7 21, Berccr conmusary BEEP Pedal eteeteoteeesme cee eee ceceee ee ‘If you or someone else has argued that some E, causes some E,, itis ‘not necessarily a counterexample to show that occasionally E, doesn't produce E,, or that another cause entirely may also sometimes produce ,. The claim is just that E, often or usually produces E., and that other causes less commonly do, 1¢ major contributors to involve multiple causes and there may be 3. There are people wio never smoke ciga~ 1g cancer, and also people who smoke tl packs of cigarettes a day and never get it. Both effects are medically in- ‘riguing and important, but the fact remains that smoking is the prime ccause of lung cancer. “Many different causes may contribute to an overall causes of global climate change are many and varie: ness, does not show that human ‘Once again, the causal story is complex. Many factors are at work. (In- deed, ifthe sun is also contributing to global warming, there's even more reason to try to decrease our contribution. and effects may interpenetrate as well. Reading, for instance, es lead {0 open-mindedness. ‘mindediness also leads to which creates more open-mindedness in turn. Meanwhile, ‘minded people are mor ‘and friendships in the first place. Often the most interesting. causal stories are loops! Vi Deductive Arguments es Consider this argument: If there are n0 chance factors in chess hen chess isa game of pure ski, ‘There are no chance factors in chess. ‘Therefore, chess isa game of pure sill Soppose that he premises finn sige neti tree nhac 2 gare of presi and sopone ae a cre no chance Yeu can thar concn Wi pets sceaae ta opus There is no way to admit the ruth ofthese: true. In other words, type ar tive argument ee {ype ae called deductive arguments, Dati, a deductive ‘Arguments are called valid argur gee agunens die fom he sor of sgn 5 co sein which even lg nner of ee pets dvs no gu hf te concason ltoughcomotines ey ay nak likely). In nondeductive arguments, the dably goes be. In real life, of course, we tal = se, we can'talways bo sie of or peas eit, the conchon of eis deimve agunens Wil ncoieaien a38 22, Moous powens ‘with afew (sometimes many) grains of sat, Still, when strong premises canbe found, deductive forms are very useful. And even when the prem- ises are uncertain, deductive forms offer an effective way to organize arguments Modus ponens Using the letters p and q to stand for declarative.sentences, the simplest 1 (sentence p] then [sentence q]. [Sentence pl. Therefore, isentence g) Or, more briefly: Frptheng. P. Therefore, 4. ‘This form is called modus ponens (“the mode of putting”: put p, get q). ‘Taking p to stand for “There are no chance factors in ct nd q to stand for “Che ‘game of pure skill,” our introductory example fol- lovrs modus ponens (check Here is another: If rivers on cell phones have more accide prohibited from using them. then deivers should be Drivers on cell phones do have more accidents. “Therefore, drivers should be prohibited from using cell phones. ‘To develop this argument, you must explain and defend both of its prem- ies, and they require quite different arguments (go back and look). Modus 22, Menus rotens 3 SeaeesETE Sa rrsrpaar errr oca nas an nOnSRAGTSRNSET Ponens gives you a way to lay them out cl ere y ¥y to lay them out clearly and separately from the Modus tollens A second valid deductive form is modus take q, take p). (the mode of taking”: Irp ten g. Notq. op was hep nth sable, nd Jes an ye hgh somone a ee a ‘and hed fetched out a horse, {the dog] had not barked. an ie "Obsoa the sitor was someone whom the dog knew well. a Holme’ guent canbe putas «mad ls: eb visor een th dog wold ve Mh dog int ak Tere, vr es aa see TP wt tis argument in is symbols, you could use § for “ vis ‘Was a stranger” and b for “The dog barked.” eee ete Nak Therefore, not.#0 24, Hreorencat smsocisn “Not-b” stands for “The dog did not bark,” 1s” stands for “The (OF was not a st Holmes put it, the visitor was someone ‘whom the dog knew we Hypothetical syllogism A third valid deductive form js “hypothetical syllogism. ipthen q. fq thea ®. Therefore, if p then For instance: {fyou stady other cultures, shen you start to realize the variety of human customs. Ifyou star to realize the variety of human customs, then you become more tolerant “Therefore, if you stady other caltures, then you beconte more tolerant ‘Using the letters in bolfce to stand forthe component sentences in this statement, we have: ifsthon Wevdhent “Therefore ifs then Hypothetical syllogisms are valid for any number of premises, 2s long ‘as each premise has the form “If p then q” and the q (called the “conse ‘quent”) of one premise becomes the p (the “antecedent”) of the next. Disjunctive syllogism ‘A fourth valid deductive form is “disjpnctive syllogism.” Pora. Nop. Therefor, Consider, for instance, Bertrand Rus Rule 2: segiment discussed under Biter we hope for popes ey improving mal or we hope foe Progress by improving intclligence. ze We ca’ hope eros by inpevie mre. Thrfre, we mus hope fx progres by nova aeligsace Again osng the boldface leer as symbols this argument goes mock Notm. ‘Therefore, i, "red tht iter po is tebe bth,“ Dylan orth’ come by se for example, sug they we t . n't come both ways atone at cis you might beable one tei hey com one war tiee We ‘not coming the other way (better be sure!) :-26, Dusson Disjunctive eyltogisms are vad regardless of which sense of “or” is ff anything, you may be able to infer from 2 statement like “p or fou also know p—depends on the meaning of “or” in the specific “por q” premise you are considering. Take care! Dilemma ~ “dilemma.” A Gfth valid deduetive form is: porg. Ip then Iq dens. “Therefore, rors. Rhetorically,a dilemma is a choice between two options both of which ‘consequences. The pessimist philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, for example, formulated what is sometimes called the “Hedgehog's dilemma,” which we could paraphrase like this: ichogs get, the more likely thoy are to poke each other with ther spikes; bu if they remain apan, they will be lonely. So itis with people: being close 1 someone inevitably creates conflicts and provocations end opens us to a lot of pain; but on the other hand, ‘we're lonely when we stand apart In outline this argument might be put: Fither we became elose to others or we stand apart, If we become elose to others, we sulfer confict and pain. Ir we stand apart, we'll be lonely ‘Therefore, either we suffer conflict and pain or we'll be lonely 27, neoucTI0 40 AasunouMN iB ——2inmienososannoun And in symbols: Biter € ora. Wethens, Hatheal ‘Therefore, either s or]. A further ergument in dilemma form could conclude, eves : : conclude, even more simply, something like “Either way we'll be unhappy.” T'l leave this one to you to write out formally. Since this is such a joll may aybe I should add that hedgehogs are actually g ‘without poking each other, They can be together and comfortable t00. Schopenhauer’s second prem ‘se turns out to be false—at least for hedgehogs. Reductio ad absurdum ne traditional deductive strategy,deserves. special mention even though, strictly speaking, itis only a version of modus, i tio ad absurd, that is, lens. This is the reduc assuming the opposite leads to absurdity: to Nothing is left todo, the argument suggests, but to accept the To prove: p. Assioe the opposite: Not, Argue that from the assumption we'd have 0 conclude: qe Stow haifa coarsest meray opal unacceptable... ). oe . Concludes p must be true after all.ig 27, pepucm Ao assunoum 28. Depucrie ancumenrs iv seat stens 4 Rule 12dsused an aguent fo he have cress, he argument os, ad ended aban, Ts the ey Creat 1Dalto ced David Ha randy star enoogh ot house fo ts analogy fo cme ie woud seem to follow tat the Crestor ofthe worl not pret either. But you would conser ts onesie abn: The only way te void tabu, ever, eet suposion ht ede toit Therefore the world does not have a Creator in the way a does. Spelled out in reductio form, the argument is: ‘To prove: The world does not have a Crestor inthe way a house oss. Assume the opposite: The world does have & Creator inthe wey & house does. Argue that from the assumption we'd have to conclude:"Toe Crestor {is imperfect (because the World is imperfect But; God cannot be imperfect, Conclude: The world does not have a Creator in the way a louse does. Not everyone would find the idea ofan imperfect God “absurd,” but Hume knew thatthe Christians with whom he was arguing would cept it ® David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, pp. 4-31. Deductive arguments in several steps Many valid deductive arguments are combinations ofthe basic forms in- aiuueed in Rules 22-27. Here, for example, is Sherlock Holmes per. forming simple deduction for Doctor Watsons edification, meanurig fommenting on the relative roles of observation and deduction. Holmes ‘has casually remarked that Ws ‘atson visited a certain post office that atom- ing, and furthermore that off replies Watson, amazed, sec how you arrived ati. licity itself... Observation tolls me that you have a litle adhesing to your instep. ey have taken up the Which lies im such way that itis ‘entering. The earth i ofthis peculiar rich is founé, as far owhere else in the neighborhood. Se much is observation, hen, did you deduce the telegram?" Putting Holmes's deduction into explicit premises, we might have 1. Watson has a lite reddish mold on his boots, litle reddish mold on his boots then he has eon to jgmore Street Post Office this moming (because there there is reddish dist ofthat sort thrown up, and in a wey ficult to avoid stepping in) — Sith Conan Doyle, “The Sin of Foun The Compete Sherlock Holes, .9)-52,46 28, DeDucrie ARGUMENTS IN SARA STEPS 3, Le Watson has been to the Wigmore Sieet Post Office this morning, ‘he ether mailed alter, ought stamps or cards, or seat 2 Wire 4, If Watson had mailed a letter, he would have written the Teter this morning, 5. Watson wrote no letter this morning. 6, IT Watson had bought stamps or cards, he would not already heave 1a deawer full of stamps and cards. 7, Watson already has a drawer full of stamps and cards. 8, Therefore, Watson sent a wie atthe Wigmore Street Post Office this morning. ‘We now need to break the argument down into a series of valid argu- ‘ments in the simple forms presented in Rules 22-27. We might start with ‘a modus ponens: 2, If Watson has @ litle reddish mold on his boots, then he has been to the Wigmore Steet Post Office tis morning. 1, Watson has a litle reddish mold on his boots, Therefore, Watson has been to Wigmore Steet Post Office this ‘moming. (L will use I, ete, to stand for the conclusions of simple arguments, which then can be used as premises to draw farther conclusions.) Another modus ponens follows: 13, If Watson has been to the Wigmore Street Post Oiice this moming, he either mailed a leer, bought stamps or cends,or sent a wire 1, Watson hes been to Wigmore Street Post Office this moming. IL Therefore, Watson either mailed a Jeter, bought stamps or cards, or sent a wire. ‘Two of these three possibilities now can be ruled out, both by modus ‘ollens: 28. Deoucre neuen sme ® —Sterrimemensnsenenmr a 4. 18 Wasen ad gone He 1 he posto mal alee ew ‘have written the letter this morning. isa 5. Was i ote is ing Il, Therefore, Watson did not goto the post office to mail a lever, and 6, If Watson had gone to the post offi 0 office wo buy stamps or cards, be ould not already have a drasver ful of stamps and cards, 7, ‘Watson already hes a drawer full of stamps and cards, IV, Therefore, Watson did not goto the post. 200 the post office to buy stamps ox Finaliy we can put it all together: I. Watson either mailed a leter, ought stamps or cards o sent a ‘wire tthe Wigmore Steet Post Office this moming. TV, Watson did not buy stamps or cards 8. Therefore, Watson sent a wire atthe Wigmore Si Teton jgmore Street Post Office nlerence is an extended disjunctiv Mogism: “Bis other factors, and the one which remains must be the uth.” the truth,