DOCSLIB.ORG

Getting Further Into Nonfiction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Getting Further Into Nonfiction Reading Lesson 12: Getting Further into Nonfiction READING LESSON 12: GETTING FURTHER INTO NONFICTION There are different types of fiCtion, but there are even more subCategories of nonfiCtion. Our first division Comes when we piCk up a book and determine whether it is a praCtiCal book or a theoretiCal one. PraCtiCal books help us in the area of how to do something or what aCtually works in some way. TheoretiCal books are about something that is to be seen or understood. Books about ethiCs, although it may seem theoretiCal at first, are aCtually essentially practical because they’re telling us how to live our lives—what we should or shouldn’t do, and what rewards/punishments are attaChed to behavior. So if a book is about how to make Changes in your life or how to learn a skill or how to relate better to other people, that would be practical. TheoretiCal books can be further subdivided into history, science, and philosophy. • History deals with things that existed or events that oCCurred on particular dates. • SCience seeks laws or generalizations, not things that happened only once. • Philosophy seeks generalities like sCienCe, but has more to do with daily human 12 experienCe than things that Can be reproduCed or disCovered in a lab. History is especially relevant to our study of the Bible. There are different theories behind the writing of history, just as there are different theories of translation. Every person who ever wrote history from their own experienCe is affeCted by his or her perspeCtive on the event. And just as there are two sides to any argument, there is always more than one perspeCtive on what aCtually happened in any given situation or what the motives were behind it. So the first rule of reading history is to read more than one aCCount of any period or event if we really want to understand it. This is espeCially important to us if the event we want to know about has some praCtiCal importanCe in our lives. It’s very helpful that God gave us four eyewitness aCCounts of Christ’s life instead of just one. By Comparing the similarities and differences of the resurreCtion aCCounts in four Gospels, for example, we Can put together a muCh better aCCount of the events and the theologiCal impliCations of it than if we had only one. And this matters to us, beCause whether Jesus really rose from the dead or not has extreme praCtiCal signifiCanCe! 65 Let’s Learn! It is important to remember that the historian must always make up something. He must either find a general pattern in, or impose one, on events; or he must suppose that he knows why the person in his story did the things they did.1 Even if someone is trying to write history as it happens or to write something about the very reCent past, we should always be aware that books or artiCles like this want to prove something. The author of a modern biography or politiCal tell-all or a book about the spread of AIDS in AfriCa is putting things in a Certain light to get people to either believe something is/was real or to get them to take aCtion in some way. This isn’t sinister. Every author must have an agenda for everything they write, otherwise they wouldn’t have been inspired to take the time and effort to write a book or article! Even a journalist “objeCtively” reporting stories has an agenda—to meet a deadline, provide juiCy news that sells papers, to make a name for him/herself, etC. So when we read history—modern or anCient— we do well to seek what the author’s agenda may be. It’s very important to notiCe whether an author is baCking up his proposition with supporting reasons or sourCes. If they’re not, his perspeCtive is just a matter of personal opinion or even deliberate falsehood. Personal opinions in literature may still be worthwhile, espeCially if the author is an expert about his topic and is sharing personal experience to help you shortcut your own process, but you need to be able to reCognize that opinion writing is different than scholarly writing. A good example of this is a lot of popular books about propheCy. Even if they have a lot of footnotes about faCts, the way the author ConneCts dots about how/when things are going to play out is usually still his/her own opinion. It may be worth Consideration, but it needs to be held more loosely than the way we interpret other parts of sCripture that are more Clear. Every author makes assumptions. Try to notiCe what an author is assuming, either in the overall point of the book or on the detail level. Sometimes they will tell you direCtly that their argument is based on a Certain assumption, but other times they may not even be aware that they’re making an assumption. Books enCouraging Christians to support Israel assume that God still has a future plan for the nation. Many modern books assume a pantheistiC notion that everything is interConneCted on an energy-level. Self-help books may assume that humans are basiCally good or that if you try hard enough you Can aCComplish anything you want to. Many popular Christian books make assumptive Claims about God that ignore other aspeCts of his nature. Every author makes assumptions. The best ones will tell you direCtly what they’re assuming. 1 Fee and Stuart, page 233. 66 Reading Lesson 12: Getting Further into Nonfiction The first step to being a better nonfiCtion reader is to be consCious of whether you’re reading a practical book or a theoretical one, and then if it’s theoretical, whether it’s history, science, or philosophy. How to Read (Adler) has muCh more desCription about eaCh of these categories. After this, look for some struCture in the book. The best books have the most intelligible struCtures. You Can see how the book has an overall purpose, but then you Can see how that gets broken down into parts. Books are really fleshed-out outlines. Many people don’t Comprehend outlines very well when they try to read them, so they need the extra dimension of explanation and examples to be able to grasp the new ideas. When you think about it, if we just had a detailed outline for every book we read, we might be able to skip reading a lot of them beCause we got the main points (the ones we’d remember later, anyway). But that wouldn’t be very enjoyable, beCause reading outlines is hard work! Besides, sometimes it’s a partiCular detail or example that helps us understand what the main point was even about. Still, a book that cannot be outlined is usually not the highest quality book. An author ought to be working from an outline or he doesn’t know where he’s headed or how to get there. Along those lines, you as a reader ought to be able to summarize in general terms what a book is about if you have read it or you’re Currently reading it. It’s aCtually really Common for 12 readers to be unable to do this. It’s not a bad idea to stop every so often and think about how you’d answer if someone next to you on an airplane asked you what your book is about. Many authors make their most important points very Clear by the Chapter titles, seCtion headings, sidebars, or maybe even through detail markings like putting Certain statements in italics. These are important to notiCe. It’s a good idea to pre-read a book (which we’ll learn about next time), and if the book is partiCularly diffiCult, it may be a good idea for you to even plan to do a full skim-read (reading quiCkly and superfiCially without even worrying about things you don’t understand). Then go baCk and give it a more thorough reading, even Consulting Commentaries and reading the author’s footnotes or endnotes where neCessary. If you think that’s too muCh trouble, then it must mean you don’t Care very muCh about getting a full understanding of that book. That’s not neCessarily a bad thing, it’s just reality. Determining whiCh books to invest a lot of time in is part of the proCess! And while it may benefiCial to do a skim-read overall, it’s important to realize that learning how to read at different speeds is a great skill for every kind of reading, like shifting gears when you’re riding a bike. All books Contain material that Can be read through more quiCkly than other parts. Let yourself Coast sometimes. If you are always forCing yourself to read every word with Careful attention and Comprehension, it may bog you down and hold you baCk from getting the benefit of the overall flow. A suCCessful reading of a book doesn’t 67 Let’s Learn! always mean that you were attentive to every word. It may mean that you got what you need from the book in a quiCker way. You’re allowed to speed up and slow down, and you’re the only one who knows what you need in that regard! So, let’s say you’ve slowed down because you think you need to grasp this point, but it’s still hard. Realize that when you Come to a sentenCe you don’t understand; this is an important place for you.
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]
  • Section 6: Reporting Likelihood Ratios Components
    Section 6: Reporting Likelihood Ratios Components • Hierarchy of propositions • Formulating propositions • Communicating LRs Section 6 Slide 2 Likelihood Ratio The LR assigns a numerical value in favor or against one propo- sition over another: Pr(EjHp;I) LR = ; Pr(EjHd;I) where Hp typically aligns with the prosecution case, Hd is a reasonable alternative consistent with the defense case, and I is the relevant background information. Section 6 Slide 3 Setting Propositions • The value for the LR will depend on the propositions chosen: different sets of propositions will lead to different LRs. • Choosing the appropriate pair of propositions can therefore be just as important as the DNA analysis itself. Section 6 Slide 4 Hierarchy of Propositions Evett & Cook (1998) established the following hierarchy of propositions: Level Scale Example III Offense Hp: The suspect raped the complainant. Hd: Some other person raped the complainant. II Activity Hp: The suspect had intercourse with the complainant. Hd: Some other person had intercourse with the complainant. I Source Hp: The semen came from the suspect. Hd: The semen came from an unknown person. 0 Sub-source Hp: The DNA in the sample came from the suspect. Hd: The DNA in the sample came from an unknown person. Section 6 Slide 5 Hierarchy of Propositions • The offense level deals with the ultimate issue of guilt/ innocence, which are outside the domain of the forensic scientist. • The activity level associates a DNA profile or evidence source with the crime itself, and there may be occasions where a scientist can address this level. • The source level associates a DNA profile or evidence item with a particular body fluid or individual source.
    [Show full text]
  • Ironic Feminism: Rhetorical Critique in Satirical News Kathy Elrick Clemson University, [email protected]
    Clemson University TigerPrints All Dissertations Dissertations 12-2016 Ironic Feminism: Rhetorical Critique in Satirical News Kathy Elrick Clemson University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations Recommended Citation Elrick, Kathy, "Ironic Feminism: Rhetorical Critique in Satirical News" (2016). All Dissertations. 1847. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/1847 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IRONIC FEMINISM: RHETORICAL CRITIQUE IN SATIRICAL NEWS A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design by Kathy Elrick December 2016 Accepted by Dr. David Blakesley, Committee Chair Dr. Jeff Love Dr. Brandon Turner Dr. Victor J. Vitanza ABSTRACT Ironic Feminism: Rhetorical Critique in Satirical News aims to offer another perspective and style toward feminist theories of public discourse through satire. This study develops a model of ironist feminism to approach limitations of hegemonic language for women and minorities in U.S. public discourse. The model is built upon irony as a mode of perspective, and as a function in language, to ferret out and address political norms in dominant language. In comedy and satire, irony subverts dominant language for a laugh; concepts of irony and its relation to comedy situate the study’s focus on rhetorical contributions in joke telling. How are jokes crafted? Who crafts them? What is the motivation behind crafting them? To expand upon these questions, the study analyzes examples of a select group of popular U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • False Dilemma Wikipedia Contents
    False dilemma Wikipedia Contents 1 False dilemma 1 1.1 Examples ............................................... 1 1.1.1 Morton's fork ......................................... 1 1.1.2 False choice .......................................... 2 1.1.3 Black-and-white thinking ................................... 2 1.2 See also ................................................ 2 1.3 References ............................................... 3 1.4 External links ............................................. 3 2 Affirmative action 4 2.1 Origins ................................................. 4 2.2 Women ................................................ 4 2.3 Quotas ................................................. 5 2.4 National approaches .......................................... 5 2.4.1 Africa ............................................ 5 2.4.2 Asia .............................................. 7 2.4.3 Europe ............................................ 8 2.4.4 North America ........................................ 10 2.4.5 Oceania ............................................ 11 2.4.6 South America ........................................ 11 2.5 International organizations ...................................... 11 2.5.1 United Nations ........................................ 12 2.6 Support ................................................ 12 2.6.1 Polls .............................................. 12 2.7 Criticism ............................................... 12 2.7.1 Mismatching ......................................... 13 2.8 See also
    [Show full text]
  • Indiscernible Logic: Using the Logical Fallacies of the Illicit Major Term and the Illicit Minor Term As Litigation Tools
    WLR_47-1_RICE (FINAL FORMAT) 10/28/2010 3:35:39 PM INDISCERNIBLE LOGIC: USING THE LOGICAL FALLACIES OF THE ILLICIT MAJOR TERM AND THE ILLICIT MINOR TERM AS LITIGATION TOOLS ∗ STEPHEN M. RICE I. INTRODUCTION Baseball, like litigation, is at once elegant in its simplicity and infinite in its complexities and variations. As a result of its complexities, baseball, like litigation, is subject to an infinite number of potential outcomes. Both baseball and litigation are complex systems, managed by specialized sets of rules. However, the results of baseball games, like the results of litigation, turn on a series of indiscernible, seemingly invisible, rules. These indiscernible rules are essential to success in baseball, in the same way the rules of philosophic logic are essential to success in litigation. This article will evaluate one of the philosophical rules of logic;1 demonstrate how it is easily violated without notice, resulting in a logical fallacy known as the Fallacy of the Illicit Major or Minor Term,2 chronicle how courts have identified this logical fallacy and used it to evaluate legal arguments;3 and describe how essential this rule and the fallacy that follows its breach is to essential effective advocacy. However, because many lawyers are unfamiliar with philosophical logic, or why it is important, this article begins with a story about a familiar subject that is, in many ways, like the rules of philosophic logic: the game of baseball. ∗ Stephen M. Rice is an Assistant Professor of Law, Liberty University School of Law. I appreciate the efforts of my research assistant, Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • The Myth of the Superuser: Fear, Risk, and Harm Online
    The Myth of the Superuser: Fear, Risk, and Harm Online ∗ Paul Ohm Fear of the powerful computer user, the “Superuser,” dominates debates about online conflict. He is a mythic figure: difficult to find, immune to technological constraints, and aware of legal loopholes. Policymakers, fearful of his power, too often overreact by passing overbroad, ambiguous laws intended to ensnare the Superuser but which are instead used against inculpable, ordinary users. This response is unwarranted because the Superuser is often a marginal figure whose power has been greatly exaggerated. The exaggerated focus on the Superuser reveals a pathological characteristic of the study of power, crime, and security online, which springs from a widely held fear of the Internet. Building on the social science fear literature, this Article challenges the conventional wisdom and ∗ Associate Professor of Law and Telecommunications, University of Colorado Law School. Thanks to Tim Wu, Orin Kerr, Phil Weiser, Julie Cohen, Pierre Schlag, Brett Frischmann, Victor Fleischer, Miranda Fleischer, Viva Moffat, and Jean Camp for their helpful comments. Thanks also for suggestions and support from participants in the University of Colorado Law School Faculty Workshop, including Clare Huntington, Nestor Davidson, Scott Peppett, Mimi Wesson, Amy Schmitz, Sarah Krakoff, and Brad Bernthal; the Intellectual Property Scholars Conference; and the Telecommunications Policy Research Conference. Thanks also to Todd Blair and Michael Beylkin for outstanding research assistance. 1327 1328 University of California, Davis [Vol. 41:1327 standard assumptions about the role of experts. Unlike dispassionate experts in other fields, computer experts are as susceptible as laypeople to exaggerate the power of the Superuser.
    [Show full text]
  • Existential Universal Statement Examples
    Existential Universal Statement Examples Kenotic and evident Hilliard often apparelled some estafette passionately or underestimates light-heartedly. Is Whittaker bamboo or apsidal after emasculatory Lindsay retrospects so affectedly? Fox coinciding raffishly as lacteous Matt lark her firstling perplexes diplomatically. Finally we want to agree with constants, brentano and the same way can encode simple example, or allow for existential universal statement in formal model Some cats are enabled to generalize the existential universal statement to let us! The cases holds true if a host of opposing or two or equal and contrast could use an example of these definitions are. Questions about this fallacy? In any name it! This example in universal existential statement here are asked to. The following are referring to find it is automatically true, we start a mouse a new term is not. It overseas also easy to see that there be many repetitions of stock same value these different points in a plane. The comparison made her breath catch. Here are still statements from two existential universal statement examples illustrate these examples are positive, there was that are cats like it must be wise to this means we replaceboth occurrences. If authorities exercise, or they are independent of some theory, and by duality the same result holds for existential quantification. Not all real numbers are positive. Please help us to share our service with your friends. Universal quantifier Existential quantifier Negation and quantifiers Restricting. What oversight you person to show can prove anything the statement is false? What happens to be evaluated to indicate unique existence unless we do.
    [Show full text]
  • Essence and Necessity, and the Aristotelian Modal Syllogistic: a Historical and Analytical Study Daniel James Vecchio Marquette University
    Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations (2009 -) Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Projects Essence and Necessity, and the Aristotelian Modal Syllogistic: A Historical and Analytical Study Daniel James Vecchio Marquette University Recommended Citation Vecchio, Daniel James, "Essence and Necessity, and the Aristotelian Modal Syllogistic: A Historical and Analytical Study" (2016). Dissertations (2009 -). 686. http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/686 ESSENCE AND NECESSITY, AND THE ARISTOTELIAN MODAL SYLLOGISTIC: A HISTORICAL AND ANALYTICAL STUDY by Daniel James Vecchio, B.A., M.A. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin December 2016 ABSTRACT ESSENCE AND NECESSITY, AND THE ARISTOTELIAN MODAL SYLLOGISTIC: A HISTORICAL AND ANALYTICAL STUDY Daniel James Vecchio, B.A., M.A. Marquette University, 2016 The following is a critical and historical account of Aristotelian Essentialism informed by recent work on Aristotle’s modal syllogistic. The semantics of the modal syllogistic are interpreted in a way that is motivated by Aristotle, and also make his validity claims in the Prior Analytics consistent to a higher degree than previously developed interpretative models. In Chapter One, ancient and contemporary objections to the Aristotelian modal syllogistic are discussed. A resolution to apparent inconsistencies in Aristotle’s modal syllogistic is proposed and developed out of recent work by Patterson, Rini, and Malink. In particular, I argue that the semantics of negation is distinct in modal context from those of assertoric negative claims. Given my interpretive model of Aristotle’s semantics, in Chapter Two, I provide proofs for each of the mixed apodictic syllogisms, and propose a method of using Venn Diagrams to visualize the validity claims Aristotle makes in the Prior Analytics.
    [Show full text]
  • An Open Introduction to Logic
    For All X The Lorain County Remix P.D. Magnus University at Albany, State University of New York and Cathal Woods Virginia Wesleyan University and J. Robert Loftis Lorain County Community College Licensed under a Creative Commons license. (Attribution-NonComercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International ) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This is version 0.1 of An Open Introduction to Logic. It is current as of December 22, 2017. © 2005{2017 by Cathal Woods, P.D. Magnus, and J. Robert Loftis. Some rights reserved. Licensed under a Creative Commons license. (Attribution-NonComercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International ) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This book incorporates material from An Introduction to Reasoning by Cathal Woods, available at sites.google.com/site/anintroductiontoreasoning/ and For All X by P.D. Magnus (version 1.27 [090604]), available at www.fecundity.com/logic. Introduction to Reasoning © 2007{2014 by Cathal Woods. Some rights reserved. Licensed under a Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ For All X © 2005{2010 by P.D. Magnus. Some rights reserved. Licensed under a Creative Commons license: Attribution ShareAlike http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ J. Robert Loftis compiled this edition and wrote original material for it. He takes full responsibility for any mistakes remaining in this version of the text. Typesetting was carried out entirely in LATEX2". The style for typesetting proofs is based on fitch.sty (v0.4) by Peter Selinger, University of Ottawa. \When you come to any passage you don't understand, read it again: if you still don't understand it, read it again: if you fail, even after three readings, very likely your brain is getting a little tired.
    [Show full text]
  • INCLAN-DISSERTATION-2021.Pdf
    A METHOD FOR SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS DEFINITION AND MODELING USING PATTERNS OF COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOR A Dissertation Presented to The Academic Faculty by Eric Inclan In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Aerospace Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology May 2021 COPYRIGHT © 2021 BY ERIC INCLAN A METHOD FOR SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS DEFINITION AND MODELING USING PATTERNS OF COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOR Approved by: Dr. Dimitri Mavris, Advisor Dr. Jean Charles Domerçant School of Aerospace Engineering Georgia Tech Research Institute Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Michael J. Steffens Dr. Santiago Balestrini-Robinson School of Aerospace Engineering Georgia Tech Research Institute Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Daniel P. Schrage School of Aerospace Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Date Approved: April 29, 2021 DEDICATION To my family iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr. Mavris for his sense of humor, patience, leadership, and support. Your feedback has always been as accurate and valuable as it has been incisive. I will undoubtedly be a better scientist and engineer for it, and I am grateful for all the guidance you have given me. I want to thank all of the Georgia Tech faculty and staff that I had the privilege to learn from and work for, for embodying a level of professionalism, talent, depth of understanding, empathy, and diligence that is very hard to find, let alone in one place. I would like to thank my lab-mates, and in particular John Mines, Stephanie Zhu, Arturo Santa, and Katie Handschuh Fuerst, for listening when I needed someone to talk to.
    [Show full text]
  • Leading Logical Fallacies in Legal Argument – Part 1 Gerald Lebovits
    University of Ottawa Faculty of Law (Civil Law Section) From the SelectedWorks of Hon. Gerald Lebovits July, 2016 Say It Ain’t So: Leading Logical Fallacies in Legal Argument – Part 1 Gerald Lebovits Available at: https://works.bepress.com/gerald_lebovits/297/ JULY/AUGUST 2016 VOL. 88 | NO. 6 JournalNEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION Highlights from Today’s Game: Also in this Issue Exclusive Use and Domestic Trademark Coverage on the Offensive Violence Health Care Proxies By Christopher Psihoules and Jennette Wiser Litigation Strategy and Dispute Resolution What’s in a Name? That Which We Call Surrogate’s Court UBE-Shopping and Portability THE LEGAL WRITER BY GERALD LEBOVITS Say It Ain’t So: Leading Logical Fallacies in Legal Argument – Part 1 o argue effectively, whether oral- fact.3 Then a final conclusion is drawn able doubt. The jury has reasonable ly or in writing, lawyers must applying the asserted fact to the gen- doubt. Therefore, the jury hesitated.”8 Tunderstand logic and how logic eral rule.4 For the syllogism to be valid, The fallacy: Just because the jury had can be manipulated through fallacious the premises must be true, and the a reasonable doubt, the jury must’ve reasoning. A logical fallacy is an inval- conclusion must follow logically. For hesitated. The jury could’ve been id way to reason. Understanding falla- example: “All men are mortal. Bob is a entirely convinced and reached a con- cies will “furnish us with a means by man. Therefore, Bob is mortal.” clusion without hesitation. which the logic of practical argumen- Arguments might not be valid, tation can be tested.”1 Testing your though, even if their premises and con- argument against the general types of clusions are true.
    [Show full text]
  • MATH 9: ALGEBRA: FALLACIES, INDUCTION 1. Quantifier Recap First, a Review of Quantifiers Introduced Last Week. Recall That
    MATH 9: ALGEBRA: FALLACIES, INDUCTION October 4, 2020 1. Quantifier Recap First, a review of quantifiers introduced last week. Recall that 9 is called the existential quantifier 8 is called the universal quantifier. We write the statement 8x(P (x)) to mean for all values of x, P (x) is true, and 9x(P (x)) to mean there is some value of x such that P (x) is true. Here P (x) is a predicate, as defined last week. Generalized De Morgan's Laws: :8x(P (x)) $ 9x(:P (x)) :9x(P (x)) $ 8x(:P (x)) Note that multiple quantifiers can be used in a statement. If we have a multivariable predicate like P (x; y), it is possible to write 9x9y(P (x; y)), which is identical to a nested statement, 9x(9y(P (x; y))). If it helps to understand this, you can realize that the statement 9y(P (x; y)) is a logical predicate in variable x. Note that, in general, the order of the quantifiers does matter. To negate a statement with multiple predicates, you can do as follows: :8x(9y(P (x; y))) = 9x(:9y(P (x; y))) = 9x(8y(:P (x; y))): 2. Negations :(A =) B) $ A ^ :B :(A $ B) = (:A $ B) = (A $ :B) = (A ⊕ B) Here I am using = to indicate logical equivalence, just because it is a little less ambiguous when the statements themselves contain the $ sign; ultimately, the meaning is the same. The ⊕ symbol is the xor logical relation, which means that exactly one of A, B is true, but not both.
    [Show full text]