Some Basic Concepts of Deductive Logic - Lecture Notes | PHI 251, Papers of Reasoning

Material Type: Paper; Class: Logic; Subject: Philosophy; University: Syracuse University; Term: Unknown 1989;

Typology: Papers

Pre 2010

Uploaded on 09/17/2009

koofers-user-5fw
koofers-user-5fw 🇺🇸

10 documents

1 / 4

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Some Basic Concepts of Deductive Logic:
Argument: A structured collection of sentences containing exactly
one sentence called a conclusion and a set of sentences called the
premises.
Conclusion: A statement supported by the premises of an argument.
Premises: A set of statements used to support the conclusion.
Validity (a property applying to arguments only): An argument
is valid if and only if necessarily if the premises are all true, the
conclusion will be as well.
Alternatively: An argument is valid if and only if it is not
possible for the premises to all be true while the conclusion is
false (at the same time).
From this, we can get invalidity: An argument is invalid if and
only if it is possible for the premises to all be true and the
conclusion false (at the same time).
Soundness (a property applying to arguments only): An
argument is sound if and only if it is valid and has all true premises.
Consistency (a property applying to sets of sentences only): A
set of sentences is consistent if and only if it is possible for all the
sentences in that set to be true (at the same time).
From this, we can get inconsistency: A set of sentences is
inconsistent if and only if it is not possible for all the sentences
in that set to be true (at the same time).
Tautologousness (a property applying to single sentences only):
A sentence is a tautology (i.e., a necessary truth) if and only if it is
true in all circumstances, come what may.
pf3
pf4

Partial preview of the text

Download Some Basic Concepts of Deductive Logic - Lecture Notes | PHI 251 and more Papers Reasoning in PDF only on Docsity!

Some Basic Concepts of Deductive Logic:

Argument: A structured collection of sentences containing exactly one sentence called a conclusion and a set of sentences called the premises. Conclusion: A statement supported by the premises of an argument. Premises: A set of statements used to support the conclusion. Validity (a property applying to arguments only): An argument is valid if and only if necessarily if the premises are all true, the conclusion will be as well.

  • Alternatively: An argument is valid if and only if it is not possible for the premises to all be true while the conclusion is false (at the same time).
  • From this, we can get invalidity: An argument is invalid if and only if it is possible for the premises to all be true and the conclusion false (at the same time). Soundness (a property applying to arguments only): An argument is sound if and only if it is valid and has all true premises. Consistency (a property applying to sets of sentences only): A set of sentences is consistent if and only if it is possible for all the sentences in that set to be true (at the same time).
  • From this, we can get inconsistency: A set of sentences is inconsistent if and only if it is not possible for all the sentences in that set to be true (at the same time). Tautologousness (a property applying to single sentences only): A sentence is a tautology (i.e., a necessary truth) if and only if it is true in all circumstances, come what may.

Contradictoriness (a property applying only to single sentences): A sentence is a contradiction (i.e., a necessary falsehood) if and only if it is false in all circumstances, no matter what. Contingentness (a property applying only to single sentences): A sentence is a contingent sentence if and only if it is true in some cases, but false in others (i.e., it depends on the circumstances).


Some Examples to Illustrate the Above

Concepts:

It is easy to read the definitions given above and think that they make sense. It is another thing to actually fully understand them. Examples are useful to highlight important features of the concept in question, and sometimes can help clarify some of the more subtle aspects of the concept. I will give some examples below. Of course, we do not have the entire semester to push on these notions; this is a course on theories of knowledge and reality, and not a course on formal logic. For a deeper exploration of these ideas, I highly recommend our very own PHI 251: Introduction to Logic, where you can learn to use the tools of Propositional Logic and Quantificational Logic to evaluate argument forms. An argument:  War is an unacceptable course of action for any nation to take. For a war to be an acceptable option for a nation, it must either provide clear future benefits for its citizens that greatly outweigh the costs, or the war must be a last resort for defending the nation's autonomy. Violent means of defense are never an acceptable course of action, and war is a violent action. Moreover, no war could provide clear future benefits that outweigh the costs, since loss of life could never be outweighed by any other perceived benefit, economic or otherwise. [This is not an argument of mine or anyone else that I know, for that matter; it's just an example of an argument]

Some more valid arguments:

  1. If Callicles is stuck in the tree, then all of his food must be missing.
  2. If all of Callicles' food is gone, then he must have been chasing the evil neighborhood squirrels.
  3. So, if Callicles is stuck in the tree, he must have been chasing the squirrels.
  4. Either mental facts are reducible to physical facts or they are not.
  5. If mental facts are reducible to physical ones, psychology is not a legitimate science.
  6. If mental facts are not reducible to physical ones, the mind is a distinct object from the brain.
  7. Psychology is a legitimate science.
  8. Therefore, the mind is a distinct object from the brain.