular negative proposition the terms (the subject term and the predicate term) exclude each other. which is undistributed. Thus the argument commits the fallacy of illicit minor. No hardworking persons are regular As the E proposition distributes its predicate term.

Law of Causality Law of Uniformity of Nature Law of Conservation of Energy Induction by Simple Enumeration: The method of arriving at general or universal propositions from particular facts of experience is called ‘inductive generalization’. 2. And we can legitimately infer effect from cause only in the sense of sufficient condition. 3. Sufficient Condition NC: the presence of oxygen is a necessary condition for combustion to occur.In a syllogism if one of the premise is particular then the conclusion must be particular proposition In a syllogism if one of the premise is negative then conclusion would be negative proposition. Postulates of Induction 1. 7 . Et1 → Et2 We can legitimately infer cause from effect only in the sense necessary condition. Necessary Condition 2. Induction: Inductive Generalization Causality Casual Relations: 1.

(Goodman) Ex. All emeralds are blue (t/f) before 2. ‘GRUE’ [Bule / Green] Ex.Mills’ Method for Understanding Causal Relation: • • • • • Method of Agreement Method of Difference Joint Method Method of Concomitant Variation Method of Residues Science Science replaced truth by authority. 1. Simple view of Scientific Method Induction used in Scientific Prediction: • uniformity of nature • conservation of energy • causality Limits of Observation Is observation theory laden? The Problem of Induction • Problem of certainty (Hume & Russell) • Different generalization can be made looking at the past instances. All emeralds are green (t) after Inductive Generalization based on large number of observation • Context of Discovery 8 .

modified. Laws in science are not absolutely proven to be true. Ex. which is shown to be false. Science thus progresses by means of conjectures and refutation. Verisimilitude (Approximation of truth) : Truth content Vs Falsity content Hypothesis – corroborates with reality Corroboration – belief in the approximate truth of theory. *causal relation is proved by experience *conclusion presupposes law of causation *problem of circularity of definition. is discarded or at the very least. Justification for Induction: • ‘Invariable and unconditional’ causal connection Law of causation is established by empirical grounds – confronts a paradox. Karl Popper’s Falsifiability thesis: “Empirical method is continuously to expose a theory to the possibility of being falsified” Formulation of Conjectures/ hypothesis Increasing the degree of Falsifiability • Any theory. 9 . Probability is based on the consistency of the available data.• Context of Justification Certainty of the conclusion is replaced by Probability. rather generalization which is high probability of being true.

- Alvin Plantinga - God and Other MindsUploaded byAgata
- argument-091227143346-phpapp02Uploaded byDivya Matroja
- On the pursuit of wisdom, Nicholas CusaUploaded bymaxlameiro4631
- 1994 Alvin PlantingaUploaded bymordbech
- ALVIN PLANTINGA Spiritual Autobiography When Kelly ClarkUploaded bysansfledge
- Lecture 6 - Student201205 ecsUploaded byYi Ying Hannie
- Syllogism by Premises From Das Sir (08961556195)Uploaded byTamal Kumar Das
- Poythress and Frame Peripheral Prophets Speaking Out Against CopyrightUploaded byDean Chia
- علي الوردي - منطق إبن خلدونUploaded byAhmed Khālid
- Alvin Plantinga - Theism, Atheism, RationalityUploaded bymayhemaybe
- logicUploaded bygoosebumps1942
- 1930 Th Stcherbatsky Buddhist Logic Vol IUploaded byFengfeifei2018
- Logic PresentationUploaded byHector
- symbolic logicUploaded bygoosebumps1942
- مغني الطلاب ، شرح متن إيساغوجي - أثير الدين الأبهريUploaded byAbdelrahman Sobhy
- Darwin and HegelUploaded byPacha
- Evaluating Inductive ArgumentsUploaded byRJJR0989
- EXAM WORDS&GUIDEUploaded byJennifer Pagay
- CREAC in the Real WorldUploaded byJuan Antonio Ureta Guerra
- Darwin and,,,,,,, HegelUploaded byYolanda Collazo
- Melanie Yoc Final PEET 2 Grade.docUploaded byHenry Jackson
- Philosophy - A Guide to the Study of PhilosophyUploaded byNiko Diamesis
- Basics NarrationUploaded byDanijelBara
- CT1 Arguments QuestionsUploaded bythutrangle
- Logical 1Uploaded byNaresh Teres
- chv20 canadian civics chv20- introUploaded byapi-247047693
- Classifying and Justifying InferencesUploaded byCarlo Cellucci
- Verbal AnalysisUploaded bytonyron
- memorandumUploaded byapi-319720650
- CR BasicsUploaded bySabyasachi Sahu