DOCSLIB.ORG

Fundamental Methods of Logic Matthew Knachel University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, [email protected]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fundamental Methods of Logic Matthew Knachel University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, Knachel@Uwm.Edu University of Wisconsin Milwaukee UWM Digital Commons Philosophy Faculty Books Philosophy 2017 Fundamental Methods of Logic Matthew Knachel University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.uwm.edu/phil_facbooks Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Knachel, Matthew, "Fundamental Methods of Logic" (2017). Philosophy Faculty Books. 1. https://dc.uwm.edu/phil_facbooks/1 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by UWM Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Faculty Books by an authorized administrator of UWM Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FUNDAMENTAL METHODS OF LOGIC Fundamental Methods of Logic Matthew Knachel UWM Libraries University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee This book is published by the UW-Milwaukee Library Digital Commons and is available free of charge at this site: http://dc.uwm.edu/phil_facbooks/1 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For details, visit this site: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode Cover Art by Dan Williams Recommended citation: Knachel, Matthew, "Fundamental Methods of Logic" (2017). Philosophy Faculty Books. 1. http://dc.uwm.edu/phil_facbooks/1 ISBN: 978-0-9961502-2-4 For my girls, Rose and Alice Preface There’s an ancient view, still widely held, that what makes human beings special—what distinguishes us from the “beasts of the field”—is that we are rational. What does rationality consist in? That’s a vexed question, but one possible response goes roughly like this: we manifest our rationality by engaging in activities that involve reasoning—making claims and backing them up with reasons, acting in accord with reasons and beliefs, drawing inferences from available evidence, and so on. This reasoning activity can be done well and it can be done badly—it can be done correctly or incorrectly. Logic is the discipline that aims to distinguish good reasoning from bad. Since reasoning is central to all fields of study—indeed, since it’s arguably central to being human—the tools developed in logic are universally applicable. Anyone can benefit from studying logic by becoming a more self-aware, skillful reasoner. This covers a variety of topics at an introductory level. Chapter One introduces basic notions, such as arguments and explanations, validity and soundness, deductive and inductive reasoning; it also covers basic analytical techniques, such as distinguishing premises from conclusions and diagramming arguments. Chapter Two discusses informal logical fallacies. Chapters Three and Four concern deductive logic, introducing the basics of Aristotelian and Sentential Logic, respectively. Chapters Five and Six concern inductive logic. Chapter Five deals with analogical and causal reasoning, including a discussion of Mill’s Methods. Chapter Six covers basic probability calculations, Bayesian inference, fundamental statistical concepts and techniques, and common statistical fallacies. The text is suitable for a one-semester introductory logic or “critical thinking” course. The emphasis is on formal techniques and problem solving rather than analytical writing, though exercises of the latter sort could easily be incorporated. A note on tone, style, and content. This book is written by an American teacher whose intended audience is American undergraduates; it is based on my lectures, developed over many years. Like the lectures, it assumes that some members of the intended audience lack an antecedent interest in the subject and may have trouble developing and maintaining enthusiasm to study it. It tries to compensate for this by adopting a casual style, using first- and second-person constructions, and by shamelessly trafficking in cultural references, lame jokes, and examples involving American current events. The result is a logic textbook with a somewhat unusual tone and a sometimes- narrow cultural perspective. Neither familiarity with the relevant cultural references, nor amusement at the lame jokes, is a prerequisite for understanding the material, but I thought it prudent to offer an apologia at the outset. Caveat lector. An acknowledgment of debts. The following books have influenced my teaching, and hence the present work: Virginia Klenk’s Understanding Symbolic Logic, John Norton’s How Science Works, Ian Hacking’s Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic, Darrell Huff’s How to Lie with Statistics, and Irving Copi and Carl Cohen’s Introduction to Logic. The influence of those last two books is particularly profound, as I note throughout this text. I am indebted to all my logic viii teachers over the years: Kurt Mosser, Michael Liston, Mark Kaplan, Richard Tierney, Steve Leeds, Joan Weiner, Ken Manders, Mark Wilson, and Nuel Belnap. Thanks to J.S. Holbrook for sending me examples of fallacies. For extensive logistical support, I’m indebted to Kristin Miller Woodward; I also thank her for arranging financial support through the UW-Milwaukee Library and Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, who have undertaken a project to encourage the development and adoption of open textbooks. My logic students over the years also deserve acknowledgment, especially those who have recently served as guinea pigs, learning from earlier drafts of this book. Without student feedback, there would be no book. Finally, and most importantly, I could not have completed this project without my wife Maggie’s constant support and forbearance. Contents Chapter 1 - The Basics of Logical Analysis 1 I. What is Logic? 1 II. Basic Notions: Propositions and Arguments 2 III. Recognizing and Explicating Arguments 3 Paraphrasing 4 Enthymemes: Tacit Propositions 6 Arguments vs. Explanations 7 IV. Deductive and Inductive Arguments 10 Deductive Arguments 11 Inductive Arguments 15 V. Diagramming Arguments 18 Independent Premises 18 Intermediate Premises 19 Joint Premises 20 Chapter 2 - Informal Logical Fallacies 29 I. Logical Fallacies: Formal and Informal 29 II. Fallacies of Distraction 31 Appeal to Emotion (Argumentum ad Populum) 31 Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum) 32 Straw Man 33 Red Herring 34 Argumentum ad Hominem 36 III. Fallacies of Weak Induction 30 Argument from Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam) 40 Appeal to Inappropriate Authority 42 Post hoc ergo propter hoc 43 Slippery Slope 44 Hasty Generalization 45 IV. Fallacies of Illicit Presumption 46 Accident 46 Begging the Question (Petitio Principii) 48 Loaded Questions 49 False Choice 51 Composition 52 Division 53 V. Fallacies of Linguistic Emphasis 53 Accent 54 Quoting out of Context 55 Equivocation 57 Manipulative Framing 59 x Chapter 3 – Deductive Logic I: Aristotelian Logic 68 I. Deductive Logics 68 II. Classes and Categorical Propositions 69 The Four Types of Categorical Proposition 71 Universal Affirmative (A) 71 Universal Negative (E) 74 Particular Affirmative (I) 74 Particular Negative (O) 76 A Note on Terminology 76 Standard Form for Sentences Expressing Categorical Propositions 77 III. The Square of Opposition 79 Contradictories 80 Contraries 81 Subcontraries 81 Subalterns 82 Inferences 83 IV. Operations on Categorical Sentences 84 Conversion 84 Obversion 86 Contraposition 87 Inferences 91 V. Problems with the Square of Opposition 96 Existential Import 97 Problems for the Square 97 Solution? 98 Boolean Solution 99 VI. Categorical Syllogisms 102 Logical Form 103 The Venn Diagram Test for Validity 104 Chapter 4 – Deductive Logic II: Sentential Logic 117 I. Why Another Deductive Logic? 117 II. Syntax of SL 120 Conjunctions 121 Disjunctions 121 Negations 121 Conditionals 122 Biconditionals 122 Punctuation – Parentheses 123 III. Semantics of SL 126 Negations (TILDE) 127 Conjunctions (DOT) 128 Disjunctions (WEDGE) 128 Biconditionals (TRIPLE-BAR) 129 Conditionals (HORSESHOE) 130 Computing Truth-Values of Compound SL Sentences 133 xi IV. Translating from English into SL 137 Tilde, Dot, Wedge 137 Horseshoe and Triple-Bar 140 V. Testing for Validity in SL 143 Logical Form in SL 143 The Truth Table Test for Validity 144 Chapter 5 – Inductive Logic I: Analogical and Causal Arguments 152 I. Inductive Logics 152 II. Arguments from Analogy 153 The Form of Analogical Arguments 153 The Evaluation of Analogical Arguments 156 Number of Analogues 157 Variety of Analogues 157 Number of Similarities 158 Number of Differences 158 Relevance of Similarities and Differences 159 Modesty/Ambition of the Conclusion 159 Refutation by Analogy 160 III. Causal Reasoning 163 The Meaning(s) of ‘Cause’ 164 Mill’s Methods 165 Method of Agreement 165 Method of Difference 166 Joint Method of Agreement and Difference 167 Method of Residues 167 Method of Concomitant Variation 168 The Difficulty of Isolating Causes 169 Chapter 6 – Inductive Logic II: Probability and Statistics 175 I. The Probability Calculus 175 Conjunctive Occurrences 176 Disjunctive Occurrences 180 II. Probability and Decision-Making: Value and Utility 187 III. Probability and Belief: Bayesian Reasoning 193 IV. Basic Statistical Concepts and Techniques 202 Averages: Mean vs. Median 202 Normal Distributions: Standard Deviation, Confidence Intervals 203 Statistical Inference: Hypothesis Testing 206 Statistical Inference: Sampling 212 V. How to Lie with Statistics 218 Impressive Numbers without Context 218 Misunderstanding Error 219 Tricky Percentages 222 The Base-Rate Fallacy 223 Lying with Pictures 226 CHAPTER 1 The Basics of Logical Analysis I. What Is Logic? In Logic, the object of study is reasoning. This is
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Argumentation and Fallacies in Creationist Writings Against Evolutionary Theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1
    Nieminen and Mustonen Evolution: Education and Outreach 2014, 7:11 http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Argumentation and fallacies in creationist writings against evolutionary theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1 Abstract Background: The creationist–evolutionist conflict is perhaps the most significant example of a debate about a well-supported scientific theory not readily accepted by the public. Methods: We analyzed creationist texts according to type (young earth creationism, old earth creationism or intelligent design) and context (with or without discussion of “scientific” data). Results: The analysis revealed numerous fallacies including the direct ad hominem—portraying evolutionists as racists, unreliable or gullible—and the indirect ad hominem, where evolutionists are accused of breaking the rules of debate that they themselves have dictated. Poisoning the well fallacy stated that evolutionists would not consider supernatural explanations in any situation due to their pre-existing refusal of theism. Appeals to consequences and guilt by association linked evolutionary theory to atrocities, and slippery slopes to abortion, euthanasia and genocide. False dilemmas, hasty generalizations and straw man fallacies were also common. The prevalence of these fallacies was equal in young earth creationism and intelligent design/old earth creationism. The direct and indirect ad hominem were also prevalent in pro-evolutionary texts. Conclusions: While the fallacious arguments are irrelevant when discussing evolutionary theory from the scientific point of view, they can be effective for the reception of creationist claims, especially if the audience has biases. Thus, the recognition of these fallacies and their dismissal as irrelevant should be accompanied by attempts to avoid counter-fallacies and by the recognition of the context, in which the fallacies are presented.
    [Show full text]
  • Founders' Day Gala White-Tailed Deer Bring Risk to Le Moyne
    Cross Country : NE I Love Wine Championship Opinion, 8 Sports, 7 Thursday, October 29, 2015 Read us online: thedolphinlmc.com Founders’ Day Gala Robert Dracker recieves award, in honor of the children Abigail Adams ‘16 EDITOR-IN-CHIEF What is Founders’ Day you might ask? According to Le Moyne, it is “the most prestigious event held at the college and both commemorates and celebrates the establishment of Le Moyne College.” It also presents the Simon Le Moyne Award to a lucky recipient for their outstanding leadership in the community. Add spectacular food selections [i.e. maple- infused mashed sweet potatoes], a rockin’ band [Todd Hobin and the Jazzuits] and lively conversation throughout the whole room. For one night, the athletic center is CREDIT/Syracuse.com transformed into a swanky “ballroom” filled with tables, food stations, a dance floor, stage, and bar. Elaborate floral White-tailed deer bring risk to Le Moyne arrangements graced every table and the lights morphed into children prancing Marisa DuVal ‘17 often brings negative results: increased “Traditional hunting has been across the backdrop. GUEST WRITER risk of accidents from deer crossing in most successful in controlling deer This year’s theme was celebrating front of cars, deer eating plants and[ populations,” said the DEC. “It’s most children, which was highlighted in There is a higher risk of contracting most importantly] increased risk of cost effective than other control several ways: a young student from Lyme Disease thanks to the many white- Lyme disease. methods because hunters provide much the Cathedral Academy at Pompei tailed deer who call Le Moyne home.
    [Show full text]
  • Arguments Vs. Explanations
    Arguments vs. Explanations Arguments and explanations share a lot of common features. In fact, it can be hard to tell the difference between them if you look just at the structure. Sometimes, the exact same structure can function as an argument or as an explanation depending on the context. At the same time, arguments are very different in terms of what they try to accomplish. Explaining and arguing are very different activities even though they use the same types of structures. In a similar vein, building something and taking it apart are two very different activities, but we typically use the same tools for both. Arguments and explanations both have a single sentence as their primary focus. In an argument, we call that sentence the “conclusion”, it’s what’s being argued for. In an explanation, that sentence is called the “explanandum”, it’s what’s being explained. All of the other sentences in an argument or explanation are focused on the conclusion or explanandum. In an argument, these other sentences are called “premises” and they provide basic reasons for thinking that the conclusion is true. In an explanation, these other sentences are called the “explanans” and provide information about how or why the explanandum is true. So in both cases we have a bunch of sentences all focused on one single sentence. That’s why it’s easy to confuse arguments and explanations, they have a similar structure. Premises/Explanans Conclusion/Explanandum What is an argument? An argument is an attempt to provide support for a claim. One useful way of thinking about this is that an argument is, at least potentially, something that could be used to persuade someone about the truth of the argument’s conclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • 7.1 Rules of Implication I
    Natural Deduction is a method for deriving the conclusion of valid arguments expressed in the symbolism of propositional logic. The method consists of using sets of Rules of Inference (valid argument forms) to derive either a conclusion or a series of intermediate conclusions that link the premises of an argument with the stated conclusion. The First Four Rules of Inference: ◦ Modus Ponens (MP): p q p q ◦ Modus Tollens (MT): p q ~q ~p ◦ Pure Hypothetical Syllogism (HS): p q q r p r ◦ Disjunctive Syllogism (DS): p v q ~p q Common strategies for constructing a proof involving the first four rules: ◦ Always begin by attempting to find the conclusion in the premises. If the conclusion is not present in its entirely in the premises, look at the main operator of the conclusion. This will provide a clue as to how the conclusion should be derived. ◦ If the conclusion contains a letter that appears in the consequent of a conditional statement in the premises, consider obtaining that letter via modus ponens. ◦ If the conclusion contains a negated letter and that letter appears in the antecedent of a conditional statement in the premises, consider obtaining the negated letter via modus tollens. ◦ If the conclusion is a conditional statement, consider obtaining it via pure hypothetical syllogism. ◦ If the conclusion contains a letter that appears in a disjunctive statement in the premises, consider obtaining that letter via disjunctive syllogism. Four Additional Rules of Inference: ◦ Constructive Dilemma (CD): (p q) • (r s) p v r q v s ◦ Simplification (Simp): p • q p ◦ Conjunction (Conj): p q p • q ◦ Addition (Add): p p v q Common Misapplications Common strategies involving the additional rules of inference: ◦ If the conclusion contains a letter that appears in a conjunctive statement in the premises, consider obtaining that letter via simplification.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Pragmatism and Scientific Realism Author(S): Cleo H
    Notes on Pragmatism and Scientific Realism Author(s): Cleo H. Cherryholmes Source: Educational Researcher, Vol. 21, No. 6, (Aug. - Sep., 1992), pp. 13-17 Published by: American Educational Research Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176502 Accessed: 02/05/2008 14:02 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aera. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We enable the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org Notes on Pragmatismand Scientific Realism CLEOH. CHERRYHOLMES Ernest R. House's article "Realism in plicit declarationof pragmatism. Here is his 1905 statement ProfessorResearch" (1991) is informative for the overview it of it: of scientificrealism.
    [Show full text]
  • Form and Explanation
    Form and Explanation Jonathan Kramnick and Anahid Nersessian What does form explain? More often than not, when it comes to liter- ary criticism, form explains everything. Where form refers “to elements of a verbal composition,” including “rhythm, meter, structure, diction, imagery,” it distinguishes ordinary from figurative utterance and thereby defines the literary per se.1 Where form refers to the disposition of those elements such that the work of which they are a part mimes a “symbolic resolution to a concrete historical situation,” it distinguishes real from vir- tual phenomena and thereby defines the task of criticism as their ongoing adjudication.2 Both forensic and exculpatory in their promise, form’s ex- planations have been applied to circumstances widely disparate in scale, character, and significance. This is nothing new, but a recent flurry of de- bates identifying new varieties of form has thrown the unruliness of its application into relief. Taken together, they suggest that to give an account of form is to contribute to the work of making sense of linguistic meaning, aesthetic production, class struggle, objecthood, crises in the humanities and of the planet, how we read, why we read, and what’s wrong with these queries of how and why. In this context, form explains what we cannot: what’s the point of us at all? Contemporary partisans of form maintain that their high opinion of its exegetical power is at once something new in the field and the field’s 1. René Wellek, “Concepts of Form and Structure in Twentieth-Century Criticism,” Concepts of Criticism (New Haven, Conn., 1963), p.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning to Spot Common Fallacies
    LEARNING TO SPOT COMMON FALLACIES We intend this article to be a resource that you will return to when the fallacies discussed in it come up throughout the course. Do not feel that you need to read or master the entire article now. We’ve discussed some of the deep-seated psychological obstacles to effective logical and critical thinking in the videos. This article sets out some more common ways in which arguments can go awry. The defects or fallacies presented here tend to be more straightforward than psychological obstacles posed by reasoning heuristics and biases. They should, therefore, be easier to spot and combat. You will see though, that they are very common: keep an eye out for them in your local paper, online, or in arguments or discussions with friends or colleagues. One reason they’re common is that they can be quite effective! But if we offer or are convinced by a fallacious argument we will not be acting as good logical and critical thinkers. Species of Fallacious Arguments The common fallacies are usefully divided into three categories: Fallacies of Relevance, Fallacies of Unacceptable Premises, and Formal Fallacies. Fallacies of Relevance Fallacies of relevance offer reasons to believe a claim or conclusion that, on examination, turn out to not in fact to be reasons to do any such thing. 1. The ‘Who are you to talk?’, or ‘You Too’, or Tu Quoque Fallacy1 Description: Rejecting an argument because the person advancing it fails to practice what he or she preaches. Example: Doctor: You should quit smoking. It’s a serious health risk.
    [Show full text]
  • Treehouse of Horror: Dead Mans Jest Free
    FREE TREEHOUSE OF HORROR: DEAD MANS JEST PDF Matt Groening | 123 pages | 01 Sep 2008 | HarperCollins Publishers Inc | 9780061571350 | English | New York, NY, United States The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror Dead Man's Jest - Wikisimpsons, the Simpsons Wiki That is one of the many stories in which there are self-referential jokes, a nice touch that Simpsons fans will find amusing. There are secondary plot lines in two of the stories about comics, the comic industry, and the challenges to comics over the years. These jokes will probably go over the heads of younger readers, but they should get enough to find them funny. Inserts between comic Treehouse of Horror: Dead Mans Jest allow Bart time to tell readers how to craft a great haunted house or which candy to avoid. These are funny and add a touch of MAD Magazine to the whole book. Simpsons comics tend to circulate until they fall apart, so libraries will be happy to know that the binding for this oversized graphic novel feels tight and sturdy. A nice choice for libraries looking for horror silliness Treehouse of Horror: Dead Mans Jest a great selection for fans of The Simpsons. Snow Wildsmith is a writer and former teen librarian. Printz Award Committee. Currently she is working on her first books, a nonfiction series for teens. Please visit the original post to see the rest of the […]. Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting. Follow This Blog:. Filed Under: Graphic NovelsReviews. About Snow Wildsmith Snow Wildsmith is a writer and former teen librarian.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fallacy of Composition and Meta-Argumentation"
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Scholarship at UWindsor University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 10 May 22nd, 9:00 AM - May 25th, 5:00 PM Commentary on: Maurice Finocchiaro's "The fallacy of composition and meta-argumentation" Michel Dufour Sorbonne-Nouvelle, Institut de la Communication et des Médias Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive Part of the Philosophy Commons Dufour, Michel, "Commentary on: Maurice Finocchiaro's "The fallacy of composition and meta- argumentation"" (2013). OSSA Conference Archive. 49. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA10/papersandcommentaries/49 This Commentary is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences and Conference Proceedings at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in OSSA Conference Archive by an authorized conference organizer of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Commentary on: Maurice Finocchiaro’s “The fallacy of composition and meta-argumentation” MICHEL DUFOUR Department «Institut de la Communication et des Médias» Sorbonne-Nouvelle 13 rue Santeuil 75231 Paris Cedex 05 France [email protected] 1. INTRODUCTION In his paper on the fallacy of composition, Maurice Finocchiaro puts forward several important theses about this fallacy. He also uses it to illustrate his view that fallacies should be studied in light of the notion of meta-argumentation at the core of his recent book (Finocchiaro, 2013). First, he expresses his puzzlement. Some authors have claimed that this fallacy is quite common (this is the ubiquity thesis) but it seems to have been neglected by scholars.
    [Show full text]
  • Fallacies in Reasoning
    FALLACIES IN REASONING FALLACIES IN REASONING OR WHAT SHOULD I AVOID? The strength of your arguments is determined by the use of reliable evidence, sound reasoning and adaptation to the audience. In the process of argumentation, mistakes sometimes occur. Some are deliberate in order to deceive the audience. That brings us to fallacies. I. Definition: errors in reasoning, appeal, or language use that renders a conclusion invalid. II. Fallacies In Reasoning: A. Hasty Generalization-jumping to conclusions based on too few instances or on atypical instances of particular phenomena. This happens by trying to squeeze too much from an argument than is actually warranted. B. Transfer- extend reasoning beyond what is logically possible. There are three different types of transfer: 1.) Fallacy of composition- occur when a claim asserts that what is true of a part is true of the whole. 2.) Fallacy of division- error from arguing that what is true of the whole will be true of the parts. 3.) Fallacy of refutation- also known as the Straw Man. It occurs when an arguer attempts to direct attention to the successful refutation of an argument that was never raised or to restate a strong argument in a way that makes it appear weaker. Called a Straw Man because it focuses on an issue that is easy to overturn. A form of deception. C. Irrelevant Arguments- (Non Sequiturs) an argument that is irrelevant to the issue or in which the claim does not follow from the proof offered. It does not follow. D. Circular Reasoning- (Begging the Question) supports claims with reasons identical to the claims themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • Immediate Inference
    Immediate Inference Dr Desh Raj Sirswal, Assistant Professor (Philosophy) P.G. Govt. College for Girls, Sector-11, Chandigarh http://drsirswal.webs.com . Inference Inference is the act or process of deriving a conclusion based solely on what one already knows. Inference has two types: Deductive Inference and Inductive Inference. They are deductive, when we move from the general to the particular and inductive where the conclusion is wider in extent than the premises. Immediate Inference Deductive inference may be further classified as (i) Immediate Inference (ii) Mediate Inference. In immediate inference there is one and only one premise and from this sole premise conclusion is drawn. Immediate inference has two types mentioned below: Square of Opposition Eduction Here we will know about Eduction in details. Eduction The second form of Immediate Inference is Eduction. It has three types – Conversion, Obversion and Contraposition. These are not part of the square of opposition. They involve certain changes in their subject and predicate terms. The main concern is to converse logical equivalence. Details are given below: Conversion An inference formed by interchanging the subject and predicate terms of a categorical proposition. Not all conversions are valid. Conversion grounds an immediate inference for both E and I propositions That is, the converse of any E or I proposition is true if and only if the original proposition was true. Thus, in each of the pairs noted as examples either both propositions are true or both are false. Steps for Conversion Reversing the subject and the predicate terms in the premise. Valid Conversions Convertend Converse A: All S is P.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 10: Symbolic Trails and Formal Proofs of Validity, Part 2
    Essential Logic Ronald C. Pine CHAPTER 10: SYMBOLIC TRAILS AND FORMAL PROOFS OF VALIDITY, PART 2 Introduction In the previous chapter there were many frustrating signs that something was wrong with our formal proof method that relied on only nine elementary rules of validity. Very simple, intuitive valid arguments could not be shown to be valid. For instance, the following intuitively valid arguments cannot be shown to be valid using only the nine rules. Somalia and Iran are both foreign policy risks. Therefore, Iran is a foreign policy risk. S I / I Either Obama or McCain was President of the United States in 2009.1 McCain was not President in 2010. So, Obama was President of the United States in 2010. (O v C) ~(O C) ~C / O If the computer networking system works, then Johnson and Kaneshiro will both be connected to the home office. Therefore, if the networking system works, Johnson will be connected to the home office. N (J K) / N J Either the Start II treaty is ratified or this landmark treaty will not be worth the paper it is written on. Therefore, if the Start II treaty is not ratified, this landmark treaty will not be worth the paper it is written on. R v ~W / ~R ~W 1 This or statement is obviously exclusive, so note the translation. 427 If the light is on, then the light switch must be on. So, if the light switch in not on, then the light is not on. L S / ~S ~L Thus, the nine elementary rules of validity covered in the previous chapter must be only part of a complete system for constructing formal proofs of validity.
    [Show full text]