Class Notes (807,397)
Canada (492,735)
Philosophy (384)
PP110 (97)

PP110 jan 9.docx

2 Pages
Unlock Document

Wilfrid Laurier University
Hugh R Alcock

PP110 Class 1 Jan.9/12 Argumentation in Philosophy  The philosopher is above all someone who tests the reasonableness of beliefs especially those concerning vexing questions, ex- what makes a person’s actions right or wrong?  In so far as such questions are difficult, the philosopher relies on her reasoning to try to answer them. And to reason is to argue. Argumentation is therefore at the core of philosophical practice.  Reasoning and rationality go together  An argument (to paraphrase Monty Python) can be defined as: an intellectual process which consists in a series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition (claim). In other words, it is a set of premises aimed to support a particular conclusion Elementary Process of Reasoning- Deduction  To say that one claim, r, is deduced from some others, ex- p and q, is to say that if we hold p and q true then r must also be accepted as true, that is, one is rationally obliged to accept r as true.  Deduction is all or nothing in the sense that one has no choice but to accept that the conclusion is true if one accepts that the premises are true, so long, that is, as the argument is valid. Validity  An argument is valid when its conclusion must follow from its premises. However, the conclusion of a valid argument does not have to be true. Validity is only a measure of the arguments logical virtue.  Concerned with the possible truth, either true or false. The argument is valid but what is told is false.  Ex- For arguments A and B the conclusion is validly inferred from the premises. Again, so long as the premises of a valid argument are true its conclusion will have to be true.(overruled) Any good argument has to be valid; otherwise we are not rationally obliged to accept the conclusion even when its premises are true. There are a variety of ways to argue. Most common are: 1. Argument by Deduction  Ex- Sherlock Holmes deducted that violet smith is a cyclist cause of the bottom of her shoes are worn in a way that is invariantly caused by pedalling, the belief that she must be a cyclist 2. Argument from Experience  Ex-Holmes observed mark M on shoes of every cyclist he has met, can construct an argument with premise with 1 as its conclusi
More Less

Related notes for PP110

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.