mls 570 critical thinking reading notes for fogelin n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
MLS 570 Critical Thinking Reading Notes for Fogelin: PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
MLS 570 Critical Thinking Reading Notes for Fogelin:

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 30

MLS 570 Critical Thinking Reading Notes for Fogelin: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 79 Views
  • Uploaded on

MLS 570 Critical Thinking Reading Notes for Fogelin:. Categorical Syllogisms We will go over diagramming Arguments in class . Fall Term 2006 North Central College. The difference …. All squares are rectangles All rectangles have parallel sides All squares have parallel sides

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'MLS 570 Critical Thinking Reading Notes for Fogelin:' - osanna


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
mls 570 critical thinking reading notes for fogelin

MLS 570Critical ThinkingReading Notes for Fogelin:

Categorical Syllogisms

We will go over diagramming

Arguments in class.

Fall Term 2006 North Central College

the difference
The difference …
  • All squares are rectanglesAll rectangles have parallel sides All squares have parallel sides
  • This argument cannot be written as p qq r . p r
  • This is because the premises in the argument are not compound, nor do they contain an “if … then” construction. [needed in order to use the conditional connective.]
categorical propositions
Categorical Propositions
  • All squares are rectanglesAll rectangles have parallel sides All squares have parallel sides
  • Each premise asserts a relationshipbetween the two terms. To understand this relationship we use a diagram of two overlapping circles.
  • This way of showing how Categorical Syllogisms work are called VennDiagrams
diagramming propositions all a are b
Diagramming propositions:All A are B
  • All squares are rectangles – this says that there is nothing that is a square that is not a rectangle.
    • So we shade out the part of the diagram where nothing exists. [the pink in this diagram]

Squares Rectangles

diagramming propositions no a are b
Diagramming propositions:No A are B
  • Two groups or “classes” that have nothing in common would be diagrammed like this. Again you shade in the area where there is nothing.

TrianglesSquares

diagramming propositions some a are b
Diagramming propositions:Some A are B
  • How do we handle “some”?
    • For example: Some aliens are spies

.

We don’t want to shade in a whole area as that would

mean “all”-- so we put an asteriskin the middle – this

means that there is “at least one person who is an alien

is also a spy”

aliens spies

diagramming propositions some a are not b
Diagramming propositions:Some A are not B
  • Some aliens are not spies.

aliens spies

diagramming the propositions some b are not a
Diagramming the propositions:Some B are not A
  • Some spies are not aliens.

aliens spies

the 4 basic categorical forms i
The 4 Basic Categorical Forms I

A: All S is P E:No S is P

I: Some S is P O: Some S is not P.

  • These are not propositions, but patterns for whole groups of propositions.
  • “Some spies are not aliens” is a substitution instance of the O propositional form.
the 4 basic categorical forms ii
The 4 Basic Categorical Forms II

One more wrinkle ;)

A: Universal Affirmative E. Universal Negative

All S is P No S is P

I:Particular Affirmative O: Particular Negative

Some S is P Some S is not P

the 4 basic categorical forms ii1
The 4 Basic Categorical Forms II

How this looks in a table.

Affirmative Negative.

UniversalAll S is P No S is P

ParticularSome S is P Some S is not P

the four basic categorical forms
The four basic categorical forms
  • All S is P [S=subject term, P=predicate term]

S P

the four basic categorical forms1
The four basic categorical forms
  • No S is P [S=subject term, P=predicate term]

S P

the four basic categorical forms2
The four basic categorical forms
  • Some S is P [S=subject term, P=predicate term]

S P

the four basic categorical forms3
The four basic categorical forms
  • Some S is not P [S=subject term, P=predicate term]

S P

exercise 1 4 indicate the information given in the diagram using the 4 basic propositions
Exercise 1- #4:Indicate the information given in the diagram using the 4 basic propositions.

Some S is not P

Some S is P

Some P is not S

[this is not one of S P

the four forms,

But is readable

From the diagram]

exercise 1 8 indicate the information given in the diagram using the 4 basic propositions
Exercise 1- #8:Indicate the information given in the diagram using the 4 basic propositions.

Some S is P

All P is S

[this is not one of

the four forms, S P

but is readable

From the diagram]

contradictories e i propositions
“Contradictories”: E & I propositions
  • These are pairs among the basic propositions that can’t be true at the same time.
  • Example: The E proposition says that there is nothing that is both S & P, while the I proposition says that there is at least one thing that is both S & P

.

E: No S is P I: Some S is P

contradictories a o propositions
“Contradictories”: A & O propositions
  • These are pairs among the basic propositions that can’t be true at the same time.
  • Example: The E proposition says that there is nothing that is both S & P, while the I proposition says that there is at least one thing that is both S & P

.

A: All S is P O: Some S is not P

validity for arguments containing categorical propositions
Validity for Arguments containing Categorical Propositions

An argument is valid if all the information contained in the diagram for the conclusion is included in the diagram for the premises.

[be sure to label the

subject and predicate

terms correctly.]

Some whales are mammals

Some mammals are whales

validity for arguments containing categorical propositions1
Validity for Arguments containing Categorical Propositions

You can [and should] generalize this to:

Some S is P

This argument is Some P is S

valid because the

diagram for the

conclusion is contained

in the diagram for the premises.

immediate inferences
Immediate Inferences

These are arguments with a single premise constructed from the A, E, I and O propositions.

  • The simplest is conversion. I and E easily convert.
    • From an I proposition “Some S is P” you can infer its converse, which is “Some P is S”
    • From an E proposition “No S is P” you can infer its converse, which is “No S is P”
  • Neither of the O or A propositions can be automatically converted.
    • “Some S is not P” does not infer “Some P is not S”
    • “All S is P” does not infer “All P is S.”
the theory of the syllogism
The Theory of the Syllogism
  • The argument has exactly two premises and one conclusion.
  • The argument contains only basic A, E, I, and O propositions.
  • Exactly one premise contains the predicate term.
  • Exactly one premise contains the subject term.
  • Each premise contains the middle term.
    • The predicate term is the term in the predicate location in the conclusion.
    • The premise that contains the predicate term is called the major premise
the theory of the syllogism1
The Theory of the Syllogism
  • The predicate term is the term in the predicate location in the conclusion.
  • The premise that contains the predicate term is called the major premise
  • The subject term is the subject of the conclusion.
  • The premises that contains the subject term is called the minor premise

.

All rectangles are things with 4 sides (Major premise)

All squares are rectangles (Minor premise)

All squares are things with 4 sides (Conclusion)

Subject term = “Squares”;

Predicate term = “Things with 4 sides”

Middle term = “Rectangles”

venn diagrams for determining the validity of a categorical syllogism
Venn Diagrams for determining the validity of a Categorical Syllogism

All rectangles have four sides

All squares are rectangles

All squares have four sides

Squares Things having 4 sides

Notice that all the things

that are squares are

corralled into the region of

all things that have 4 sides.

This shows that this Rectangles

syllogism is valid

slide26
No ellipses have sides

All circles are ellipses

No circles have sides

Circles Sides

Conclusion Ellipses

You can see that the

diagram for the conclusion

is already present in the

diagram for the premises.

strategy diagram a universal premise before a particular one as it may tell you where the should go
Strategy:diagram a UNIVERSAL premise before a Particular one as it may tell you where the*should go.

All squares have equal sides

Some squares are rectangles

Some rectangles have equal sides.

The conclusion -- that there

is something that is a

Rectangle -- already

appears in the diagram.

an invalid argument
An Invalid argument

All pediatricians are doctors

All pediatricians like children

All doctors like children

Below:The diagram for the conclusion is not contained in the diagram for the premises

Above: The diagram for the premises[ask: why ispart of the diagram darker?]

diagramming some when does the asterisk go on the line
Diagramming “some”: when does the asterisk go on the line?

Some doctors are golfers

Some fathers are doctors

Some fathers are golfers

.

  • The asterisk goes on the line when you have no information about the relationship.
    • For example in the above argument “Some doctors are golfers” the premise says nothing about the relation of doctors to fathers. Thus the blue asterisk is on the line between D & F.
    • Likewise in the second premise nothing is said about golfers. So the red asterisk is on the line between F & G.
diagramming some is the argument valid
Diagramming “some”: Is the argument valid?

Some doctors are golfers

Some fathers are doctors

Some fathers are golfers

.

The argumentis invalid becausethe diagram for the conclusion is not already contained in the diagram for in the premises.