Philosophy: Soc and Pol Issues
Logic and Critical Reasoning
-Philosophers reason in a very predictable way
- an argument consists of a set of sentences consisting of one r
more premises, which contain the evidence and a conclusion
which is supposed to follow from the premises.
Socrates is a man. (Premise #1)
All men are mortal. (Premise #2)
Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (Conclusion)
*** What makes a good argument good is logical entailment.
-Bad arguments vs. good arguments: If the premises imply the
conclusion, then the argument in question is a good one.
***Truth vs. Validity
If money grows on trees, then Bill Clinton is the Prime Minister.
Money grows on trees. (Premise #2)
Thus, Bill Clinton is the PM of Canada. (Conclusion)
***Symbolic Logic-take out context and replace it with just a
***Test: Look at argument. Look at both premises. If both are
true, then you cannot deny the conclusion on pain of consistency.
You cannot deny the conclusion, if you accept the premises.
-an argument is deductively valid so long as the argument is such
that the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. ***Calling an argument valid, is paying it a compliment.
If it is raining then there are clouds in the sky. (Premise #1)
There are clouds in the sky. (Premise #2)
Therefore, it is raining. (Conclusion)
***pq then q
If I won the lotter