46

Dr. Robert Barnard

  • Upload
    lucian

  • View
    54

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, Even further More and yet more Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking. Dr. Robert Barnard. Last Time :. Introduction to Categorical Logic Aristotle’s Categories Leibniz, Concepts, and Identity Analytic – Synthetic Distinction Essence and Accident - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: Dr. Robert Barnard
Page 2: Dr. Robert Barnard
Page 3: Dr. Robert Barnard

Philosophy 103Linguistics 103

Yet, still, Even further More and yet more

Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking

Dr. Robert Barnard

Page 4: Dr. Robert Barnard

Last Time:

• Introduction to Categorical Logic• Aristotle’s Categories• Leibniz, Concepts, and Identity• Analytic – Synthetic Distinction• Essence and Accident• Necessary and Sufficient Conditions

Page 5: Dr. Robert Barnard

Plan for Today• Categorical Propositions– Parts and Characteristics– Conditional and Conjunctive Equivalents– Existential Import

Page 6: Dr. Robert Barnard

Reminder !!!!!Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:00 PMBryant 209

Philosophy Forum Talk –

“Einstein on the Role of History and Philosophy of Science in Physics”

Dr. Don Howard – University of Notre Dame

Extra Credit: 1 page reaction, due in 2 weeks (9/27)

Page 7: Dr. Robert Barnard

Categorical Propositions

Categorical Propositions relate one category (in whole or part) as indicated by the SUBJECT TERM to another category, indicated by the PREDICATE TERM (either affirmatively or negatively):

• All houses have roofs• Some buildings are houses• No eggs are shatterproof• Some people are not paying attention

Page 8: Dr. Robert Barnard

UNIVERSAL CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

A Categorical Proposition that makes a claim about the entire SUBJECT CLASS is called a UNIVERSAL CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION

• All Toys…• No Fish…• All Bugs…• No people from Georgia…

Page 9: Dr. Robert Barnard

PARTICULAR CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

A Categorical Proposition that makes a claim about one or more members of the SUBJECT CLASS is called a PARTICULAR CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION

• Some Eggs…• Some men…• Some Lithuanians…

Page 10: Dr. Robert Barnard

QUANTITY

All categorical propositions are either:

UNIVERSAL or PARTICULAR

We call this the QUANTITY of the proposition.

Page 11: Dr. Robert Barnard

AFFIRMATIVE AND NEGATIVE PROPOSITIONS

When a categorical proposition asserts the existence of a relationship between the Subject term and the Predicate term we say that the proposition is AFFIRMATIVE.

When a categorical proposition denies the relationship between the Subject term and the Predicate term we say that the proposition is NEGATIVE

Page 12: Dr. Robert Barnard

QUALITY

All categorical propositions are either:

AFFIRMATIVE or NEGATIVE

We call this the QUALITY of the proposition.

Page 13: Dr. Robert Barnard

THE 4 TYPES of CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION

UNIVERSAL PARTICULAR

AFFIRMATIVE ALL S is P SOME S is PNEGATIVE NO S is P SOME S is not P

Page 14: Dr. Robert Barnard

Questions?

Page 15: Dr. Robert Barnard

THE UNIVERSAL AFFIRMATIVE

ALL S is P

TYPE A

If (x is S) then (x is P)

Conceptual Claim

Page 16: Dr. Robert Barnard

THE UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE

No S is P

TYPE E

If (x is S) then (x is not P)

Conceptual Claim

Page 17: Dr. Robert Barnard

PROPOSITIONS ABOUT INDIVIDUALSIn CATEGORICAL LOGIC a proper name denotes a class with

one member.• Socrates: the class containing Socrates• Al Gore: the class of Al Gore• Brad Pitt: The class containing Brad Pitt• …etc…

SO, a proposition like ‘Socrates is a man’ is really about the whole class Socrates, so…

It is a UNIVERSAL proposition!!!

Page 18: Dr. Robert Barnard

Universal Propositions

1. All Dogs are Brown2. All Houses are residences3. No Pigs have wings4. No Cars are Airships5. No Humans have quills6. All Wisdom is not Folly7. John Jay was the first Chief Justice

Page 19: Dr. Robert Barnard

THE PARTICULAR AFFIRMATIVESome S is P

TYPE I

At least one thing X is Both S and P

For at least one x (x is S) and (x is P)

Existential Claim

Page 20: Dr. Robert Barnard

THE PARTICULAR NEGATIVE

Some S is not P

TYPE O

At least one thing X is S and not P

For at least one x (x is S) and (x is not P)

Existential Claim

Page 21: Dr. Robert Barnard

Particular Propositions

1. Some Cats are red.2. Some Pigs are not Sows3. Some lettuce is not endive.4. Some Men are not Women5. Some Flowers are plants.6. Some Presidents of the United States served

two terms7. Some Ole Miss coaches used to win games.

Page 22: Dr. Robert Barnard

EXISTENTIAL IMPORTONLY a proposition with EXISTENTIAL IMPORT

requires that there be an instance of the SUBJECT TERM in reality for the proposition to be true.

• All Dogs have 4 Legs (Conceptual – no EI)• Some Fish are Red (Existential – EI)

Page 23: Dr. Robert Barnard

QUANTIFIER AND QUALIFIER

The Term which determines the QUANTITY of the proposition is called THE QUANTIFIER

ALL – NO -- SOMEThe term that determines the QUALITY of the

proposition is called the QUALIFIER

ALL – NO – IS – IS NOT

Page 24: Dr. Robert Barnard

A, E, I, and OTERM Proposition Form Quantity Quality

A ALL S IS P UNIVERSAL AFFIRMATIVE

E NO S IS P UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE

I SOME S IS P PARTICULAR AFFIRMATIVE

O SOME S IS NOT P PARTICULAR NEGATIVE

Page 25: Dr. Robert Barnard

COPULATION!!!!Every Categorical Proposition has a Quantity and

Quality, a Subject term and a Predicate Term. There is one more part:

THE COPULA

All S is PNo S is P

Some S is PSome S is not P

Page 26: Dr. Robert Barnard

Questions?

Page 27: Dr. Robert Barnard
Page 28: Dr. Robert Barnard
Page 29: Dr. Robert Barnard
Page 30: Dr. Robert Barnard

Questions?

Page 31: Dr. Robert Barnard
Page 32: Dr. Robert Barnard
Page 33: Dr. Robert Barnard
Page 34: Dr. Robert Barnard
Page 35: Dr. Robert Barnard
Page 36: Dr. Robert Barnard
Page 37: Dr. Robert Barnard

Week -

• Categorical Propositions• Conditional and Conjunctive equivalents• Existential Import• Traditional Square of Opposition• Modern Square of Opposition• Existential Fallacy• Venn Diagrams for Propositions

Page 38: Dr. Robert Barnard

Week-

• Immediate Inferences• Conversion• Contraposition• Obversion

Page 39: Dr. Robert Barnard

Week-

• Syllogistic Logic• Form- Mood- Figure• Medieval Logic• Venn Diagrams for Syllogisms (Modern)

Page 40: Dr. Robert Barnard

Week -

• Venn Diagrams for Syllogisms (traditional)• Limits of Syllogistic Logic• Review of Counter-Example Method

Page 41: Dr. Robert Barnard

Week -

• Logic of Propositions• Decision Problem for Propositional Logic• Symbolization and Definition• Translation Basics

Page 42: Dr. Robert Barnard

Week -

• Truth Tables for Propositions• Tautology• Contingency• Self-Contradiction

Page 43: Dr. Robert Barnard

Week -

• Truth Tables for Propositions II• Consistency• Inconsistency• Equivalence

Page 44: Dr. Robert Barnard

Week -

• Truth Table for Arguments• Validity / Invalidity• Soundness

Page 45: Dr. Robert Barnard

Week -

• Indirect Truth Tables• Formal Construction of Counter-Examples

Page 46: Dr. Robert Barnard

Week -

• Logical Truths• Necessity • Possibility• Impossibility