Modern Logic PHIL 206 Spring 2008

Buckman 110, MWF 2:00 – 2:50

Professor Terjesen Clough 402B;843-3577 [email protected] Office Hours: MF 3-4, T 2-3, TH 1:30 – 3:30 (Middle Ground) & by appt. Robert Leonard [Middle Ground] Sun 7-8

Course Description:

This course is an introduction to the basic principles of reasoning and argumentation as practiced in a number of contexts, including science and the law, as well as an exploration of why we are justified in relying on these principles. Much of the class will be focused on what is called formal logic. In formal logic, are stripped of their content so that all that remains are the logical connections between statements. Once all the distractions are gone, one can begin to see what can be inferred merely from the logical relationships between the statements. By the end of the course, you should be able to construct proofs in the first level of formal logic (propositional logic). In addition, you will have been exposed to some elements of higher order logic. However, this course is not just an exercise in formal logic. Time will also be spent examining how the concepts of formal logic in conjunction with the concepts of informal logic (such as induction, the recognition of , and practical reasoning) can enable us to evaluate everyday reasoning, with special attention paid to the application of these concepts to legal reasoning. As a result, this course should also help you hone your skills in constructing (and evaluating) any kind of : an analytic paper, a persuasive essay, a class presentation, a debate, and so forth.

Course Texts: Colin Allen and Michael Hand. Logic Primer, 2nd Edition. MIT Press, 2002. [LP] Martin Golding. Legal Reasoning. Broadview Press, 2001. [LR] Rebecca Goldstein. Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel. WW Norton, 2006. [I] Madison Pirie. How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic. Continuum, 2006. [HW] Supplementary Readings Available Online

Course Website:

This course will use Moodle to provide students with information and supplementary readings where applicable. You should have been enrolled in the Moodle site for this course as you were enrolled with Banner. To access Moodle, go to the Rhodes login [the button on the main Rhodes site] and click on Moodle. Your id and password will be the same as you use to log on to a Rhodes computer. Moodle can be accessed from off-campus.

Course Evaluation: Quizzes 20% First Exam 15% Second Exam 15% Third Exam 30% Homework 10% Participation 10%

Each of the requirements must be satisfied in order to pass the course.

HOMEWORK. There will be 12 Homework assignments throughout the semester [each week excluding weeks of exams] handed in on Mondays. Each completed assignment is worth 1% of the final Homework grade.

QUIZZES. There will be 10 Inclass Quizzes [6 will be scheduled, 4 will not]. Each quiz will cover material previously covered in class [most likely, but not always, within the last week].

EXAMS. Each exam will be cumulative up until the point of that exam. The first two exams will be 50 minutes, while the third will be two and a half hours.

PARTICIPATION. You will get the most out of the philosophical aspects of this class by engaging in discussions about the material with your fellow students. However, due to the very large nature of the class, some participation will need to be arranged as casual presentations. In addition, since folks can be intimidated by logic, some of the participation will be “forced” as well.

Grading:

Student work will be assessed according to the grading regulations listed in the Rhodes College Catalogue:

A (96) – Excellent B (84) – Good C (72) – Satisfactory D (60) – Passing F (55) – Failure

P – To earn a passing grade, students must get at least a D- in each element of the course evaluation. .

Course Schedule

1/9 Introduction Reading: Ignorantio Elenchi (HW 94) and (HW 136) 1/11 NO CLASS - Workshop

1/14 Discovery versus Justification Reading: LR 1-10 Genetic (HW 82) 1/16 Bias and What to Do About It Reading: LR 11-27 Emotional Appeals (HW 55), Argumentum ad Misericordiam (HW 109) and (HW 128) 1/18 Relativism and Argumentation Reading: I Intro (pp. 13-51)

1/21 NO CLASS – MLK, Jr. Day 1/23 Formalization Reading: I Chap. 2 (pp. 121-145) LP 1.1 Petitio Principii (HW 123) 1/25 Sentences and Negation Reading: LP 1.2, 1.3 and 2.1 (only concerning negation, sentence letters and metavariables)

1/28 Conjunction and Disjunction Reading: LP 1.2, 1.3, and 2.1 (only concerning conjunction and disjunction) Bifurcation (HW 19) 1/30 The Conditional Reading: LP 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 2.1 (only concerning conditional and biconditional) (HW 7) and (HW 49) 2/1 More With the Conditional

2/4 Assumptions Reading: LP 1.4 [all rules except Arrow-Elim and RAA] Unaccepted Enthymemes (HW 166), (HW 151) and (HW 29) 2/6 Proofs Reading: LP 2.1 and 2.4 Strawman (HW 155) 2/8 Practice with Proofs

2/11 FIRST EXAM 2/13 Definitions Reading: Definitional Retreat (HW 46), (HW 58), Hedging (HW 86) and Loaded Words (HW 106) 2/15 Reductio ad Absurdum Reading: LP 1.4 [RAA] Contradictory Premises (HW 38)

2/18 Platonism and the Nature of Truth Reading: I Chap 1 (pp. 53-73) (HW 140) 2/20 Conditional Proofs Reading: LP 1.4 [Arrow-Introduction] Bogus Dilemma (HW 24) 2/22 The Logic of Personal Attacks Reading: Argumentum (Abusive) (HW p. 88), Argumentum ad Hominem (Circumstantial) (HW p. 90), (HW p. 164)

2/25 Logical Positivism and Analytic Statements Reading: I Chap 1 (pp. 73-90) LP 1.5 and 2.3 2/27 Proving Theorems Reading: LP 1.6

2/29 The Paradox of Material Implication and Modal Logic Reading: Kenneth Konyndyk, Introductory Modal Logic [Moodle]

3/3 NO CLASS – SPRING BREAK 3/5 NO CLASS – SPRING BREAK 3/7 NO CLASS – SPRING BREAK

3/10 Induction Reading: LR 43-49 Abusive analogy (HW p. 1) John Burbidge, Within Reason [Moodle] 3/12 Inductive Fallacies Reading: (HW 5), Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (HW 41), Dicto Simpliciter (HW 51), Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (HW 131), Secundum Quid (HW 145) 3/14 Problem of Induction Reading: Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Fooled By Randomness [Moodle]

3/17 Conspiracy Theories Reading: I Chap. IV [pages 234-261] Brian Keeley, “Of Conspiracy Theories” [Moodle] Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (HW 92), Shifting the Burden of Proof (HW 149) 3/19 Formalizing Induction and Nature of Probability Reading: Graham Priest, Logic: A Very Short Introduction [Moodle] Brian Skyrms, Choice and Chance [Moodle] The gambler’s fallacy (HW 79) 3/21 NO CLASS – EASTER BREAK

3/24 SECOND EXAM 3/26 Precedent and Analogy Reading: LR 97-125 Analogical Fallacy (HW 11), Argumentum ad Numeram (HW 118), Argumentum ad Verecundiam (HW 173) 3/28 Nondeductive Arguments Reading: LR 42, 55-60, and 86-89 Blaise Pascal, Pensees [Moodle] (HW 17), Argumentam ad Crumenam (HW 39), (HW 153), (HW 176)

3/31 Deontic Logic Reading: Georg Henrik von Wright, “Deontic Logic” [Moodle] 4/2 Aristotelian Logic Reading: William Edgar, The Problem Solver’s Guide to Logic [Moodle] Concealed Quantification (HW 33), The (HW 67), Half- concealed Quantification (HW 83) 4/4 Predicates and Venn Diagrams Reading: LP 3.1 [to page 58] and 3.2 [to page 69] Composition (HW 31), Division (HW 53), Quaternio terminorum (HW 133)

4/7 Universals Reading: LP 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 [all pertaining to universals and universal rules] False Conversion (HW 75); Illicit Process (HW 97); The undistributed middle (HW 168) 4/9 Existentials Reading: LP 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 [all pertaining to existentials and existential rules] Positive conclusion from negative premises (HW 130) 4/11 and Many-valued Logics Reading: Stephen Read, Thinking About Logic [Moodle]

4/14 Simple Proofs in Predicate Logic Reading: LP 3.4 4/16 Completeness and Consistency in Formal Logic Reading: I Chapter III (to 164) E.J. Lemmon, Beginning Logic [Moodle] 4/18 Semantic Paradoxes and Minimalism about Truth Reading: W.V. Quine, Philosophy of Logic [Moodle] Argumentum (HW 111)

4/21 Godel’s Proofs Reading: I Chapter III (pp. 164-188) 4/23 Wittgenstein Reading: I Chapter II (pp. 90-120 and 188-194) 4/25 NO CLASS – URCAS

5/3 THIRD (AND FINAL) EXAM – 1 PM

Disabilities Accommodation Policy (from the College Catalogue, p. 43):

Rhodes is committed to ensuring that educational programs are accessible to all qualified students in accordance with the provisions of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and expanded by Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To guard against discrimination on the basis of disability, reasonable and appropriate accommodations, academic adjustments, and/or auxiliary aids are determined on a case-by-case basis for students who have a demonstrated need for these services. It is the student’s responsibility to initiate any request for accommodation due to a qualifying disability. Once students are enrolled, the Coordinator of Student Disability Services is the point of contact for students with physical, psychological, learning and attentional disabilities. The Coordinator of Student Disability Services confers with students on an individual basis, then together with the Disability Support Committee, determines appropriate accommodations and identifies needed resources.

Make-up and Lateness Policy:

If a legitimate excuse [medical or school-sanctioned] prevents you from taking an exam or quiz, you may make it up as long as you contact me within a reasonable period of time. Similarly, homework due for a class that you missed because of a legitimate excuse maybe handed in the next class you attend (but not after).

Attendance Policy:

Philosophy is as much a group-activity as it is a solitary one. Consequently, being in class is an important part of the learning process as we talk about various philosophical issues. You are expected to attend every class. Missing more than two classes will lower your participation/presentation grade by 1/3 (a + or -) per extra missed class [“excused” or “unexcused”].

Honor Code

The Honor Code states that all work submitted must be your own. You are encouraged to discuss the assignments (including the reading questions) with other students in the class or myself, but only in order to help your understanding. All work you submit must be the product of your own effort and you should never dictate to someone else the “best answer.”