Study Guides (390,000)
CA (150,000)
UTSC (10,000)
Final

PHLA10H3 Study Guide - Final Guide: Experimental Philosophy, Begging, Compatibilism


Department
Philosophy
Course Code
PHLA10H3
Professor
William Seager
Study Guide
Final

This preview shows pages 1-3. to view the full 50 pages of the document.
PHLA10H3: Reason & Truth 1 William Seager
Lec 2 Thursday September 10th, 2015
-Solve & explain Knights & Knave complex: http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~seager/knight_knave1.pdf
Note the 2 types of “or”’s in logic; the inclusive & exclusive use of “or”
Chapter 2: Deductive Arguments (Text. Pg. 11)
What is philosophy? (Cont’d)
Philosophical Questions: are fundamental & general questions that use conceptual analysis as a
tool to answer
Fundamental General Conceptual Analysis

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

PHLA10H3: Reason and Truth 2 Lecture 3
There are no philosophical labs because we don’t know how to use science to prove or
experiment with philosophy. However, we have “thought experiments” where a person has to
imagine a situation
Experimental philosophy” asking more than one person same question & keeping track of
answers: what are the connections?
There are no “mystical gurus”; there is no “I just feel it”; we need to think with reasoning
Logic & Argument
A structure of statements designed to prove some point. There are two parts:
o1) Premises: must be relevant to conclusion& give solid reasoning to believe the
conclusion
o2) Conclusion: A good conclusion does not indicate a good argument
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS – Validity
Aims to absolutely guarantee that the premises & conclusion are true
Argument = deductively valid: IF the premises are true then the conclusion MUST be true.
oEX. If someone lives in Edmonton they live in Canada.
Fred lives in Edmonton.
So Fred lives in Canada.
oEX. All spiders are dangerous.
oTherefore, all spiders are dangerous.
Philosophical Interlude: a sentence is “positive” if it contains no negations.
**The word “valid” applies only to arguments; not statements or ideas**
Form vs. Content:
oValidity arises from logical form of an argument
oLogical form is not always obvious
“Begging the question”: assuming what you are trying to prove
In terms of validity & information, a valid argument never adds any information that is not
already in the premises
Invalidity: an invalid deductive argument is one where it is possible for the premises to be all
true but the conclusion is false; the premises do not guarantee the conclusion
oEX. No philosophers are rich.
Some philosophers are happy.
No rich people are happy.

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

PHLA10H3: Reason and Truth 3 Lecture 3
How can you test if an argument is valid or not?
oUse a counterexample: change what the argument is about but keep the same form
oBy adding premises (filling in missing info), an invalid argument can be made valid
EX. Fish can swim.
Therefore some women are wealthy.
BECOMES
Fish can swim.
If any fish can swim, some women are wealthy.
Therefore, some women are wealthy.
Validity & Soundness: sound argument = all true premises. Debates about the quality of a
deductive argument takes 2 forms:
oDebate validity of logical form.
oDebate truth of premises.
Lec 3 Tuesday September 15th, 2015
Solve Knights and Knaves complex: http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~seager/knight_knave2.pdf
Deductive Arguments – Conditionals
oBasic argument structure:
If X then Y, X: therefore Y
Note we defined validity using a conditional
oValid vs. Invalid Conditionals
X > Y; therefore Y : VALID
X > Y; therefore X : INVALID – affirming the consequent
Ex. If all squares are rectangles, then all rectangles are squares.
X > Y, not-X; therefore not-Y : INVALID – Denying the antecedent
X >Y, not-Y; therefore not-X : VALID
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version