Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
CHAPTER 1
PROPOSITIONS
1.1 What Logic Is
Logic
The study of the methods and principles used to distinguish
correct from incorrect reasoning
1.2 Propositions
Propositions
An assertion that something is (or is not) the case
All propositions are either true or false
May be affirmed or denied
Statement
The meaning of a declarative sentence at a particular time
In logic, the word statement is sometimes used instead of
propositions
Classical Logic
Traditional techniques, based on Aristotles works, for the
analysis of deductive arguments.
Modern Symbolic Logic
Methods used by most
deductive arguments.
modern
logicians
to
analyze
Probability
The likelihood that some conclusion (of an inductive
argument) is true.
1.5 Validity & Truth
Truth
An attribute of a proposition that asserts what really is the
case.
Sound
An argument that is valid and has only true premises.
1.3 Arguments
Notes:
Simple Proposition
A proposition making only one assertion.
Compound Proposition
A proposition containing two or more simple propositions
Disjunctive (or Alternative) Proposition
A type of compound proposition
If true, at least one of the component propositions must be
true
Inference
A process of linking propositions by affirming one proposition
on the basis of one or more other propositions.
Argument
A structured group of propositions, reflecting an inference.
Premise
A proposition used in an argument to support some other
proposition.
Conclusion
The proposition in an argument that the other propositions,
the premises, support.
CHAPTER 3
LANGUAGE AND ITS APPLICATION
3.1 Three Basic Functions of Language
SIENNA A. FLORES
Ludwig Wittgenstein
One of the most influential philosophers of the 20 th century
Rightly insisted that there are countless different kinds of
uses of what we call symbols, words, sentences.
Informative Discourse
Language used to convey information
Information includes false as well as true propositions,
bad arguments as well as good ones
Records of astronomical investigations, historical accounts,
reports of geographical trivia our learning about the world
and our reasoning about it uses language in the
informative mode
Expressive Discourse
Language used to convey or evoke feelings.
Pertains not to facts, but to revealing and eliciting attitudes,
emotions and feelings
E.g. sorrow, passion, enthusiasm, lyric poetry
Expressive discourse is used either to:
-2
Notes:
Effective communication often demands combinations of
functions.
Actions usually involve both what the actor wants and what
the actor believes.
Wants and beliefs are special kinds of what we have been
calling attitudes.
Our success in causing others to act as we wish is likely to
depend upon our ability to evoke in them the appropriate
attitudes, and perhaps also provide information that affects
their relevant beliefs.
Ceremonial Use of Language
A mix of language functions (usually expressive and
directive) with special social uses.
E.g. greetings in social gatherings, rituals in houses of
worship, the portentous language of state documents
Performative Utterance
A special form of speech that simultaneously reports on, and
performs some function.
Performative verbs perform their functions only when tied in
special ways to the circumstances in which they are uttered,
doing something more than combining the 3 major functions
of language
3.3 Language Forms and Language Functions
Sentences
The units of language that express complete thoughts
4
categories:
declarative,
interrogative,
imperative,
exclamatory
4 functions: asserting, questioning, commanding, exclaiming
USES OF LANGUAGE
Grammatical Forms
1. Declarative
2. Interrogative
3. Imperative
4. Exclamatory
Linguistic forms do not determine linguistic function. Form
often gives an indication of function but there is no sure connection
between the grammatical form and the use/uses intended. Language
serving any one of the 3 principal functions may take any one of the 4
grammatical forms
CHAPTER 4
DEFINITION
4.1 Disputes and Definitions
Three Kinds of Disputes
1.
2.
3.
Criterial Dispute
a form of genuine dispute that at first appears to be merely
verbal
4.2 Definitions and Their Uses
Definiendum
a symbol being defined
Definiens
the symbol (or group of symbols) that has the same
meaning as the definiendum
Five Kinds of Definitions and their Principal Use
1.
Stipulative Definitions
a. A proposal to arbitrarily assign meaning to a newly
introduced symbol
b. a meaning is assigned to some symbol
c.
not a report
d. cannot be true or false
e. it is a proposal, resolution, request or instruction
to use the definiendum to mean what is meant by
the definiens
f.
used to eliminate ambiguity
2.
Lexical Definitions
a. A report which may be true or false of the
meaning of a definiendum already has in actual
language use
b. used to eliminate ambiguity
3.
Precising Definitions
a. A report on existing language usage, with
additional
stipulations
provided
to
reduce
vagueness
b. Go beyond ordinary usage in such a way as to
eliminate troublesome uncertainty regarding
borderline cases
c.
Its definiendum has an existing meaning, but that
meaning is vague
d. What is added to achieve precision is a matter of
stipulation
e. Used chiefly to reduce vagueness
Principal Uses
1. Informative
2. Expressive
3. Directive
SIENNA A. FLORES
-3
4.
5.
b.
2.
Theoretical Definitions
a. An account of term that is helpful for general
understanding or in scientific practice
b. Seek to formulate a theoretically adequate or
scientifically useful description of the objects to
which the term applies
c.
Used to advance theoretical understanding
Operational definitions
a. Defining a term by limiting its use to situations
where certain actions or operations lead to
specified results
b. State that the term is correctly applied to a given
case if and only if the performance of specified
operations in the case yields a specified result
3.
Persuasive Definitions
a. A definition intended to influence attitudes or stir
the emotions, using language expressively rather
than informatively
b. used to influence conduct
Intension (Connotation)
the attributes shared by all objects, and only those objects to
which a general term applies
2.
3.
4.
Definitions by example
We list or give examples of the objects denoted by
the term
2.
Ostensive definitions
a demonstrative definition
a term is defined by pointing at an object
We point to or indicate by gesture the extension of
the term being defined
3.
Quasi-ostensive Definitions
A denotative definition that uses a gesture and a
descriptive phrase
The gesture or pointing is accompanied by some
descriptive phase whose meaning is taken as being
known
Synonymous definitions
a. Defining a word with another word that has the
same meaning and is already understood
SIENNA A. FLORES
Circular Definition
a faulty definition that relies on knowledge of what is being
defined
CHAPTER 5
NOTIONS AND BELIEFS
5.1 What is a Fallacy?
Fallacy
A type of argument that may seem to be correct, but
contains a mistake in reasoning.
When premises of an argument fail to support its
conclusion, we say that the reasoning is bad; the argument
is said to be fallacious
In a general sense, any error in reasoning is a fallacy
In a narrower sense, each fallacy is a type of incorrect
argument
5.2 The Classification of Fallacies
Informal Fallacies
The type of mistakes in reasoning that arise form the
mishandling of the content of the propositions constituting
the argument
Fallacies of
Relevance
facilitates
Intensional Definitions
1.
Fallacies of
Defective
Induction
-4
Fallacies of
Presumption
Fallacies of
Ambiguity
D4: Hasty
Generalizations
P1: Accident
P2: Complex
Question
P3: Begging the
Question
A1:
A2:
A3:
A4:
A5:
Equivocation
Amphiboly
Accent
Composition
Division
SIENNA A. FLORES
-5
A5: Division
A fallacy in which a mistaken inference is drawn from the
attributes of a whole to the attributes of the parts of the
whole.
o
1st Kind: consists in arguing fallaciously that what is
true of a whole must also be true of its parts.
o
2nd Kind: committed when one argues from the
attributes of a collection of elements to the attributes of
the elements themselves.
CHAPTER 6
CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS
6.1 The Theory of Deduction
Deductive Argument
An argument that claims to establish its conclusion
conclusively
One of the 2 classes of arguments
Every deductive argument is either valid or invalid
Valid Argument
A deductive argument which, if all the premises are true, the
conclusion must be true.
Theory of Deduction
Aims to explain the relations of premises and conclusions in
valid arguments.
Aims to provide techniques for discriminating between valid
and invalid deductions.
6.2 Classes and Categorical Propositions
Class: The collection of all objects that have some specified
characteristic in common.
o
Wholly included: All of one class may be included in all of
another class.
o
Partially included: Some, but not all, of the members of one
class may be included in another class.
o
Exclude: Two classes may have no members in common.
Categorical Proposition
A proposition used in deductive arguments, that asserts a
relationship between one category and some other category.
6.3 The Four Kinds of Categorical Propositions
1. Universal affirmative proposition (A Propositions)
Propositions that assert that the whole of one class is
included or contained in another class.
2. Universal negative proposition (E Propositions)
Propositions that assert that the whole of one class is
excluded from the whole of another class.
3. Particular affirmative proposition (I Propositions)
Propositions that assert that two classes have some member
or members in common.
4. Particular negative proposition (O Propositions) Propositions
that assert that at least on member of a class is excluded from the
whole of another class.
Standard Form Categorical Propositions
Name and Type
Proposition Form
Example
A Universal Affirmative
All S is P.
All politicians are
liars.
E Universal Negative
No S is P.
No politicians are
liars.
I Particular Affirmative
Some S is P.
Some politicians
are liars.
O Particular Negative.
Some S is not P.
Some politicians
are not liars.
SIENNA A. FLORES
and Distribution
Quality
Distribution
Affirmative
S only
Negative
S and P
Affirmative
Neither
Negative
P only
are
neither
necessarily
true
nor
-6
Subcontraries
Two propositions that cannot both be false
If one is false, the other must be true.
They can both be true.
Subalteration
The oppositions between a universal (the superaltern) and its
corresponding particular proposition (the subaltern).
In classical logic, the universal proposition implies the truth of
its corresponding particular proposition.
Square of Opposition
A diagram showing the logical relationships among the four
types of categorical propositions (A, E, I and O).
The traditional Square of Opposition differs from the modern
Square of Opposition in important ways.
Immediate Inference
An inference drawn directly from only one premise.
Mediate Inference
An inference drawn from more than one premise.
The conclusion is drawn form the first premise through the
mediation of the second.
6.6 Further Immediate Inferences
Conversion
An inference formed by interchanging the subject and
predicate terms of a categorical proposition.
Not all conversions are valid.
VALID
Convertend
A: All S is P.
E: No S is P.
I: Some S is P.
O: Some S is not P.
CONVERSIONS
Converse
I: Some P is S (by limitation)
E: No P is S.
I: Some P is S
(conversion not valid)
Complement of a Class
The collection of all things that do not belong to that class.
Obversion
An inference formed by changing the quality of a proposition
and replacing the predicate term by its complement.
Obversion is valid for any standard-form categorical
proposition.
OBVERSIONS
Obvertend
Obverse
A: All S is P.
E: NO S is non-P
E: No S is P.
A: All S is non-P.
I: Some S is P.
O: Some S is not non-P.
O: Some S is not P.
I: Some S is non-P.
Contraposition
An inference formed by replacing the subject term of a
proposition with the complement of its predicate term, and
replacing the predicate term by the complement of its subject
term.
Not all contrapositions are valid.
Premise
A: All S is P.
E: No S is P.
I: Some S is P.
O: Some S is not P.
CONTRAPOSITION
Contrapositive
A: All non-P is non-S.
O: Some non-P is not non-S. (by limitation)
(Contraposition not valid)
O: Some non-P is not non-S.
SIENNA A. FLORES
Proposition
All S is P
Symbolic
Rep,
_
SP = 0
No S is P
SP = O
Some S is P
SP 0
Some
not P
is
_
SP O
Explanation
The class of things that are
both S and non-P is empty.
The class off things that are
both S and P is empty.
The class of things that are
both S and P is not empty.
(SP as at least one member.)
The class of things that are
both S and non-P is not
empty. (SP has at least one
member).
Venn Diagrams
A method of representing classes
propositions using overlapping circles.
and
categorical
CHAPTER 7
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
7.1 Standard-Form Categorical Syllogism
Syllogism
Any deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred
from two premises.
Categorical Syllogism
A deductive argument consisting of 3 categorical
propositions that together contain exactly 3 terms, each of
which occurs in exactly 2 of the constituent propositions.
Standard-From Categorical Syllogism
A categorical syllogism in which the premises and
conclusions are all standard-form categorical propositions
(A, E, I or O)
Arranged with the major premise first, the minor premise
second, and the conclusion last.
The Parts
Major Term
Minor Term
Middle Term
Major Premise
Minor Premise
Mood
One of the 64 3-letter characterizations of categorical
syllogisms determined by the forms of the standard-form
propositions it contains.
The mood of the syllogism is therefore represented by 3
letters, and those 3 letters are always given in the
standard-form order.
The 1st letter names the type of that syllogisms major
premise; the 2nd letter names the type of that syllogisms
minor premise; the 3rd letter names the type of its
conclusion.
Every syllogism has a mood.
-7
Figure
The logical shape of a syllogism, determined by the position
of the middle term in its premises
Syllogisms can have fourand only fourpossible different
figures:
Schematic
Representation
Description
4th Figure
PM
MS
.. S P
The middle
term may
be
the
predicate
term
of
the major
premise
and
the
subject
term
of
the minor
premise.
SIENNA A. FLORES
CHAPTER 8
SYLLOGISM IN ORDINARY LANGUAGE
8.1 Syllogistic Arguments
Syllogistic Argument
An Argument that is standard-form categorical syllogism, or
can be formulated as one without any change in meaning.
Reduction to Standard Form
Reformulation of a syllogistic argument into standard for.
Standard-Form Translation
The resulting argument when we reformulate a loosely put
argument appearing in ordinary language into classical
syllogism
Different Ways in Which a Syllogistic Argument in Ordinary
Language may Deviate from a Standard-Form Categorical
Argument:
First Deviation
The premises and conclusion of an argument in ordinary
language may appear in an order that is not the order of
the standard-form syllogism
Remedy: Reordering the premises: the major premise first,
the minor premise second, the conclusion third.
Second Deviation
A standard-form categorical syllogism always has exactly 3
terms. The premises of an argument in ordinary language
may appear to involve more than 3 terms but that
appearance might prove deceptive.
Remedy: If the number of terms can be reduced to 3 w/o
loss of meaning the reduction to standard form may be
successful.
Third Deviation
The component propositions of the syllogistic argument in
ordinary language may not all be standard-form
propositions.
Remedy: If the components can be converted into
standard-form propositions w/o loss of meaning, the
reduction to standard form may be successful.
-8
Unit Class
o
SIENNA A. FLORES
Parameter
An auxiliary symbol that aids in reformulating an assertion
into standard form
Uniform Translation
Reducing propositions into standard-form syllogistic
argument by using parameters or other techniques.
8.5 Enthymemes
Enthymeme
An argument containing an unstated proposition
An incompletely stated argument is characterized a being
enthymematic
First-Order Enthymeme
An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition
that is taken for granted is the major premise
Second-Order Enthymeme
An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition
that is taken for granted is the minor premise
Third-Order Enthymeme
An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition
that is left unstated is the conclusion
8.6 Sorites
Sorites
An argument in which a conclusion is inferred from any
number of premises through a chain of syllogistic inferences
8.7 Disjunctive and Hypothetical Syllogism
Disjunctive Syllogism
A form of argument in which one premise is a disjunction
and the conclusion claims the truth of one of the disjuncts
Only some disjunctive syllogisms are valid
Hypothetical Syllogism
A form of argument containing at least one conditional
proposition as a premise.
-9
conditional
premise
and
one
Truth-Functional Component
Any component of a compound statement whose
replacement by another statement having the same truth
value would not change the truth value of the compound
statement
Devising a counterdilemma
One constructs another dilemma whose conclusion is opposed
to the conclusion of the original
Any counterdilemma may be used in rebuttal, but ideally it
should be built up out of the same ingredients (categorical
propositions) that the original dilemma contained
CHAPTER 9
SYMBOLIC LOGIC
9.1 Modern Logic and Its Symbolic Language
Symbols
Greatly facilitate our thinking about arguments
Enable us to get to the heart of an argument, exhibiting its
essential nature and putting aside what is not essential
SIENNA A. FLORES
Truth-Functional Connective
Any logical connective (including conjunction, disjunction,
material implication, and material equivalence) between the
components of a truth-functional compound statement.
Simple Statement
Any statement that is not truth functionally compound
p
T
T
F
F
q
T
F
T
F
pq
T
F
F
F
- 10
Negation/Denial/Contradictory (~)
symbolized by the tilde or curl (~)
often formed by the insertion of not in the original
statement
Disjunction/Alteration (v)
A truth-functional connective meaning or
It has a weak (inclusive) sense, symbolized by the wedge
(v) (or vee), and a strong (exclusive) sense.
2 components combined are called disjuncts or alternatives
p
T
T
F
F
q
T
F
T
F
~q
F
T
F
T
p~q
F
T
F
F
~ (p~q)
T
F
T
T
q
T
F
T
T
Material Implication
A truth-functional relation symbolized by the horseshoe ( )
that may connect 2 statements
The statement p materially implies q is true when either p
is false, or q is true
p
T
T
F
F
q
T
F
T
F
Note: This method is based upon the fact that validity and invalidity
are purely formal characteristics of arguments, which is to say that
any 2 arguments having exactly the same form are either both valid
or invalid, regardless of any differences in the subject matter which
they are concerned.
Statement Variable
A letter (lower case) for which a statement may be
substituted.
Argument Form
An array of symbols exhibiting the logical structure of an
argument, it contains statement variables, but no
statements
Substitution Instance of an Argument Form
Any argument that results from the consistent substitution
of statements for statement variables in an argument form
Specific Form of an Argument
The argument form from which the given argument results
when a different simple statement is substituted for each
different statement variable.
9.5 The Precise Meaning of Invalid and Valid
Invalid Argument Form
An argument form that has at least one substitution
instance with true premises and a false conclusion
Valid Argument Form
An argument form that has no substitution instances with
true premises and a false conclusion
9.6 Testing Argument Validity on Truth Tables
Truth Table
An array on which the validity of an argument form may be
tested, through the display of all possible combinations of
the truth values of the statement variables contained in that
form
9.7 Some Common Argument Forms
Disjunctive Syllogism
A valid argument form in which one premise is a
disjunction, another premise is the denial of one of the two
disjuncts, and the conclusion is the truth of the other
disjunct
pvq
~p
q
q
T
F
T
T
SIENNA A. FLORES
pvq
T
T
T
F
Punctuation
The parentheses brackets, and braces used in symbolic
language to eliminate ambiguity in meaning
In any formula the negation symbol will be understood to
apply to the smallest statement that the punctuation permits
p
T
T
F
F
p
T
T
F
F
q
T
F
T
F
pvq
T
T
T
F
~p
F
F
T
T
- 11
Modus Ponens
A valid argument that relies upon a conditional premise, and
in which another premise affirms the antecedent of that
conditional, and the conclusion affirms its consequent
p
q
p
q
p
T
T
F
F
q
T
F
T
F
q
T
F
T
T
Modus Tollens
A valid argument that relies upon a conditional premise, and
in which another premise denies the consequent of that
conditional, and the conclusion denies its antecedent
p q
~q
~p
p
T
T
F
F
q
T
F
T
F
~p
F
F
T
T
r
T
F
T
F
T
F
T
F
q
T
T
F
F
T
T
T
T
r
T
F
T
T
T
F
T
T
p
T
T
F
F
r
T
F
T
F
T
T
T
T
SIENNA A. FLORES
q)
p]
Materially Equivalent ( )
A truth-functional relation asserting that 2 statements
connected by the three-bar sign ( ) have the same truth
value
p q
q r
p r
Q
T
T
F
F
T
T
F
F
p v ~p
T
T
Peirces Law
A tautological statement of the form [(p
Hypothetical Syllogism
A valid argument containing only conditional propositions
p
T
T
T
T
F
F
F
F
~p
F
T
Contingent Form
A statement form that has both true and false substitution
instances
~q
F
T
F
T
T
F
T
T
p
T
F
q
T
F
T
F
q
T
F
F
T
Biconditional Statement
A compound statement that asserts that its 2 component
statements imply one another and therefore are materially
equivalent
The Four Truth-Functional Connective
Symbol
Proposition
Names of
(Name of
Type
Components of
Symbol)
Propositions of
that Type
And
(dot)
Conjunction
Conjuncts
Or
V (wedge)
Disjunction
Disjuncts
Ifthen
(horseshoe)
Conditional
Antecedent,
consequent
If and only if
(tribar)
Biconditional
Components
TruthFunctional
Connective
- 12
p
T
F
~p
F
T
~~p
T
F
p ~~p
T
T
Note: This table proves that p and ~~p are logically equivalent.
Material equivalence: a truth-functional connective, , which may be
true or false depending only upon the truth or falsity of the elements it
connects
Logical Equivalence: not a mere connective, and it expresses a
relation between 2 statements that is not truth-functional
Note: 2 statements are logically equivalent only when it is absolutely
impossible for them to have different truth values.
p
pvq
~(p v q)
~p
~q
~p~q
T
T
F
F
T
F
T
F
T
T
T
F
F
F
F
T
F
F
T
T
F
T
F
T
F
F
F
T
~(p v q)
(~p~q)
T
T
T
T
De Morgans Theorems
Two useful logical equivalences
o
(1) The negation of the disjunction of 2 statements
is logically equivalent to the conjunction of the
negations of the 2 disjuncts
o
(2) the negation of the conjunction of 2 statements
is logically equivalent to the disjunction of the
negations of the 2 conjuncts
9 RULES OF INFERENCE:
ELEMENTARY VALID ARGUMENT FORMS
NAME
ABBREV.
FORM
1. Modus Ponens
M.P.
p q
p
q
2. Modus Tollens
M.T.
p q
~q
~p
3. Hypothetical Syllogism
H.S.
p q
q r
p r
4. Disjunctive Syllogism
D.S
pvq
~p
q
5. Constructive Dilemma
C.D.
(p q) (r s)
pvr
qvs
6. Absorption
Abs.
p q
p (p q)
7. Simplification
Simp.
pq
p
8. Conjunction
Conj.
p
q
pq
9. Addition
Add.
p
pvq
Principle of Identity
If any statement is true, it is true.
Every statement of the form p p must be true
o
Every such statement is a tautology
Rule of Replacement
The rule that logically equivalent expressions may replace
each other
Note: this is very different from that of substitution
Principle of Noncontradiction
No statement can be both true and false
Every statement of the form p~p must be false
o
Every such statement is self-contradictory
Principle of Excluded Middle
Every statement is either true or false
Every statement of the form p v ~ p must be true
Every such statement is a tautology
CHAPTER 10
METHODS OF DEDUCTION
RULES OF REPLACEMENT:
LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT EXPRESSIONS
NAME
ABBREV.
FORM
10. De Morgans
De M.
~(p q)
(~ p v ~q)
Theorem
~(p v q)
11. Commutation
Com.
12. Association
Assoc.
13. Distribution
Dist.
14. Double
Negation
15. Transportation
16. Material
Implication
17. Material
Equivalence
D.N.
(p v q)
Natural Deduction
A method of providing the validity of a deductive argument
by using the rules of inference
Using natural deduction we can proved a formal proof of the
validity of an argument that is valid
Formal Proof of Validity
A sequence of statements, each of which is either a premise
of a given argument or is deduced, suing the rules of
inference, from preceding statements in that sequence, such
that the last statement in the sequence is the conclusion of
the argument whose validity is being proved
Elementary Valid Argument
Any one of a set of specified deductive arguments that serves
as a rule of inference & can be used to construct a formal
proof of validity
SIENNA A. FLORES
(q v p)
(p q)
[(p v q) v r]
[p (q r)]
[(p q) r]
[p (q v r)]
[(p q) (p r)]
[p v (q r)]
Trans.
(p
Imp.
Equiv.
(p
(p
(p
18. Exportation
Exp.
19. Tautology
Taut.
(q p)
[p v (q v r)]
(~ p ~q)
~~ p
q)
(~q
q)
q)
q)
[(p v q) (p v r)]
~p)
(~p v q)
[(p
q) (q
p)]
[(p q)
r]
[p
(p v p)
(p p)
(q
r)]
- 13
SIENNA A. FLORES
- 14
Universal
Instantiation
Universal
Generalization
Existential
Instantiation
Existential
Generalization
SIENNA A. FLORES