


Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Material Type: Paper; Class: Logic; Subject: Philosophy; University: Syracuse University; Term: Unknown 1989;
Typology: Papers
1 / 4
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!



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.
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).
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: