lec-notes-conditionals-2.pdf

4 Pages
169 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Philosophy
Course
PHLB55H3
Professor
Steve Joordens
Semester
Winter

Description
Conditionals Benj Hellie January 22, 2014 2. (a) But why not? Suppose Fred thinks (b) But not total universality: the anyone at ▯ Terminology: goats eat cans. Does he have to think issue is ‘anyone under consideration’. – A conditional is an if-then state- if goats don’t eat cans, you have (you (This is pertinent to the McGee stu▯.) don’t have) a million bucks, and if it is A conditional is kind of like a lite en- ment (isn’t) snowing today, goats eat cans? tailment. – We call the ‘if’-part the an- Evidently not. tecedent and the ‘then’-part the (b) One reason this would be bad is he 1.4 We get the right answers consequent would then find himself ready to argue – Modus ponens (MP) is this rule: The theory is purpose-built to avoid the entailments like this to persuade us that goats eat ▯ If P, Q; P ‘ Q cans: in (1). Moreover, i. if goats don’t eat cans, you have a – Modus tollens (MT) is this rule: 4. (a) Modus ponens: if I think everyone who ▯ If P, Q; :Q ‘ :P million bucks; and if goats don’t believes P should believe Q and I be- eat cans, you don’t have a million lieve P, then I believe Q bucks: so if goats don’t eat cans, you both do and don’t have a mil- (b) Modus tollens: if I think everyone who believes P should believe Q and I be- 1 The conditional lion bucks—and no contradiction lieve :Q, then I’d better not believe P— is true, so goats eat cans! ii. if it’s snowing outside, goats eat still, could I perhaps suspend judgement 1.1 Some entailments cans; and if it isn’t snowing out- on P? i. It looks like this theory doesn’t get Modus ponens is a real genuine entailment. Modus side, goats eat cans: so if it is tollens is a more problematic case. or isn’t snowing outside, goats eat full-blown modus tollens cans, and it’s gotta be one or the ii. But that is a good thing, as we shall other—so no matter what, goats see 1.2 Some nonentailments eat cans! Surely none of these is a real entailment, right? But those arguments are totally unper- 2 Something that isn’t the con- 1. (a) goats eat cans 0 if goats don’t eat cans, suasive, because we don’t accept the relevant conditionals ditional you have a million bucks (b) goats eat cans 0 if goats don’t eat cans, 2.1 Some entailments 1.3 What the conditional means you don’t have a million bucks Going by the meaning of ‘_’ (‘or’), each of these is (c) goats eat cans 0 if it’s snowing today, 3. (a) In general, it seems as if a conditional goats eat cans has universality built into it: an entailment, right? (d) goats eat cans 0 if it isn’t snowing today, ▯ When we believe ‘if P, Q’, we 5. (a) goats eat cans ‘ goats eat cans _ you goats eat cans think anyone who believes P have a million bucks should believe Q (b) goats eat cans ‘ goats eat cans _ you Good! Glad we’re on the same page. don’t have a million bucks Unless I am unreasonable—but in logic, we ignore that case. 1 (c) goats eat cans ‘ it isn’t snowing today 2.4 ▯ , if 3.2 ▯ in pictures _ goats eat cans (d) goats eat cans ‘ it’s snowing today _ ▯ and ‘if’ can’t be the same thing. Let P be ‘goats 3.2.1 Wondering whether P and whether Q eat cans’ and Q be ‘you have a million bucks’ and goats eat cans compare the (a) and (b) of (1) and (7); then let Q be We can represent the situation of someone wonder- ‘goats eat cans’ and P be ‘it’s snowing today’ and ing about the question whether P and the question After all, P _ Q is just less specific than P and less whether Q (e.g., ‘do goats eat cans?’ and ‘do horses specific than Q; and whenever I believe something, compare the (c) and (d) of (1) and (7). ▯ is involved eat hay?’) with the following sort of diagram: in entailments that ‘if’ just plain ain’t. They have I believe anything less specific than it; and entail- di▯erent meanings. ment is just if you believe this, you gotta believe that—or, in the abstract, these are just instances of ?P _-introduction X ▯ ▯ For this reason, we call the entailments in (7) the bad material entailments. 2.2 An abbreviation X ▯ It is conventional to let 3 Something kinda like the con- ?Q – P ▯ Q ditional abbreviate ▯ Standardly ▯ is called the material conditional. In logic courses, it is ordinarily o▯ered as the connec- – :P _ Q tive that means ‘if’. As we have seen, ▯ has a dif- ferent meaning from ‘if’. The top left box is a▯rmative answers to both (If we are being super-careful, we would write whether P and whether Q (namely, P^ Q); the bot- ‘((:P) _ Q)’—the claim is that at least one of :P, tom right is negative to both (namely, :P ^ :Q); 3.1 The good news the bottom left is a▯rmative to P, negative to Q Q is true) If the bad news about the material conditional is its (namely, P ^ :Q); the top right is a▯rmative to Q, overgenerating entailments, the good news is that it negative to P (namely, :P ^ Q). At this stage, they 2.3 Some entailments at least gets modus ponens and modus tollens accu- leave open all four possibilities. rately: If they give an a▯rmative answer to P, that 6. (a) P ‘ P _ Q (b) P ‘ P _ :Q
More Less

Related notes for PHLB55H3

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

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

Sign up

Join to view


OR

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.


Submit