001 logic08_reasoning

12
REASONING Inference, Truth and Validity

description

SUMMER

Transcript of 001 logic08_reasoning

Page 1: 001  logic08_reasoning

REASONINGInference, Truth and

Validity

Page 2: 001  logic08_reasoning

REASONING (…meaning)• 5.1. Reasoning -- a mental

process whereby we pass from what we know (known) to what we do not know (unknown) (Timbreza). That which is inferred from unknown to known is called the conclusion; also called an inferential thinking

Page 3: 001  logic08_reasoning

Inference…• 5.2. Inference -- a mental

process by which we pass from one or more propositions to some other propositions consequently related to the former; draws a conclusion from given premises

Page 4: 001  logic08_reasoning

Argument…• 5.3. The Structure of Argument:

primary concern of logic is how the truth of some propositions is connected with the truth of another; Argument -- a set of two or more propositions related to each other in such a way that all but one of them (the premises) is supposed to provide support for the remaining one (the conclusion).

Page 5: 001  logic08_reasoning

Cont’n…

• 5.3.1. Unrelated propositions -- the truth or falsity of each has no bearing on that of the others. Ex.: Few shoppers are foreigners who love to buy souvenir items

Page 6: 001  logic08_reasoning

Cont’n…• 5.3.2. Example of an argument:

Fr. Kurt Piskaty is a priest. Therefore, Fr. Kurt Piskaty is celibate since all priests are celibates. The conclusion, Fr. Kurt Piskaty is celibate, is inferentially drawn from its premises, ‘ Fr. Kurt Piskaty is a priest and All priests are celibates.

Page 7: 001  logic08_reasoning

Kinds of Inference• 5.4. Two kinds of Inference: deductive

and inductive inferences• 5.4.1. Deductive Inference -- claims that

the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion; holds to a very high standard of correctness; succeeds only if its premises provide such absolute and complete support for its conclusion that it would be utterly inconsistent to suppose that the premises are true but the conclusion false (Ex.: All players are athletic. Michael is a player. Therefore, Michael is athletic)

Page 8: 001  logic08_reasoning

Cont’n…• 5.4.2. Inductive Inference – an

argument which merely claims that the truth of its premises makes it likely or probable that its conclusion is also true (Ex.: Some leaders in the government are corrupt. My neighbors are leaders in the government. Therefore, my neighbors are corrupt.

Page 9: 001  logic08_reasoning

Truth and Validity• 5.5. Truth and Validity: Truth refers

to the conformity of the proposition to the reality.

• Logic refers to the connection between the premises and the conclusion of an argument.

• A logical argument has propositions that are not necessarily true in reality although the conclusion follows from the truth of the premises.

Page 10: 001  logic08_reasoning

Cont’n…• An example of a logical

argument is: • All speakers are fluent in

English. Fidel Castro is a speaker. Therefore, Fidel Castro is fluent in English.

Page 11: 001  logic08_reasoning

Cont’n…Soundness is a property of an argument

as a whole. This means that the argument does not only have logical connection in both premises and conclusion but that the propositions are true in reality.

An example of a sound argument is this:Every person is created by God.Susie is a person.Therefore, Susie is created by God.

2nd TO THE LAST SLIDE

Page 12: 001  logic08_reasoning

Cont’n…• Illogical arguments may have

premises that are true in reality but there is no connection between premises and the conclusion.

An example of an illogical argument is this:

All tigers are animals. All lions are animals.Therefore, all lions are tigers.

END OF THE TOPIC