Intro To Philosophy Reading: A Brief Guide To Logic and Argumentation'

Intro to Philosophy
Lecture 1
Reading: A Brief Guide to Logic and
Argumentation
What is Philosophy?
The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the
broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of
the term [] To achieve success in philosophy would be, to use a contemporary turn
of phrase, to know ones way around
-Wilfrid Sellars Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man
Philosophy aims at synthetic understanding of the world, human experience, and

the relation between them.
Synthetic in that, philosophers try to figure out how everything fits together
Do we have knowledge (of the world, of ourselves, of God)?

How do we acquire knowledge (by perception, by testimony, with reason)?
What is a mind? How does it relate to the body and the physical world?
Is there a self? What is the self?
What makes a thing (say a person, or an animal) the same thing over time?
Do we have evidence for most of our beliefs?
Is it ok to form beliefs without evidence?
Is death harmful? If so, Why?
What is Philosophy?
Because philosophy aims at understanding how all different areas of human inquiry
and many different topics fit together, it tends not to rely on any particular form of
inquiry (e.g., the scientific method, historical methods, religious methods).
This means the central form that philosophical inquiry takes is the making,
analysing and assessing of arguments.
Argument
An argument is a sequence of statements. One of these statement is the

conclusion. Other statements in the argument are premises. The premises are
supposed to provide evidence or logical support for the conclusion (to put it
another way the premises offer a reason to believe the conclusion)
Note:
Many philosophical texts dont put their conclusions last. Sometimes a conclusion is
stated first, and then the premises (or support) are provided afterwards.
A statement is a sentence which can be true or false (a declarative sentence).

Statements contrast with questions, orders, requests, exclamations, etc.
Paris is in France (statement)
Is Paris in Italy? (question)
Conquer Paris! (order)
Ah, beautiful Paris! (exclamation)
Validity
How do the premises of an argument support the conclusion?
A good argument is such that if you believe the premises you ought to believe the
conclusion also.
In what logicians call a valid argument, the premises being true would guarantee
the truth of the conclusion.
Note: In evaluating an argument, we take the premises for granted (we pretend they are
known to be true) and see if the conclusion follows.
An argument is valid if and only if it is absolutely impossible for the premises to be

true and its conclusion false.
The empire state building is either in Ohio or Utah
The empire state building is not in Utah
The empire state building is in Ohio
This is a valid argument.

Even though the premises
and the conclusion are
both false, if the premises
were true, the conclusion
would also have to be true
Validity
How do the premises of an argument support the conclusion?
A good argument is such that if you believe the premises you ought to believe the
conclusion also.
In what logicians call a valid argument, the premises being true would guarantee
the truth of the conclusion.
Note: In evaluating an argument, we take the premises for granted (we pretend they are
known to be true) and see if the conclusion follows.
An argument is valid if and only if it is absolutely impossible for the premises to be

true and its conclusion false.
This argument is
invalid Though the
The empire state building is either in New York or Florida premises and the
conclusion are true,
The empire state building is in New York
the truth of the
premises doesnt
guarantee the truth
of the conclusion. It
would be possible for
Counterexample
A valid argument is such that it the truth of the premises would guarantee the truth of
the conclusion.
How, then, can we show that an argument is not valid (= is invalid)?
All we need to do is show that it is possible that the premises would be true at the
same time that the conclusion is false (we dont need to show that this is actually
the case)
Describing a scenario in which the premises of an argument are true and the
conclusion is false is called, giving a counter-example to that argument.
A scenario where the
empire state building
The empire state building is either in New York or Florida is in Florida is one
where the premise is
The empire state building is in New York
true but the
conclusion is false.
This is a
counterexample!
Counterexample
A valid argument is such that it the truth of the premises would guarantee the truth of
the conclusion.
How, then, can we show that an argument is not valid (= is invalid)?
All we need to do is show that it is possible that the premises would be true at the
same time that the conclusion is false (we dont need to show that this is actually
the case)
Describing a scenario in which the premises of an argument are true and the
conclusion is false is called, giving a counter-example to that argument.
France is as big or bigger than Italy

Australia is as big or bigger than France
Australia is bigger than Italy
This is an invalid argument.

We can describe a counterexample:
A situation in which
France and Italy and
Australia were all the
same size, would make
the premises true and the
conclusion false!
Identifying Valid Arguments

How can you identify a valid argument?
One way to do this is ask yourself if there is a counterexample

to the argument.
If there is a counterexample, the argument is not valid. There might
You also need to just practice
be reasons
Its not always obvious whether an argument is valid. other than
lack of
consent
that
It is wrong to experiment on a human subject without
consent.
make the
Dr. X experimented on Mr. Z.
experiment
Mr Z consented to the experiment
wrong.
It was not wrong for Dr. X to experiment on Mr. Y
The argument
is therefore
open to
counterexampl
e, but, after a
while, youll
also just see
Valid Arguments Can be Bad

Just because an argument is valid, this doesnt mean its a good
argument.
Validity is a technical notion and arguments can satisfy its criteria

without being good or convincing arguments.
For example:
All philosophers are
A valid argument can have false premises: criminals
All criminals are short
All philosophers are short
God exists
God exists
A valid argument can be circular:
The moon is green

A valid argument can have contradictory premises:
The moon is not green
God exists
Contradictory Premises:
Why is this argument valid?:
The moon is green

God exists
A question from Last time:

Why is this argument valid?:
The moon is green

God exists
After all, in an argument, the premises are meant to logically support the
conclusion, but these premises have nothing to do with the conclusion of this
argument.
The answer here is not very interesting in the context of thinking about the way we
use argument in everyday life.
If we state the definition of validity in negative terms, well see why this argument
is valid:
An argument is valid if and only if there is no situation
in which the premises are all true and the
conclusion is false
Because the two premises are contradictory, there is no situation in which they are
both true. Since there is no situation in which the premises are both true, there is
certainly no situation in which the premises and the conclusion are true.
Soundness
A valid argument can have false premises and a false conclusion. Its being a valid
argument only tells us that if the premises were true, the conclusion would also
have to be true.
So, if we are using an argument to establish whether some conclusion is true, we
will want something stronger than a valid argument. We will want an argument that
establishes the truth of the conclusion.
An argument is sound if and only if it is valid and has true premises.
A sound argument establishes the truth of its conclusion because

A sound argument is valid: we know that if the premises are true the conclusion
has to be true also.
A sound argument also has true premises, so the conclusion has to be true also.
Soundness
have to be true.
All philosophers are criminals

Soundness
have to be true.
All philosophers are criminals

This argument is valid, but it isnt sound
All whales are mammals
All mammals breath air
All whales breath air
This argument is valid and sound
Reconstructing an Argument
Sometimes, a philosopher will explicitly present an argument in the form of
premises and a conclusion.
More often, they will not. Rather they will give an argument in the course of a
normal paragraph, or sequence of paragraphs. And sometimes they wont present it
clearly!
Its then your job to reconstruct the argument: that is, put it in simple, explicit
form, and add any missing premises or assumptions that the argument relies on.
Why do this?
Often it can be helpful to reconstruct an explicit argument from the text because
this can help you to see what the philosopher is taking for granted, and what
they are arguing for, etc.
I can imagine existing without my body. (I can imagine my feet slowly and painlessly
disappearing, then my knees, then my legs As my body disappears, I lose all
sensation. As my head disappears, everything goes black and silent because my eyes
and ears have disappeared, but still Im thinking about these strange events, and
because Im thinking I must exist). Therefore I am not my body.
Steps:
Identify the conclusion
Identify the premises
Interpolate any assumptions (or missing premises)
Is this argument valid?
I can imagine existing without my body
I am not my body
Its hard to say.

It depends on what the connection is
between being able to imagine one
thing existing without the other, and
those two things being distinct.
It seems like the author is making
some assumption about the
connection between those things
Since its hard to tell if the argument
is valid, the best thing to do is make
this assumption explicit: make it a
What premise could we add here to
make this a valid argument? That is,
what assumption does the author
seem to be making about the
I am not my body
connection between being able to
imagine one thing existing without the
other, and those two things being
distinct?

If I can imagine X existing without Y, then X is distinct from Y
I am not my body
I am not my body
This is now a valid argument.
Does that mean we should accept the conclusion?
Not necessarily. We have to decide if the argument is sound. So we need to decide
if the premises are true.
I am not my body
I am not my body
Whatever we decide about this, reconstructing the argument and turning an
implicit assumption into an explicit premise puts us in a better position to assess
the argument:
It shows us which premises we need to assess for truth.
It shows us the form of the reasoning in the argument.
Arguing for Everything?

I am not my body

I am not my body
An argument only offers support for its conclusion, it doesnt offer support for the
premises.
So an argument doesnt give you any reason to believe its own premises. So why
should you believe them? Sometimes premises themselves need support!
Sometimes a philosopher will offer a series of arguments, so the premises of one
argument will be supported by a different argument
R= Premise of this argument
R
S
T

I am not my body
premises.
Q
P
R
R= Conclusion of this argument
R
S
T

I am not my body
premises.
Q
P
R

Q
R= Conclusion of this argument
R
S
T
P
R
S
T
R= Intermediate
conclusion, which is
then used as a
premise.

I am not my body
premises.

I am not my body
premises.
But clearly, this cant go on for ever
We have to expect that some premises in an argument will not in turn be argued for.
Some of the claims in a philosophy paper cannot be argued for.
So why believe them?:
They might be something that everyone (or almost everyone) already believes.
They might be self-evidently true.
They might be claims established by science, or history, or some other discipline.
Etc.
The fact that a philosopher doesnt offer an argument for a premise doesnt mean
you have to accept it. You can still offer a reason to think that that premise is false
(you can offer an argument against it).

disappearing, then my knees, then my legs As my body disappears, I lost all
Why believe this?
If I can imagine X existing without Y, then X is not Y
I am not my body

Why believe this?
The paper contains a plausible
I am not my body
description of it happening.

I am not my body
Why believe this

premise?
This is less clear.
It seems like something
we might want more
philosophical argument
for
Be careful when you are reading philosophy, because philosophers will often
discuss or consider arguments when they are not actually trying to establish the
conclusion.
Sometimes philosophers are just interested in what follows from what in how
things fit together recall Sellars quote
Sometimes philosophers will discuss an argument for a conclusion they want to

reject, in order to show what is wrong with that argument.
Sometimes philosophers will discuss an argument for a conclusion that they want to
accept, but want to point out that some argument that has been offered for it is not a
good one.
Identifying Arguments
When you are reading philosophy, be on the look out for words or phrases that
indicate argument relationships:
Identifying Arguments
When you are reading philosophy, be on the look out for words or phrases that
indicate argument relationships.
Philosophers will often give you explicit information about what statements they are
treating as premises, and what statements they are trying to establish as conclusions at
a given point in a discussion.
Premise markers: since, because, in virtue of, given,etc.

Note: A philosopher will sometimes use phrases that indicate that they are not
offering an argument for a given statement (phrases like: intuitively, it is obvious
that, we can assume, it seems as though). This is a sign that they might use that
statement as a premise.
Conclusion markers: therefore, so, hence, we can conclude, it follows that, etc.
When you are reading philosophy, the best thing to do is first try to identify the
conclusion of a particular passage, and then try to reconstruct the argument that is
supposed to support that conclusion.
Circularity
Is this a valid argument?
Baseball is the best sport in the world
Yes. There is no way for the

premises to be true and the
conclusion false.
Is this a good argument?
Circularity
Is this a valid argument?
Yes. There is no way for the

premises to be true and the
conclusion false.
Is this a good argument?
No. Because the premise and the
conclusion are the same, this argument
could never give anyone a reason to come
to believe that conclusion. To believe the
premises, one would already have to
believe the conclusion.
Circularity
This is what we call a circular argument.
This argument is circular in a very

obvious way, but some arguments are
circular in more subtle ways
Circularity
Lets try to construct an
example:
Everything the bible says is true
The bible says that god exists
God exists
God wrote the bible
Everything the bible says is true
God wrote the bible

Therefore everything the bible says
is true
The bible says that god exists
God Exists
This argument is valid and it is

not circular.
But lets imagine that someone
tried to support this argument
by giving the following
argument to support the
arguments first premise.
This would give us a longer
argument that looks like this.
How does this argument look?
It is circular because to believe
its first premise, you would
already have to believe its
conclusion.
Demonstrative and Non-Demonstrative Arguments
Validity and soundness are concepts that apply only to a certain kind of argument:
demonstrative arguments.
Validity and soundness are concepts that apply only to a certain kind of argument:
demonstrative arguments.
Demonstrative arguments aim to establish their conclusions with logical certainty.
But there are also non-demonstrative arguments arguments which aim to give
good, but not absolutely certain, reason to believe their conclusions.
In 9 of the last 10 elections, the candidate that won in Ohio, won the presidency
The candidate that wins Ohio in 2016 will win the presidency.
Is this argument valid?
No. It is easy to imagine that the premise is true and the conclusion is false.
But it is still a reasonable argument, in some sense.

In 9 of the last 10 elections, the candidate that won in Ohio, won the presidency
The candidate that wins Ohio in 2016 will win the presidency.
This is an inductive argument. An inductive argument takes as a premise some

regularity in observed cases, and tries to extend it to unobserved cases.
How can we criticize an inductive argument?

The premise(s) are false
There is some reason that the unobserved cases are relevantly different from the
observed ones.
There is some reason to think the pattern wont continue.

There is smoke billowing out of the windows of that building
There are fire trucks everywhere
There is a fire
Is this argument valid? No
Is this an inductive argument? No

There is smoke billowing out of the windows of that building
There are fire trucks everywhere
There is a fire
Is this argument valid? No
Is this an inductive argument? No
This is an abductive argument.
An abductive argument takes as premise(s) some observed fact(s), and offers a
conclusion which is supposed to be the best explanation of the truth of the premise(s).
How can we criticize an abductive argument?

The premise(s) are false
The conclusion doesnt actually explain the premises
There is a better explanation of the premises.

Intro To Philosophy Reading: A Brief Guide To Logic and Argumentation'

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intro To Philosophy Reading: A Brief Guide To Logic and Argumentation'

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intro To Philosophy Reading: A Brief Guide To Logic and Argumentation'

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intro to Philosophy

Philosophy aims at synthetic understanding of the world, human experience, and

Do we have knowledge (of the world, of ourselves, of God)?

An argument is a sequence of statements. One of these statement is the

A statement is a sentence which can be true or false (a declarative sentence).

An argument is valid if and only if it is absolutely impossible for the premises to be

This is a valid argument.

An argument is valid if and only if it is absolutely impossible for the premises to be

France is as big or bigger than Italy

This is an invalid argument.

Identifying Valid Arguments

One way to do this is ask yourself if there is a counterexample

If there is a counterexample, the argument is not valid. There might

You also need to just practice

Valid Arguments Can be Bad

Validity is a technical notion and arguments can satisfy its criteria

A valid argument can be circular:

The moon is green

The moon is green

A question from Last time:

The moon is green

An argument is sound if and only if it is valid and has true premises.

A sound argument establishes the truth of its conclusion because

All philosophers are criminals

All philosophers are criminals

This argument is valid and sound

Its hard to say.

I can imagine existing without my body

Arguing for Everything?

Arguing for Everything?

Arguing for Everything?

Arguing for Everything?

R= Premise of this argument

R= Conclusion of this argument

Arguing for Everything?

Arguing for Everything?

Arguing for Everything?

Some of the claims in a philosophy paper cannot be argued for.

So why believe them?:

Arguing for Everything?

Arguing for Everything?

Arguing for Everything?

Why believe this

Arguing for Everything?

Sometimes philosophers will discuss an argument for a conclusion they want to

Premise markers: since, because, in virtue of, given,etc.

Yes. There is no way for the

Yes. There is no way for the

This argument is circular in a very

God wrote the bible

This argument is valid and it is

Demonstrative and Non-Demonstrative Arguments

Demonstrative and Non-Demonstrative Arguments

Demonstrative arguments aim to establish their conclusions with logical certainty.

Is this argument valid?

But it is still a reasonable argument, in some sense.

Demonstrative and Non-Demonstrative Arguments

This is an inductive argument. An inductive argument takes as a premise some