Transcript Document
Being Logical D. Q. McInerny
Study Course Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 1
Introduction
We will be reading Being Logical by D. Q. McInerny You will get your own copy of the book and are free to mark it up Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 2
Introduction
This course will review some basic logic We will look at logical fallacies Overall, we want to strengthen our reasonable thinking Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 3
Introduction Assignment
Read the Preface and Part 1 – Preparing the Mind for Logic Be prepared to discuss what you have read Hint: if you find a list of “things” you may want to make note of these Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 4
Part 1 – Preparing the Mind for Logic
Be Attentive
Describe a time when your inattentiveness caused a problem How can you be more attentive?
Are there situations or topics where your attention drifts and it shouldn’t?
Are their topics or situations where it is usually OK to pay less attention?
5 Copyright 2008, Scott Gray
Part 1 – Preparing the Mind for Logic
Get the Facts Straight
What are the two types of facts?
How can you verify facts?
Are “facts” the same thing as “truth”?
Does everyone agree that there are objective facts? Objective truths?
6 Copyright 2008, Scott Gray
Part 1 – Preparing the Mind for Logic
Ideas and Objects of Ideas
Are all ideas traceable to extant things? Do these things exist in the world?
What about the idea that 2+2=4? Does this exist in the world? Is existence equivalent to tangible?
Is the author taking about verifiable truth here?
What about the existence of God?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 7
Part 1 – Preparing the Mind for Logic
Ideas and Objects of Ideas
“An idea is the subjective evocation of an objective fact.” Discuss.
How do you establish clarity in ideas Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 8
Part 1 – Preparing the Mind for Logic Be Mindful of Origins of Ideas
Why is objectivity important?
What is wrong when people say they create reality by their ideas?
How does the break between an idea and its object (thing, event) lead to miscommunication?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 9
Part 1 – Preparing the Mind for Logic Match Ideas to Facts
What are the three components of human knowledge?
What are simple and complex ideas?
Define a “bad idea” Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 10
Part 1 – Preparing the Mind for Logic Match Words to Ideas
Do you agree that ideas are not directly communicable?
How do you make sure your words convey the idea they represent?
Do words establish reality?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 11
Part 1 – Preparing the Mind for Logic Effective Communication
How do you know what your audience knows about the meaning of your words?
What is the importance of complete sentences?
What is the difference between a value statement and a factual statement? Are they interchangeable?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 12
Part 1 – Preparing the Mind for Logic Effective Communication
Are true statements of fact open to argument?
How do you know the language level of your audience?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 13
Part 1 – Preparing the Mind for Logic
Vague, Ambiguous, & Evasive Language Define vague language Define ambiguous Give an example of evasive language Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 14
Part 1 – Preparing the Mind for Logic Truth
Define ontological and logical truth Why is the coherence theory of truth subordinate to the correspondence theory?
How is the coherence theory of truth abused?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 15
Part 1 – Preparing the Mind for Logic Assignments
Read Part 2 – The Basic Principles of Logic Be prepared to discuss the content, especially “First Principles” Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 16
Part 2 – The Basic Principles of Logic First Principles
How do the first principles of logic apply to all sciences?
Explain the principle of identity.
Explain the principle of excluded middle.
Does this principle apply to things other than existence?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 17
Part 2 – The Basic Principles of Logic First Principles, cont.
Explain the principle of sufficient reason (causality).
Should we limit this principle to the physical world?
How does this principle bear on evolution?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 18
Part 2 – The Basic Principles of Logic First Principles, cont.
Explain the principle of contradiction.
Does this violate the principle of contradiction: Pres. Bush was wrong to invade Iraq, because al Qaeda is not there; we are making al Qaeda mad because we are killing them in Iraq.
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 19
Part 2 – The Basic Principles of Logic Gray Areas & Explanations
Are there really gray areas? Is anything really black & white?
How should the fact of there being an explanation for everything affect your curiosity?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 20
Part 2 – The Basic Principles of Logic Causes
Why is it important to find root causes?
Define efficient cause. What are its sub-divisions?
Define final cause.
Define material cause.
Define formal cause.
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 21
Part 2 – The Basic Principles of Logic Terms
What are the benefits of defining your terms?
Why define terms by both generalities (proximate genus) and specifics (specific difference)?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 22
Part 2 – The Basic Principles of Logic The Categorical Statement
Define a categorical statement.
Why do categorical statements form the best conclusions in logical arguments?
Give an example of a categorical statement form which is not a categorical statement.
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 23
Part 2 – The Basic Principles of Logic Generalizations
Why would someone avoid qualifiers (all, some, etc) in their statements?
Define universal, particular, and singular statements.
How can you be precise in particular statements?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 24
Part 2 – The Basic Principles of Logic Assignments
Read Part 3, Argument: The Language of Logic, parts 1 – 9 (through page 67) Be prepared to discuss what you’ve read Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 25
Part 3 – Argument: The Language of Logic
Founding an Argument
What is a premise? What is a conclusion?
What are the problems with a single argument having multiple conclusions?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 26
Part 3 – Argument: The Language of Logic
Universal to Particular and Back
Explain why “if something is universally true it is particularly true” is useful in logical thinking?
Is the move from particular to universal necessarily true? What about the other way?
How can you properly move from particular to universal?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 27
Part 3 – Argument: The Language of Logic
Predication; Negation
What is the test of sound predication?
How is truth and falsity related to affirmative and negative statements?
Do you agree with the author’s understanding of the mongrel statement on p.53?
What about the neurotic authors on p. 54?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 28
Part 3 – Argument: The Language of Logic
Comparisons
Comparisons are foundational to thought; judgment is crucial to linking ideas coherently. How does this relate to “being judgmental”?
How does the mice & elephant illustration (p.57) inform your reception of comparisons of unknown (to you) things?
Is argument by analogy a strong argument?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 29
Part 3 – Argument: The Language of Logic
Sound Arguments
Define a “sound argument”.
What is the difference between truth & validity?
What is the difference between inclusive OR and exclusive OR?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 30
Part 3 – Argument: The Language of Logic
Conditional Arguments
Why don’t we always have a “real necessary” connection between antecedent and consequent? Should we?
How do we assess conditional arguments in light of this?
How does the future orientation of conditionals affect their reliability?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 31
Part 3 – Argument: The Language of Logic
Assignment
Read the balance of Part 3 Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 32
Part 3 – Argument: The Language of Logic
Syllogistic Argument
What are the three elements of a categorical syllogism? These elements are called propositions.
We are going to dig into categorical syllogisms more deeply than the book covered them.
The next cell has a chart showing all possible forms of a proposition.
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 33
Part 3 – Argument: The Language of Logic
Categorical Syllogisms: Propositions
Type (or mood) A E I O
Form
All S are P No S are P Some S are P Some S are not
P
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray
Example
All whales are mammals No whales are fish Some logicians are philosophers Some philosophers are not logicians 34
Part 3 – Argument: The Language of Logic Categorical Syllogisms: Propositions, cont.
The variables “S” and “P” are placeholders for terms which indicate a class or category of thing. Hence categorical propositions.
In a categorical syllogism there are three terms. Two terms in each premise. A total of two occurrences of each term in the entire argument. There are a total of six occurrences of three terms.
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 35
Part 3 – Argument: The Language of Logic Categorical Syllogisms: Propositions, cont.
The “S” and “P” (the subject and predicate terms) are also known as the “minor” and “major” terms, respectively.
The major term is the predicate of the conclusion and also occurs once in one of the premises, which is known as the major premise.
The minor term is the subject of the conclusion and also occurs once in the other premise, known as the minor premise.
The third term occurs once in each premise, but not in the conclusion, also known as the middle term.
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 36
Part 3 – Argument: The Language of Logic
Categorical Syllogisms: Standard Form
Major premise Minor premise Conclusion Each of these may be one of the four types or moods: A, E, I, or O These moods may be listed in the order they occur in the standard form to identify the syllogism. Examples OAO, EIO Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 37
Part 3 – Argument: The Language of Logic Categorical Syllogisms: Standard Form, cont.
To uniquely identify the syllogism we also need to know where the middle term occurs in both premises. This is done using a diagram: M P P M M P P M 1 2 3 4 S M S M M S M S Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 38
Part 3 – Argument: The Language of Logic Categorical Syllogisms: Standard Form, cont.
With the number indication of the location of the middle term we can identify any syllogism: IAI-3 or AEE-4, for example.
How many distinct forms of categorical syllogism are there?
Some syllogistic forms are valid and other are invalid. Every syllogism which uses a valid form is a valid argument, regardless of the contents. The same is true, in the inverted sense, for the invalid forms – the contents don’t matter.
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 39
Part 3 – Argument: The Language of Logic Categorical Syllogisms: Standard Form, cont.
There are only a handful of validating categorical syllogisms There is not even agreement here, as some commit the Existential Fallacy See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism a list of the validating forms for Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 40
Part 3 – Argument: The Language of Logic
Categorical Syllogisms: Distribution
Distributed term: all individual members of the category are accounted for.
“All A are B” – the subject is distributed “No A are B” – both subject & predicate are distributed “Some A are B” – neither subject nor predicate are distributed “Some A are not B” – the predicate is distributed Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 41
Part 3 – Argument: The Language of Logic Categorical Syllogisms: Proposition Types Revisited
Form
All X is Y
Type
A
Quality
Affirmative
Quantity
Universal
Distribution of X Distribution of Y
Distributed Undistributed No X is
Y
Some X is Y Some X is not Y E I Negative O Negative Universal Affirmative Existential Existential Distributed Distributed Undistributed Undistributed Undistributed Distributed Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 42
Part 3 – Argument: The Language of Logic
Categorical Syllogisms: Examples
All philosophers are professors.
All philosophers are logicians.
Therefore, all logicians are professors.
What is the form?
AAA-3 Is this a valid syllogism? What about this one: All terriers are dogs.
All terriers are mammals.
Therefore, all mammals are dogs.
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 43
Part 3 – Argument: The Language of Logic
Categorical Syllogisms: Diagramming
Use a Venn diagram.
There are three steps: • draw 3 overlapping circles, label them to represent the major, minor, and middle terms • draw the diagrams of both of the premises always begin with the universal proposition in each case, you only touch two circles, never three for the universal & negated universal, fill an area for the existential, mark an “X” • without drawing anything else, look for the drawing of the conclusion; if the syllogism is valid, it is already drawn Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 44
Part 3 – Argument: The Language of Logic Categorical Syllogisms: Diagramming Example Diagram example: No M are P.
Some M are S.
Therefore, some S are not P.
What is the form?
EIO-3 Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 45
Part 3 – Argument: The Language of Logic Categorical Syllogisms: Diagramming Example, cont.
Step 1 in diagramming: Step 2a: Step 2b: Step 3: Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 46
Part 3 – Argument: The Language of Logic
Assignments
Read part 4 of the text and be prepared to discuss Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 47
Part 4 – The Sources of Illogical Thinking
Skepticism
“The extreme skeptic proclaims baldly that there is no truth” • Where have you heard that before?
It is actually much stronger than people known as “skeptics”, it is the center of entire philosophies Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 48
Part 4 – The Sources of Illogical Thinking
Agnosticism
What are the Greek roots of the word “agnostic”?
How can saying you are agnostic be a cover for laziness or worse?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 49
Part 4 – The Sources of Illogical Thinking
Narrow-Mindedness
Discuss: “An open mind, like an open mouth, should eventually close on something.” Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 50
Part 4 – The Sources of Illogical Thinking
Emotions
Consider how you can recognize when your emotions make it hard for you to be reasonable.
“Never appeal directly to people’s emotions.” • Why not?
• Can you give some examples of this being done?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 51
Part 4 – The Sources of Illogical Thinking
Odds & Ends
An argument is a logical case for or against something. So, why do some have a problem with arguments?
Can one be sincere and still wrong?
Are there limits to common sense?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 52
Part 4 – The Sources of Illogical Thinking
Assignment
Read Part 5, The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking, items (fallacies) 1 11.
Be prepared to discuss each fallacy.
Be listening and looking for examples of these fallacies.
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 53
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking
Denying the Antecedent
Explain this What is the corresponding correct mode Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 54
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking
Denying the Antecedent, cont.
Example: "…I want to list seventeen summary statements which, if true, provide abundant reason why the reader should reject evolution and accept special creation as his basic world-view. … 14. Belief in evolution is a necessary component of atheism, pantheism, and all other systems that reject the sovereign authority of an omnipotent personal God." Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 55
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking
Denying the Antecedent, cont.
Analysis of example: • x is “necessary component of” y = if y then x • So, the argument is: If atheism/pantheism is true then evolution is true. Atheism/pantheism is false. Therefore, evolution is false.
• Additionally, the first premise isn’t true anyway.
56 Copyright 2008, Scott Gray
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking
Affirming the Consequent
Explain this What is the corresponding correct mode?
Example: If it's raining then the streets are wet. The streets are wet. Therefore, it's raining. Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 57
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking
Undistributed Middle
The middle term is not distributed, ie. It doesn’t account for all of its members.
Example: Some dogs are idiots.
Coda is a dog.
Therefore, Coda is an idiot.
This does not prove Coda is an idiot.
Also known as “Guilt by Association” fallacy.
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 58
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking
Equivocation
Define this Mark well that equivocation can occur formally, in a syllogism or formal argument, or informally, whenever there are multiple meanings for a term in an discussion.
Example: All banks are beside rivers. Therefore, the financial institution where I deposit my money is beside a river. Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 59
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking
Begging the Question
Define this.
AKA • Circular Argument • Circulus in Probando • Petitio Principii • Vicious Circle This is an informal fallacy. It is also a validating form of argument (every instance is valid).
The name of this fallacy has been misused and means “raises the question” to many people.
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 60
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking
False Assumptions
Explain Assumptions are necessary for us to function intellectually, but they must always be understood as assumptions.
Similarly, theories must be viewed as such, not treated as fact, a la the theory of evolution.
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 61
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking
The Straw-Man
Explain This is a dishonest mistake, in that the one doing it is doing it intentionally, it is a deliberate distortion.
This fallacy is committed against believers quite often.
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 62
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking
Tradition
There are two ways tradition is abused. Describe them.
Can you think of examples in the church of this?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 63
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking
Two Wrongs != Right
Explain.
This fallacy can be in appropriately applied though. Consider those against the death penalty.
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 64
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking
The Democratic Fallacy
Explain See CNN’s recession poll Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 65
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking
Ad Hominem
Define Take a look at the Fallacy Files on this fallacy for sub-fallacies.
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 66
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking
Assignments
Finish reading chapter 5, fallacies 12-28. For each, do you agree with the author?
Read the following articles: • Seeing the Unseen, part 1 • How Not to Argue (Part III) • The New Atheists The web site is now up ( http://192.168.1.2/being_logical/index.html
), the articles can be found there Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 67
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking
Force
What does it mean to use something other than “the force of reason” in an argument?
What are some of the ways illicit force can be used?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 68
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking
Expertise
When should and when shouldn’t you give weight to an expert’s opinion?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 69
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking
Quantifying a Quality
Discuss the author’s thoughts on qualifying temperature (p.117-118) Is identifying “quantifying and quality” as a fallacy a fallacy itself?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 70
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking
More than the Source
Describe this fallacy This is also known as the “genetic fallacy” See “More on Jamil Hussein : Are Leftists Cognitively Impaired?” Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 71
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking Analysis, Reductionism, Misclassification What is the complement to analysis?
What is the fallacy of reductionism?
How/why do we misclassify things?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 72
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking
Red Herring
What is the red herring fallacy?
List at least two things wrong with this tactic Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 73
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking
Laughter, Tears and Other Distractions
Describe these fallacies Does it ever legitimately serve our purpose to make people laugh or sad?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 74
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking
Incompetence Fallacy
Does our inability to prove something mean it is false?
How does the example on p.124 relate to burden of proof.
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 75
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking
False Dilemma
Define the false dilemma.
AKA Excluded Middle, Black-and-White Fallacy Example: "Gerda Reith is convinced that superstition can be a positive force. 'It gives you a sense of control by making you think you can work out what's going to happen next,' she says. 'And it also makes you feel lucky. And to take a risk or to enter into a chancy situation, you really have to believe in your own luck. In that sense, it's a very useful way of thinking, because the alternative is fatalism, which is to say, 'Oh, there's nothing I can do.' At least superstition makes people do things.'" Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 76
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Describe this fallacy Sometimes counter-examples help to understand and correct: Roosters crow just before the sun rises. Therefore, roosters crowing cause the sun to rise.
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 77
Part 5 – The Principle Forms of Illogical Thinking Special Pleading, Expediency, Avoiding Conclusions, Simplistic Reasoning The author botches special pleading!
Give an example of the expedient fallacy.
What are some problems with ignoring conclusions?
Why do you suppose the author left the simplistic reasoning fallacy to the end?
Copyright 2008, Scott Gray 78