Textbook Notes (290,000)
CA (170,000)
UTSC (20,000)
Chapter 1-23

PHLA10H3 Chapter 1-23: PHLA10 (F)_ Reason and Truth Notes


Department
Philosophy
Course Code
PHLA10H3
Professor
William Seager
Chapter
1-23

This preview shows pages 1-3. to view the full 35 pages of the document.
PHLA10H3: REASON & TRUTH NOTES
PART 1: INTRODUCTION
CH 1: What is Philosophy?
Most people see it as their values and beliefs and hold value to them (ethics)
Describes what exists
Metaphysical: part of philosophy tries to describe what exists/what is there
The word “Philosophy” differs from ordinary individuals to specialists
EX. Ordinary: Tomato = Veggy Botanist: Tomato = Fruit
Knowledge and belief are diff but so are true belief and knowledge
Knowledge is more than true belief
True Belief: Belief that is known to be true but not reasonable
Subjective Realm: where disagreements of
opinions happens
Objective Realm: Opinion doesn’t matter
due to facts
Ethical Subjectivism:  philosophical thesis
where no ethical fact only ethical opinions
Utilitarianism: Action one does in a
situation should bring the greatest happiness
for the majority
Four Philosophical problems: God, mind, knowledge and ethics
Three Theories of What Philosophy Is
Characteristics of philosophical problems
Fundamental Questions of Justification:  Common sense, right vs wrong, 5 senses
General: General and vague big world ideas, contrasting to science
Solipsism: The idea that your mind is the only thing that exists
Clarifying Concepts: the use of reason and observation
CH 2: Deductive Arguments
Arguments
Has 2 parts: Premises and the Conclusion (declarative statements) and True/False
To check the plausibility of the premises and their ending conclusion
Good Arguments
Rationally Persuasive: enough reason to think the conclusion is true
Both Premises has to be true (i.e with good reasoning)
Relevant to the conclusion
3 types of “Good Arguments” which are mutually exclusive

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

Deductive Validity Defined
Deductively Valid Argument:  means IF the premises were true, its conclusion would have to be
true
EX. All Fish Swim All Sharks are Fish All Sharks Swim.
HOWEVER, a valid argument doesn’t need to have true premises
Cause the deduction of the conclusion being true is only if the premises are true which is
what is needed
Validity Is a Technical Term
Valid is never used to validate a statement/idea
Property of Arguments and only argument
An argument can be valid even if the statements are crazy unreal
A valid argument can have false premises and a false conclusion
EX. All Plants have Minds, All Ladders are Plants  All Ladders have Minds
Logical Form
Is a structural property
An argument can be deemed valid/invalid based solely on the logical form
All argument w/ same logical form are in the same boat
Invalidity
Deductively Invalid: the smallest possibility that the conclusion could be false
when the premises are true
Deductive validity says that the premises must give an absolute guarantee that the conclu. Is true
VALIDITY CONCERNS W/ RELA. BTWN THE PREMISES TO
CONCLUSION
The logical form to the side is considered deductively invalid
Even if the premises are true and the conclusion is false all is invalid in
that logical form
To test for invalidity
Isolate to logical form
Make own declare statement w/ 2 true
premises and a false conclusion , ifallfitall
inthatform,
Table shows rela btwn the validity of a
question and the truth of the premises and
conclusion
Invalid arguments can be repaired w/ added
premises
But it is harder to fix with premises that are true as well
Conditionals
if/then statements are conditionals
In the if P, then Q
P- antecedent Q- consequent
Conditionals ("If P, then Q" ) and Contrapositives ("If not-Q, then not-P,") are  SAME
Converse ("If P, then Q" and "If Q, then P.") are NOT the same
Circularity or Begging the Question

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

Type of fallacy, a defect in the argument
The fallacy where it assumes the truth to the conclusion rather than supporting it
It is a bad argument bc it doesn't help to resolve uncertainty
Truth
The concept of truth has a deeper implication
The fact that something is true is diff from whether someone believes it or not
Redundancy Theory of Truth: claims that the word "true'' is redundant in the sense of factual
sents.
“True for Me:”
Dangerously misleading
Truth and Belief are diff things,
Truth to the writer is a division btwn appearance vs reality
EX. the distinguishing diff btwn the objective and subjective realms
Wishful Thinking
Don’t do it, avoid it, cause it won’t make things true
Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
Counters the avoidance of wishful thinking
Some Ways one's thoughts can have its effect on truth
Sufficient and Necessary Conditions
Sufficient Conditions: enough
Necessary Conditions: needed
If X then Y ; Y is necessary for X X is sufficient for Y
EX. Necessary:
CH 3: Inductive & Abductive Arguments (13 pg
Deductive Validity is a Limitations
Since the conclusion can’t say anything that wasn’t in the premise the assumptions made after
limited
True premises will ALWAYS have a true conclu.= LIMITATION
Also due to the context of the question a deductively valid argument can be invalid
I.e false information, approximation, lieing ppl
Can’t go beyond the premises w/ a deductively valid argument
Nondeductive Inference: Weaker Guarantee
A more plausible guaranteed result
EX. the 60% of democrats claimed through the calls doesn’t absolutely guarantee to
the conclusion of the county having 60% democrats but it does give a good reason
and “weaker guarantee”
Diff btwn Deductive and Nondeductive Arguments: 2 Gamblers
Extreme conservative = to only using Deductively Valid Arguments
No wager unless, sure to win
Virtue: never lose a gamble (Never risk a false conclu.)
Lim: miss the shots that you don’t take (decline what goes beyond)
Thoughtful Risk Taker = Nondeductive arguments
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version