INFORMAL LOGIC

PHIL 003/CLST 103, Fall 2012

What is Logic?

'Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'

 Broadly speaking, logic is the study of the principles of

good or correct reasoning.

Reasoning involves making inferences from one set of

information to another set of information.

Well be focusing on a particular kind of inference an

argument. Well be learning how to identify and evaluate arguments.

An argument means many things in ordinary language,

but for us it will mean something quite specific. Heres a first stab at an explanation of this specific meaning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c

Arguments
As the sketch illustrates, an argument is not the same

thing as a quarrel. The goal of an argument is not to attack your opponent, or to impress your audience. The goal of an argument is to offer good reasons in support of your conclusion, reasons that all parties to your dispute can accept. Nor is an argument just the denial of what the other person says. Even if what your opponent says is wrong and you know it to be wrong, to resolve your dispute you have to produce arguments. And you haven't yet produced an argument against your opponent until you offer some reasons that show her to be wrong.

Basic Terms
Statement: A declarative sentence, or part of sentence, that can

be either true or false. Proposition: Sometimes used synonymously with statement. However, it is usually used to name something abstract that two different statements with the same meaning are both said to express. Argument: A collection of statements or propositions, some of which are intended to provide support or evidence in the favor of one of the others. Premises: Those statements or propositions that are intended to provide evidence in an argument Conclusion: The conclusion of an argument is that statement or proposition for which the premises are intended to provide support

Conclusion and Premise flags

Here are some common premise flags:

because; since; given that; for

e.g. 'That's the reason they're called lessons,' the Gryphon remarked: 'because they lessen from day to day. (Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland)

Here are some common conclusion flags:

thus; therefore; hence; it follows that; so; consequently

e.g. 'Well, then,' the Cat went on, I growl when I'm pleased, and wag my tail when I'm angry. Therefore I'm mad.(Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland)

Types of Arguments
There are two basic types of arguments: Inductive Deductive Inductive arguments have premises that make the

conclusion probable or likely. The premises are only so strong that it is improbable that the premises could be true and the conclusion false. Deductive arguments have premises that are intended to make necessitate the conclusion and not just make it probable. We will be concerned, for the most part, with deductive arguments

Evaluating Arguments
Some arguments provide better reasons for believing their

conclusions than others. Evaluating an argument involves two essential steps:

Determine whether or not the premises support the

conclusion if they are true. Determine whether or not the premises are true.
The second of these tasks may involve evaluating further

arguments in support of the premises. There is an obvious question to ask : what is it for the premises of an argument to support its conclusion?

Validity
We call an argument deductively valid if the conclusion

follows from the premises. This means that if the premises are true then the conclusion is false. [the if is very important]. E.g. if all blue things can fly and all pigs are blue then all pigs can fly. The fact that blue things cant, in our world at any rate, in fact fly and that all pigs arent actually blue has no bearing on the question of validity. A deductively valid argument only provides one with a good reason for believing its conclusion if its premises are in fact true. Validity is a purely formal notion.

Validity as a formal notion

Argument A: 1. All tigers are mammals 2. No mammals are creature with scales 3. Therefore, no tigers are creatures with scales

Argument B: 1. All spider monkeys are elephants 2. No elephants are animals 3. Therefore no spider monkeys are animals These arguments have the same form. Arguments with this form are always valid

Validity as a formal notion

Argument C: 1. All Jedis are one with the Force 2. Yoda is one with the Force 3. Therefore, Yoda is a Jedi Argument D: 1. All basketballs are round 2. The earth is round 3. Therefore, the Earth is a basketball These arguments have the same form. Arguments with this form are always invalid

Strength
Inductive arguments are assessed on the basis of their

strength. They can be strong or weak but not valid or invalid. The strength of an inductive argument is assessed on the basis of how likely it is that the conclusion follows from the premises. Inductive arguments are usually based on previous experience or observation. The strength of such arguments depends in large part on three of its elements: how accurate and comprehensive the previous observations are how strong the causal link seems to be; how similar the two cases are.

Soundness and Cogency

A sound deductive argument is valid and the premises are

true. They are factually accurate arguments. The argument for flying pigs, for instance, is not a sound argument even though it is valid. Corresponding to the notion of deductive soundness, an inductive argument that is both strong and has true premises is called a cogent inductive argument.
It is very important to distinguish soundness from

validity. Soundness concerns into the substance of the propositions and not just the structure of the argument.

Examples
1. If the moon is made of green cheese, then all cows jump

over it 2. The moon is made of green cheese 3. Therefore, all cows jump over the moon

Is this a deductive or inductive argument? Is it valid/strong? It is sound/cogent?

Examples
1. There are thirty beers in this bucket 2. The first twenty nine beers were PBR 3. All the beers in this bucket are PBR

Is this a deductive or inductive argument? Is it valid/strong? It is sound/cogent?

Examples
Socrates is a man Some men are mortal Socrates is mortal

Is this a deductive or inductive argument? Is it valid/strong? It is sound/cogent?

Examples
1. Every Borogrove is mimsy 2. Every mimsy thing is brillig 3. Every Borogrove is brillig

Is this a deductive or inductive argument? Is it valid/strong? It is sound/cogent?

Missing Premises
Sometimes we need to supply missing premises. Consider

the following invalid argument: 1. Every animal is mortal 2. Every shark is a fish 3. Every shark is mortal

This seems valid but note that it has the same structure as

this clearly invalid argument: 1. Every ant is mean 2. Every shark is a fish 3. Every shark is mean

Missing Premises
However, we can make the first argument valid by just

supplying one additional premise:

Every animal is mortal 2. Every shark is a fish 3. Every fish is an animal 4. Every shark is mortal
1. This is important because you will often come across invalid

arguments in philosophical texts that are only invalid because of a premise that has been left unstated because its considered obvious. In its original iteration it is not valid but you can make it so with relative ease. Why supply missing premises?

Digression: Principle of Charity

The Principle of Charity is a methodological presumption

made in seeking to understand a point of view whereby we represent that view in its strongest, most persuasive from before subjecting the view to evaluation. is most cogent or the one that can be made valid or sound by supplying missing premises.

E.g. if more than one view is presented we choose the one that

The principle of charity is a methodological principleideas can

be critiqued after an adequate understanding is achieved. The original presumption of setting aside our own beliefs and assuming the new ideas are true is only a provisional presumption.

Validity Redux
As mentioned earlier, validity is a formal notion. Here are

some illustrative examples. Argument A: 1. Phil 3 is either a fun course or it is boring 2. Phil 3 is not fun 3. Therefore, Phil 3 is boring. Argument B: 1. All dogs are either blue or green 2. All dogs are not blue 3. Therefore, all dogs are green

Validity contd.
Can you spot the similarity in arguments A and B? The first premise sets up a disjunction* i.e. an eitheror

sentences The second premise rules out the first disjunct i.e. one of the two sentences involved in a disjunction We are left with one disjunct and the premise affirms this.
Both arguments have the same structure even thought the

content is radically different. Argument A is sound whereas Argument B is not but both are deductively valid.

*I have used exclusive disjunctions i.e. the disjuncts are mutually exclusive. Only one of them can be true. I will be using only exclusive disjunctions unless otherwise indicated

Disjunctive Syllogism
The form of Arguments A and B has a name: disjunctive

syllogism. Disjunctive syllogisms are always valid. A syllogism is a form of inference with two premises and a conclusion. Take Argument A and assign the following letters to each statement: P: Phil 3 is boring Q: Phil 3 is fun The form is: Premise 1: Either P or Q Premise 2: Not P Conclusion: Therefore, Q

Tautology
A tautology is a proposition which is true in every

possible interpretation. Tautologies dont provide us with new information. E.g. This is either a table or it is not If this is a table, then it is a table Something A is said to tautologically imply something else B when the inference from A to B is always valid.

Logical Connectives
Before we can lay out some tautological formulae and

instances of tautological implication, lets take a look at the basic logical connectives.

Conjunction: and; but Exclusive Disjunction: Eitheror Negation: not Material Conditional/Implication: Ifthen Biconditional: If and only if

Truth Functionality
A truth value is a value indicating the relation of a proposition

to truth. A truth function is a compound proposition whose truth or falsity is unequivocally determined by the truth or falsity of its components for all cases.

Conjunctive statements are only true when all the components

the conjuncts are true. Disjunctive statements are true as long as one of the components the disjuncts is true.

Material Implication and Biconditionals are a little harder to

grasp than the others. Lets look into them in some more detail.

Material Conditional:
Material conditionals have the form: If P then Q. P is

called the antecedent and Q is called the consequent.

E.g. "If all philosophers are thinkers and John is a philosopher,

then John is a thinker. [This used two connectives]

In general, the meaning is that (1) if the antecedent and

consequent of a conditional statement are true, then the conditional as a whole is true, but (2) if the antecedent is true and the consequent is false, then the conditional as a whole is false.

Material Conditional contd.

Material conditionals are false when the antecedent is true

but the consequent is false. E.g. If my hair is wet then it is raining. But surely there are many instances in which my hair can be wet. There can be a case in which my hair is wet and it didnt rain. Material conditionals are true when both the antecedent and the consequent are true (the example in slide 27) However, and this may seem strange, material conditional statements are always true when the antecedent is false. But consider statements that express incredulity: If [insert unlikely fact] then Im a flying Dutchman! for instance. Note the antecedent here is Im a flying Dutchman. The antecedent is not always the first statement.

Necessary and Sufficient Conditions

When we talk about conditionals we often use the phrases

necessary condition and sufficient condition To say that one fact is a sufficient condition for a second fact means that, so long as the first fact obtains, that's enough to guarantee that the second fact obtains, too. For example, if you have ten children, that is sufficient for you to be a parent. To say that one fact is a necessary condition for a second fact means that, in order for the second fact cant be true if the first fact isnt true. For example, in order for you to be a father, it's necessary that you be male. You can't be a father unless you're male. So being male is a necessary condition for being a father.

Biconditional
These are statements of the form: P if and only if Q. This means that P is true only when Q is true and Q is true only

when P is true. Biconditionals are often used to form definitions. E.g. A triangle is isosceles if and only if the triangle has two congruent sides. The "if and only if" portion of the definition tells you that the statement is true when either sentence (or fact) is the hypothesis. This means that both of the statements below are true: If a triangle is isosceles, then the triangle has two congruent (equal) sides. (true) If a triangle has two congruent (equal) sides, then the triangle is isosceles. (true)

Rules of Inference
Some forms are always valid. Tautologies, for instance, are

always valid.

Law of the Excluded Middle: Either P or not-P Examples: The chair is either red or it is not red Law of Contraposition: (If P then Q) if and only if (If not-P

then not-Q) Example: If an object does not have color, then it is not red: (if an object is red then it has color) if and only if (if the object does not have color then it is not red)

Rules of Inference
Hypothetical Syllogism: If [(If P then Q) and (if Q then

R)] then [(if P then R)] Note the nested propositions Example: If the apple is red then it is fresh and if it is fresh then it is crunchy so then if the apple is red then it is crunchy. Law of detachment: If [(P) and (If P then Q)] then Q Example: If Jim Lehrer is a terrible moderator and if Jim Lehrer is a terrible moderator then he shouldnt moderate a presidential debate, then Jim Lehrer shouldnt moderate a presidential debate.

Rules of Inference
Modus Ponens: If [(if P then Q) and (P)] then Q

Example: If you love Lewis Carroll then youre awesome and you love Lewis Carroll then youre awesome.
Modus Tollens: If [(if A then B) and (not-B) then not-A

Example: If I own a dog then Im happy and I do not own a dog then Im not happy.

Rules of Inference
De Morgans Laws 1. not-(P and Q) if and only if (not-P) or (not-Q)

Example: Its not the case that the Earth is round and the Sun does not orbit around the Earth.
2. not- (P or Q) if and only if (not-P) and (not-Q)

Example: Its not the case that theres not a snake in my boot and I am smiling

Reductio ad absurdum
This isnt a logical inference, but its an important form of

argument and one that is used quite frequently. The general form is that of a modus tollens. Think of it this way: We know that if P, then Q. Now suppose for the sake of argument that P is true. Then Q would have to be true, too, right? Since if P, then Q. But we know that Q is not true!--this is one of our premises. So our supposition that P is true must be wrong: it leads us to something that we know is false. That is, it must be the case that not-P.

Reductio ad absurdum
This kind of reasoning is known as reductio ad absurdum:

you accept some hypothesis for the sake of argument, and then you show that the hypothesis leads to a contradiction, or to some other conclusion you know independently to be false. Hence the hypothesis can't be true. It has to be rejected. E.g. Lets say that we want to prove that societies have laws. Lets begin by assuming that they dont. If societies didnt have laws, there would be chaos. But there isnt any chaos. Therefore, societies must have laws.

Formal Fallacies
reasoning Affirming the Consequent: The form of this fallacy is: If [(if P then Q) and (Q)] then P. Example: If if have the flu, then I have a sore throat and I have a sore throat so I have the flu.
A logical fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect

Denying the Antecedent: The form of this fallacy is: If [(if

P then Q) and (not-P] then not-Q. Example: If if have the flu, then I have a sore throat and I dont have the flu so I dont have a sore throat.

Informal Fallacies
Argumentum Ad Hominem these arguments attack the

source of an argument - not anything within the argument itself. Name-calling by itself is not ad hominem. Rather, the attack on the arguer must occur as an ostensible attack on an argument. If no argument is offered - there is no ad hominem (or any other kind of fallacy) at work. e.g. Socrates thinks that virtue cant be taught but Socrates is dumb, so virtue can be taught.

Informal Fallacies
Argumentum Ad Populum: these are considered to be

true because many or most people believe it to be true. e.g. No one sleeps eight hours! So theres no need to sleep eight hours.
Argumentum Ad Verecundiam: these are appeals to

authority. These are especially problematic when the authority appealed to is not an authority on the question under discussion. e.g. Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God, so you should believe in God too.

Informal Fallacies
Appeal to Tradition: using past practices to justify

present ones. e.g. Weve always believed in Olympian deities, so we should continue to believe in Olympian deities.
Appeal to Ignorance: arguing that since theres no

evidence against a claim, the claim must be true. e.g. You cant prove that virtue can be taught, so virtue cant be taught.

Informal Fallacies
Equivocation: This is a bad form of argument where one

of the key terms can be understood in two ways, and the plausibility of the argument depends on reading the term differently in different premises. E.g. All politicians are snakes, and no snake has legs, so no politician has legs. The equivocation is on snake. Begging the question: This does not mean "prompting or inviting the question. To beg the question is to assume the very point at issue in attempting to argue for it. This is also sometimes called "circular reasoning. E.g. Whatever is less dense than water will float, because such objects won't sink in water

Informal Fallacies
Slippery Slope: asserting that a relatively small first step

inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact. e.g. We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!
Straw Man : attacking an oversimplified version of an

opponent's actual position. A failure to apply the principle of charity often results in a straw man argument.

Informal Fallacies
Post hoc ergo propter hoc : The argument attempts to

turn simple correlation into false or questionable causation. e.g. Because the birds sing every morning before the sun rises, the birds' singing causes the sun to rise.
False dilemma (or trilemma, etc.) : this occurs when a

claim - usually a premise in a (perhaps otherwise valid deductive) argument - presents an artificial range of choices, e.g., two choices when there are really three or more . e.g. You either love Philosophy or you loathe Philosophy

Informal Fallacies
Red Herring: distracting the reader or listener with an

argument against a related, but essentially different, argument.

Ignoratio elenchi (missing the point): drawing an

alarmingly extreme conclusion from premises which would support a different or more moderate one. E.g., it's likely social security may run into financial difficulties around the year 2018, to avoid these difficulties it's imperative that we get rid of social security.