Philsophy Exam Needs To Be Taken

9/17/21, 10:44 AM Quiz 3 (Fall 2021): Introduction to Philosophy https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/quizzes/294621 1/6 Quiz 3 (Fall 2021) Due Sep 10 at 11:59pm Points 30 Questions 10 Available Sep 10 at 12am - Sep 10 at 11:59pm about 24 hours Time Limit 15 Minutes Instructions This quiz was locked Sep 10 at 11:59pm. Attempt History Attempt Time Score LATEST Attempt 1 15 minutes 6 out of 30  Correct answers are hidden. Score for this quiz: 6 out of 30 Submitted Sep 10 at 6:59pm This attempt took 15 minutes. In each case, select the one correct response 0 / 3 ptsQuestion 1IncorrectIncorrect Consider this sentence: “A ⊃ B” –When is this sentence false? Only when A logically implies B When the consequent is false When the antecedent is true and the consequent is false In all cases in which the antecedent is false  https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/quizzes/294621/history?version=1 9/17/21, 10:44 AM Quiz 3 (Fall 2021): Introduction to Philosophy https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/quizzes/294621 2/6 0 / 3 ptsQuestion 2IncorrectIncorrect If one understands that argument A is sound, then One has the rational option of rejecting A’s conclusion if one asserts, falsely, that, in one’s best judgment, one of A’s premises is false If one is rational, one will embrace A’s conclusion (i.e., one will regard it as true) None of these Rationally, one must at least recognize that A’s conclusion is highly likely 0 / 3 ptsQuestion 3IncorrectIncorrect Suppose that you are evaluating an argument with two well-formed atomic sentences (e.g., the “simplistic problem of evil” argument: A=God exists; B=all evils are prevented). How many “possible worlds” (possible truth assignments) are involved in that argument? 1 none 4 2  9/17/21, 10:44 AM Quiz 3 (Fall 2021): Introduction to Philosophy https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/quizzes/294621 3/6 3 / 3 ptsQuestion 4 The truth-functional definition of “v” is essentially the following: None of these “A v B” is true just in case both A and B are true “A v B” is true just in case A is true or B is true; but it is false if both or neither A and B are true “A v B” is true just in case A is true or B is true or both are true; otherwise, it is false 0 / 3 ptsQuestion 5IncorrectIncorrect The sentence “Sean is a bachelor” logically implies that All of these Sean is unmarried Sean is male None of these Sean is a person  9/17/21, 10:44 AM Quiz 3 (Fall 2021): Introduction to Philosophy https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/quizzes/294621 4/6 0 / 3 ptsQuestion 6IncorrectIncorrect “P ⊃ Q” is false just in case P is true and Q is false; otherwise, it is true P is true and Q is false, or P negates Q P is true and Q is false, or both P and Q are false None of these 0 / 3 ptsQuestion 7IncorrectIncorrect In the reading(s), I suggested that the correct way to explain validity is by using the subjunctive voice. That is, one must put the matter in this way: If the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true too None of these The premises logically imply the conclusion If the premises are true, then the conclusion is true too 0 / 3 ptsQuestion 8IncorrectIncorrect Whether a particular deductive argument is valid is 9/17/21, 10:44 AM Quiz 3 (Fall 2021): Introduction to Philosophy https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/quizzes/294621 5/6 Ultimately a matter of opinion; reasonable people can disagree about an argument’s validity; but disagreeing about factual premises is another matter entirely Determined by the truth-values of its premises An objective, cut-and-dried matter; it is like mathematical truth, not a matter of opinion Determined by whether each premise has “logical implication” 3 / 3 ptsQuestion 9 That an argument is unsound implies that Its conclusion is false It has at least one false premise It is invalid All of these None of these 0 / 3 ptsQuestion 10IncorrectIncorrect That a deductive argument is unsound implies that 9/17/21, 10:44 AM Quiz 3 (Fall 2021): Introduction to Philosophy https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/quizzes/294621 6/6 None of these All of these It is invalid Its conclusion is false It has a false premise Quiz Score: 6 out of 30  9/17/21, 10:44 AM Quiz 2 (Fall 2021): Introduction to Philosophy https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/quizzes/294210 1/6 Quiz 2 (Fall 2021) Due Sep 3 at 11:59pm Points 30 Questions 10 Available Sep 3 at 12am - Sep 3 at 11:59pm about 24 hours Time Limit 15 Minutes Instructions This quiz was locked Sep 3 at 11:59pm. Attempt History Attempt Time Score LATEST Attempt 1 15 minutes 21 out of 30  Correct answers are hidden. Score for this quiz: 21 out of 30 Submitted Sep 3 at 1:56pm This attempt took 15 minutes. In each case, select the one correct response 0 / 3 ptsQuestion 1IncorrectIncorrect Suppose that A logically implies B. That means that A and B are valid A is true; and if A is true, then B is true too Whether or not A is true, if A were true, then B would have to be true too A is true and so is B  https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/quizzes/294210/history?version=1 9/17/21, 10:44 AM Quiz 2 (Fall 2021): Introduction to Philosophy https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/quizzes/294210 2/6 3 / 3 ptsQuestion 2 In logic, to say that an argument is deductive is to say that It intends that the conclusion must be true, given the premises It proves its conclusion It establishes that, given the premises, the conclusion must be true It intends that the conclusion is made more probable, given the premises 3 / 3 ptsQuestion 3 Which of the following is an analytic sentence? None of these Squares have four corners Joe Biden is the President of the U.S. It is wrong to kill innocent beings The word “bachelor” starts with a “b.” 3 / 3 ptsQuestion 4 Meaning conventions are usually arbitrary. For instance, we use the word “blue” for the color of summer skies but  9/17/21, 10:44 AM Quiz 2 (Fall 2021): Introduction to Philosophy https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/quizzes/294210 3/6 The word “azure” would have been preferable The choice of any other word would have been nonsensical We could have used the word “pink” or “glub” equally well The association of the word “blue” with that color was imposed by brute force, which was unavoidable 0 / 3 ptsQuestion 5IncorrectIncorrect Suppose we know only that argument R to conclusion C is unsound. We may conclude that None of these C is false All of these R has a false premise R is invalid 3 / 3 ptsQuestion 6 In logic, to say that an argument is valid is to say that The “logical implication” relationship holds from one premise to the next  9/17/21, 10:44 AM Quiz 2 (Fall 2021): Introduction to Philosophy https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/quizzes/294210 4/6 If the first premise were true, then the second would be true too; and if the second were true, then the third would be true too; etc. The premises are true and the conclusion is true too The “logical implication” relationship holds between the premises and the conclusion 3 / 3 ptsQuestion 7 The difference between a deductive argument and a non-deductive argument is That deductive arguments offer strong support and non-deductive arguments offer weak support Deductive arguments are the good kind; non-deductive arguments are the weak and poor kind The intent of the argument: deductive arguments seek to prove their conclusions; non-deductive arguments seek to support their conclusions to a degree Deductive arguments prove their conclusions; non-deductive arguments merely support their conclusions to some degree  9/17/21, 10:44 AM Quiz 2 (Fall 2021): Introduction to Philosophy https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/quizzes/294210 5/6 3 / 3 ptsQuestion 8 If an argument is sound, then It must have a true conclusion It is inductive It is non-deductive It suggests that its conclusion is true; but that suggestion might be false Each of its premises is valid 3 / 3 ptsQuestion 9 In logic, the reason for the deductive/non-deductive distinction is ultimately this: By determining whether an argument is deductive, we determine whether it establishes its conclusion We want to evaluate arguments, and one can’t evaluate something until one knows what it is intended to accomplish We want to separate philosophy from science We want to evaluate arguments, and you cannot evaluate an argument until you determine whether it proves its conclusion  9/17/21, 10:44 AM Quiz 2 (Fall 2021): Introduction to Philosophy https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/quizzes/294210 6/6 0 / 3 ptsQuestion 10IncorrectIncorrect Which of the following arguments is INVALID? [NOTES: *, **Note: Fido is indeed a dog and Kitty is indeed a cat] God has all properties of perfection; being real is a property of perfection; thus God has the property of being real Almost all cats have whiskers; Kitty** is a cat; it necessarily follows that Kitty has whiskers All men are mortal; Fido* is a man; Thus Fido is mortal If God were to exist, then all evils would be prevented; but not all evils are prevented; thus God does not exist Quiz Score: 21 out of 30  9/17/21, 10:43 AM Quiz 1 (Fall 2021): Introduction to Philosophy https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/quizzes/293234 1/6 Quiz 1 (Fall 2021) Due Aug 27 at 11:59pm Points 30 Questions 10 Available Aug 27 at 12am - Aug 27 at 11:59pm about 24 hours Time Limit 15 Minutes Instructions This quiz was locked Aug 27 at 11:59pm. Attempt History Attempt Time Score LATEST Attempt 1 15 minutes 24 out of 30  Correct answers are hidden. Score for this quiz: 24 out of 30 Submitted Aug 27 at 4:08pm This attempt took 15 minutes. In each case, select the ONE correct possibility 3 / 3 ptsQuestion 1 The term “scientist,” as it is used today (to refer to, say, Albert Einstein or Robert Oppenheimer), first came about In the 18th Century In the 17th Century During antiquity  https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/quizzes/293234/history?version=1 9/17/21, 10:43 AM Quiz 1 (Fall 2021): Introduction to Philosophy https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/quizzes/293234 2/6 In the 19th Century 3 / 3 ptsQuestion 2 Which is NOT one of the three traditional areas of philosophy? Metaphysics Cosmology Ethics Epistemology 3 / 3 ptsQuestion 3 According to Plato’s famous conceptual analysis of “knowledge,” to know X is To believe X when X is true and one is justified in believing X To be familiar with X To believe X and to be certain that X is true To rightly believe X  9/17/21, 10:43 AM Quiz 1 (Fall 2021): Introduction to Philosophy https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/quizzes/293234 3/6 0 / 3 ptsQuestion 4IncorrectIncorrect What would provide a definition of X? A series of correct descriptive statements about X The set of necessary and sufficient conditions regarding X The set of things that must be true of a thing for it to count as X The set of things that, if true about a thing, would establish that it is X 3 / 3 ptsQuestion 5 Suppose I have written the following: “I worked on his car. That is, I repaired it.” The phrase “that is” can be replaced with the abbreviation i.e. viz. e.g. et al. 3 / 3 ptsQuestion 6 Your instructor uses a standard according to which 70% correct is  9/17/21, 10:43 AM Quiz 1 (Fall 2021): Introduction to Philosophy https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/quizzes/293234 4/6 an A grade a C grade a B grade a D grade 0 / 3 ptsQuestion 7IncorrectIncorrect Your instructor has suggested that “doing philosophy” or “philosophizing” is An activity that opposes the fundamental assumptions of the natural sciences The highest stage of intellectual activity Inevitable and unavoidable Intellectually, an unnecessary but satisfying project 3 / 3 ptsQuestion 8 In one of my first announcements for this class, I said that you should not take this course unless  9/17/21, 10:43 AM Quiz 1 (Fall 2021): Introduction to Philosophy https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/quizzes/293234 5/6 You are willing to offer your opinions You are willing to write a ten-page typed essay with footnotes You monitor/visit our Canvas site routinely You are willing to devote 10 hours of homework per week to this course You have sophisticated skills on a computer and you can type at 50 words per minute 3 / 3 ptsQuestion 9 The adjectives “concrete” and “abstract” are opposites. Your instructor suggests that philosophy concerns an interest in abstract, not concrete, issues/problems. If something is CONCRETE in this sense, then it is Solid, real, tangible About what is true, not false Mental or conceptual Made of cement, gravel, and sand 3 / 3 ptsQuestion 10  9/17/21, 10:43 AM Quiz 1 (Fall 2021): Introduction to Philosophy https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/quizzes/293234 6/6 Suppose I think about something. After a while, I draw a conclusion (let’s call the conclusion “C”). That is, I Make an implication; I imply C Make an inference; I infer C Arrive at C “a posteriori” Have a belief Quiz Score: 24 out of 30  9/17/21, 10:40 AM Topic: Zoom Lecture 12 (Introducing CT& New Age) - now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/834198 1/4  Zoom Lecture 12 (Introducing CT& New Age) - now available Roy Bauer All Sections Zoom Lecture 12 (Introducing CT& New Age) - now available -- HERE (https://ivc- edu.zoom.us/rec/share/OopsJdyHe4IJDnjB5YaGzw4cjhmxKMkRWRou4Nj_YYdvfNDt67V4G6fripwq9S gk.RxJySgposRFhBCYZ) 50 minutes - I was compelled to stop the lecture at 3rd meaning of "skepticism" (see below) The notes I used: ZOOM LECTURE 12 Introducing the new unit: Critical Thinking and the New Age A couple of decades ago, the term “New Age” had a particular meaning they may be lost by now, but, for a time, people discussed “new age” ideas and phenomena, a set that included: Interested in “spiritualism,” “new age” self-help concepts, folk remedies, Ayurveda So-called “alternative” medicines, including Acupuncture (and acupressure, etc.) Homeopathy Chiropractic The “psychic” and the “paranormal”: Mental telepathy ESP Communication with the dead Remote viewing UFOs Embrace of questionable conspiracy theories (about major events) (JFK assassination, Moon landing, 9-11 attack, etc.) So the new unit involves a consideration of all of that from the perspective of A study of logic/critical thinking Science (scientific method, values, etc.)  https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/users/2658 https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/users/2658 https://ivc-edu.zoom.us/rec/share/OopsJdyHe4IJDnjB5YaGzw4cjhmxKMkRWRou4Nj_YYdvfNDt67V4G6fripwq9Sgk.RxJySgposRFhBCYZ 9/17/21, 10:40 AM Topic: Zoom Lecture 12 (Introducing CT& New Age) - now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/834198 2/4 It’s a matter of both amusement and concern that people in Western societies have not embraced rationality but have instead exhibited much irrationality and uncritical thinking. One recent aspect of this is the tendency among many in the public to reject facts that displease them: That global climate change is real That scientists (and intellectuals) are engaging in their research without a political agenda Established theories such as the Big Bang Theory and Natural Selection That COVID-19 is a real pandemic that emerged naturally or accidentally That Barack Obama was born in Hawaii (the US) That Saddam Hussein was not developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in 2003 Etc. Another: widespread embrace of groundless conspiracy theories or rumors Let’s start with some terminology: Psychic Paranormal Extraordinary Supernatural Occult Phenomenon/phenomena The natural Thesis/theses Skepticism: A famous epistemological philosophy initiated by the Ancient Greeks (and commonly held among continental philosophers): “knowledge is impossible,” “truth is impossible,” “Certainty is unattainable,” etc. Scientific skepticism: an approach to empirical belief embraced by the sciences: in order to avoid error, scientists adopt high standards for belief in concrete matters. More specifically, they refuse to cross over into belief (about some empirical/concrete assertion/claim) if there are sources of significant doubt about it (that have not yet been eliminated). [The “head-ache cure” example.] The natural language concept: in ordinary English, to be a skeptic or to be skeptical is to be doubtful about something. Not tied to a theory or field. (E.g., a man brings an old photo to a pawn shop; says it is President Theodore Roosevelt as a teenager. The pawn shop owner is “skeptical.”)  9/17/21, 10:40 AM Topic: Zoom Lecture 12 (Introducing CT& New Age) - now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/834198 3/4 You should be aware of these distinct uses of the notion of skepticism and the skeptic. For our purposes in this unit, you should be particularly aware of “scientific skepticism,” which is manifested all of the time. E.g., the so-called discover of “cold fusion” back in 1989. From National Geographic: “Thirty years ago, a pair of chemists made headlines around the world with their claim that they had achieved “cold fusion (https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i44/Cold-fusion-died-25- years.html) ”: the production of energy using the same nuclear reaction that powers the sun (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/the-sun) , but at room temperature. If confirmed, the discovery could have transformed the global energy landscape overnight— but the chemists' findings weren't readily replicated.” From a popular reference work: Cold fusion is a hypothesized type of nuclear reaction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reaction) that would occur at, or near, room temperature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_temperature) . It would contrast starkly with the "hot" fusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion) that is known to take place naturally within stars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence) and artificially in hydrogen bombs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon) and prototype fusion reactors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power) under immense pressure and at temperatures of millions of degrees, and be distinguished from muon- catalyzed fusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion) . There is currently no accepted theoretical model that would allow cold fusion to occur. In 1989, two electrochemists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrochemistry) , Martin Fleischmann (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Fleischmann) and Stanley Pons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Pons) , reported that their apparatus had produced anomalous heat ("excess heat") of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-1) They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrons) and tritium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium) . [2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-FP1989-2) The small tabletop experiment involved electrolysis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis) of heavy water (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water) on the surface of a palladium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palladium) (Pd) electrode.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVoss1999a-3) The reported results received wide media attention[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVoss1999a-3) and raised https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i44/Cold-fusion-died-25-years.html https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/the-sun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrochemistry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Fleischmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Pons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-FP1989-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palladium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVoss1999a-3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVoss1999a-3 9/17/21, 10:40 AM Topic: Zoom Lecture 12 (Introducing CT& New Age) - now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/834198 4/4 This announcement is closed for comments Search entries or author hopes of a cheap and abundant source of energy.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBrowne1989para._1-4) Many scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details available. Hopes faded with the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many reported positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-5) By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBrowne1989-6) [7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-most_scientists-7) and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science) .[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-nytdoe-8) [9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-Ouellette-9) Unread    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBrowne1989para._1-4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBrowne1989-6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-most_scientists-7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-nytdoe-8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-Ouellette-9 9/17/21, 10:40 AM Topic: Zoom lecture 11 (informal fallacies, part 2) now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/833522 1/7  Zoom lecture 11 (informal fallacies, part 2) now available Roy Bauer All Sections ZOOM LECTURE 11 (Informal fallacies, part 2) -- available HERE (https://ivc- edu.zoom.us/rec/share/ecyx7MXqQBnZXfaGXPyxPqlEv2NC22_MWyMUYWGK- fnFK3wBsz04mVssAwe9Ris1.Ee_0LGkfY2B0ZejP) . 46 minutes Here are the notes I used in the lecture: Last time (review): FALSE DILEMMA STRAW MAN AD HOMINEM [ONLY PARTIALLY DISCUSSED] APPEAL TO IGNORANCE Scientific truism: "you can't prove a negative (but you CAN prove a positive)" [NOT A FALLACY] FALLACIOUS APPEAL TO AUTHORITY/EXPERTISE (CHERRY PICKING) Let’s return for a moment to “ad hominem.” “Ad hominem” means “to the person.” It is a fallacy of irrelevance that occurs in the context of discussion and debate. If I hold a position on some issue (call it position A) and my opposition holds some opposing position (call it position B), it is fair for me to discuss my position and my arguments for it; and it is fair for my opponent to discuss his position and his arguments for it. It is also fair for me to discuss his (my opponent’s) position and his arguments for it. Further, it is fair for him to discuss my position and my arguments for it. Now, the question is: which is the better position? If so, then facts about my opponent are irrelevant to the quality of his position or arguments! –Just as facts about ME are irrelevant to the quality of my position or arguments. Let’s consider an example. Suppose that I am arguing with Jane about the morality of abortion. Let’s say that I argue in defense of abortion and Jane argues against the morality of abortion. During a public setting (people are observing us), I make this point: “I happen to know that Jane, here, once had an abortion herself! [I point at her.] Behold the hypocrite!”  https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/users/2658 https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/users/2658 https://ivc-edu.zoom.us/rec/share/ecyx7MXqQBnZXfaGXPyxPqlEv2NC22_MWyMUYWGK-fnFK3wBsz04mVssAwe9Ris1.Ee_0LGkfY2B0ZejP 9/17/21, 10:40 AM Topic: Zoom lecture 11 (informal fallacies, part 2) now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/833522 2/7 Well, that’s very interesting and dramatic, but the fact (if it is a fact) that Jane once had an abortion herself and that she is a hypocrite (if that is even true, for she might have changed her mind in good faith) has no bearing whatsoever on the correctness of her view about abortion or the quality of the arguments she offers for that view. That she is a hypocrite (again, even if that is so, for she might not be) is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the quality of her arguments or her view So, if the issue is “which position is better?”, it is illogical to discuss one’s opponent’s alleged negative (or positive!) features since they are irrelevant to the issue at hand. Arguing about the debaters: Sometimes, of course, the issue I am debating is “which of us is the better candidate?” (for some position or office or role). Since the issue at hand is which of us is the better candidate, at least some facts about me and my opponent become logically relevant. Thus, for instance, pointing out that my opponent is a “liar” or is “dishonest” might be relevant to the issue of whether, say, they should be trusted to lead us in some endeavor. My asserting that my opponent is a liar (presumably, I can back this up with the appropriate concrete evidence) can be construed as an attack (even a “personal attack”), but it is not a fallacy, since my opponent’s being a liar is highly relevant to whether they should be entrusted with leadership. It is confused to conflate “personal attack” with “ad hominem.” The latter if a fallacy; the former might or might not be a fallacy; it might be perfectly logical and reasonable. For instance, if someone is coming to attack me and I know that they’re coming to attack me, and my only recourse is to attack them first, and I do so, my attacking them is VERY LOGICAL. APPEAL TO CONSEQUENCES The fact (if it is a fact) that the truth of S is (or would be) unwanted or regrettable or, on the other hand, the fact that the truth of S is (or would be) fortunate and welcome – these facts have NO BEARING on whether S is true or not. Whether S is true or not should be decided based on the available evidence and arguments—NOT on whether we want or don’t want S to be true! This is the “appeal to consequences” fallacy, which goes by other names; it is closely tied to “wishful thinking,” the act of believing something, not because of evidence in favor of it, but because we want it to be true (or when we reject it as false because we don’t want it to be true). You likely will not go too far wrong in equating the “appeal to consequences” fallacy with what is commonly called “wishful thinking.” The core point here is that there is no principle or mechanism in the universe that makes the truth conform to our desires. When Edwin Hubble came across powerful evidence that the universe is an expanding object and that, therefore, it has a finite age, that was very unwelcome news even among scientists, who preferred like the rest of us to believe that the universe is a static and eternal thing, simply existing as it is forever into the past. But scientists base their  9/17/21, 10:40 AM Topic: Zoom lecture 11 (informal fallacies, part 2) now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/833522 3/7 beliefs on evidence/arguments, not on what they want to believe. And so, within a few years of Hubble’s discoveries, they embraced the idea, supported by the evidence, that the universe is not an eternal and static thing; rather, it is an expanding object, and the details of that expansion points to the universe’s having an age of about 13.8 billion years. Later in the Phil 1 course, we’ll consider arguments against Free Will. These are powerful arguments to the conclusion that we lack free will. Some of you will react to these arguments by rejecting them on the grounds that, if they are sound and there is no free will, then our legal and moral practices have no foundation or justification. That would be a calamity! In so doing, you will be committing the “appeal to consequences” fallacy. For either we have free will or we don’t. The arguments should decide the matter (if possible). The fact that it would be disastrous to our practices if we don’t have free will—probably true—has no bearing on whether we do in fact have free will. Imagine scientists in the early days of the COVID-19 epidemic suggesting, “It looks like this is a terrible contagion that will kill millions of people,” as in fact some of them did. Imagine rejecting this view on the grounds that that outcome would be catastrophic. Well, the catastrophe is here; it is real. Nature doesn’t care what we want to believe, what we’d rather believe. APPEAL TO POPULAR OPINION OR COMMON PRACTICE, ETC. The following are fallacies: Embracing proposition S as true because so many (or most or all) people embrace (believe) S Embracing practice P as justified because so many (or most or all) people embrace practice P as justified The first fallacy is called the appeal to popular opinion. The second fallacy is called the appeal to common practice. They sometimes go by other names as well. It’s pretty obvious that these are fallacies. Why would everyone’s believing S make it true or even make it likely true? Why would everyone’s engaging in P make it justified, or probably justified? History provides many, many examples of popular opinions that proved to be false (e.g., that madness is a manifestation of evil, that a healthy diet must include animal protein, etc.). Further, it provides many, many examples of common practices that later generations judged to be immoral (slavery, child labor, torture, burning people alive). The fact is that the “normality” of a belief or practice is powerful, psychologically, in causing us to suppose that it is true or justified. But those who lived in societies that allowed slavery were just as confident as to the rightness of slavery as we are in the rightness of, say, free enterprise or  9/17/21, 10:40 AM Topic: Zoom lecture 11 (informal fallacies, part 2) now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/833522 4/7 free speech. That did not prevent us from arriving at a position in which that institution (slavery) was utterly rejected as immoral and unjust. Observe that it is NOT a fallacy to believe (tentatively, provisionally) S if it is the consensus opinion among experts (in a healthy expert community that is opining about something in their area of expertise). That’s because such experts are in a privileged position of understanding with regard to specific subjects, just as the people who are in a bank at the time of a robbery are in a privileged position to know what happened in the bank when it was robbed. We’re not saying that their views are infallible; we’re just saying that their testimony matters in a way that the testimony of someone not in the bank does not. It’s especially important testimony. BEGGING THE QUESTION Sometimes, in settings of controversy (people disagreeing) and debate, people make very basic mistakes in reasoning. In the context of a community discussion of some issue I, participants are obliged to provide UNCONTROVERSIAL PREMISES to support or ground their CONTROVERSIAL CONCLUSION. But, instead, they provide CONTROVERSIAL PREMISES to support their CONTROVERSIAL CONCLUSIONS. (Observe that, in saying that the discussion is about a controversial matter, we’re saying that people hold opposing views. Controversy: disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated (NOAD) Consider the two famous (and unsound) arguments we have discussed concerning the existence of God: 1. If God were to exist, then all evils would be prevented 2. But not all evils are prevented 3. Thus God does not exist 1. The meaning of “God” is such that God, by definition, has all properties of perfection. 2. “Being real” is a property, and it is a property of perfection. 3. Thus God has the property of being real (God is real). Observe that those who offer these arguments believe that they are offering uncontroversial premises in support of their controversial conclusions. (Observe that one does not argue for uncontroversial theses; one argues only for controversial theses, just as one persuades people to do what they don’t want to do, not what they are already persuaded to do.)  9/17/21, 10:40 AM Topic: Zoom lecture 11 (informal fallacies, part 2) now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/833522 5/7 Thesis: a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved (Plural: theses) (NOAD) Consider the first argument. On the face of it, one need not offer an argument for either of the premises. The second one is obviously true, since evils exist. The first is highly plausible, in view of God’s alleged omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect goodness. And so the arguer offers these RELATIVELY UNCONTROVERSIAL ideas to support the CONTROVERSIAL idea that God does not exist. (Historically, people eventually came to realize that premise 1 deserves to be controversial; it became controversial.) That’s the point of deductive arguments: to challenge people in this way: See these premises? You agree with them, right? But notice the relationship between these premises and this conclusion. The premises imply the conclusion! And so, if you’re going to be consistent—if, that is, you want to be logical—you’ve got to accept this conclusion! The same goes for the second argument. The two premises seem uncontroversial. Those who offer this argument believe that the premises are obviously true and that their audience will readily accept them (it was only after some brilliant analysis by I. Kant that people realized that premise 2 is questionable). But then the point is: given the truth of these two premises, doesn’t it necessarily follow that God has the property of being real? It seems so. So, once again, supposedly uncontroversial ideas are offered as grounds for accepting the controversial conclusion. Consistency demands it! One way in which this can go wrong is when an arguer (for controversial thesis C) unknowingly assumes the truth of one’s conclusion in one’s premises. Such an argument is absurd, since it essentially argues, C thus C. If the point of an argument is to offer uncontroversial premises that imply a controversial thesis, it is absurd to use C to establish C! But that’s what people sometimes do: I can prove that God exists. For the Bible speaks of God, and we can rely on the Bible, since it is divinely inspired. The premises are that the Bible speaks of God and we can trust the Bible since it is divinely inspired. It concludes that God exists. The arguer doesn’t realize it, but they are arguing for the controversial thesis that “God exists” with a set of premises that already assume that God exists! For, in saying that the Bible is “divinely inspired,” they are saying that God exists and inspires the Bible. [Think about it.] And so this argument is really saying this: 1. We can trust what the Bible says since it is divinely inspired 2. The Bible says that God exists. 9/17/21, 10:40 AM Topic: Zoom lecture 11 (informal fallacies, part 2) now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/833522 6/7 3. [In saying that the Bible is divinely inspired, we’re already saying (or implying) that God exists and inspires the Bible.] 4. Thus God exists. And so the structure of this argument is . . C Thus C The argument is worthless since it assumes the truth of the very idea it is supposedly establishing. Some people call this “circular reasoning.” In logic (and in the English language, until about 40 years ago), this error or confusion (fallacy) was called “begging the question.” * * * NOTE: when I was your age, people generally understood that “begging the question” is the fallacy explained above. Hence, my dictionary gives this as one of the meanings of “beg the question”: Beg the question: assume the truth of an argument or proposition to be proved, without arguing it. (NOAD) Starting about 50 years ago, a misunderstanding about the meaning of “beg the question” became a kind of virus. People made the mistake of thinking that “begging the question” meant raising the issue, forcing the issue upon us: Beg the question: raise a question or point that has not been dealt with; invite an obvious question…. (NOAD) Also from NOAD: USAGE The original meaning of the phrase beg the question belongs to the field of logic and is a translation of the Latin term petitio principii, literally meaning ‘laying claim to a principle’ (that is, assuming something that ought to be proved first), as in the following sentence: by devoting such a large part of the anti-drug budget to education, we are begging the question of its significance in the battle against drugs. To some traditionalists, this is still the only correct meaning. However, over the last 100 years or so, another, more general use has arisen: ‘invite an obvious question,’ as in some definitions of mental illness beg the question of what constitutes normal behavior. This is by far the more common use today in modern standard English.  9/17/21, 10:40 AM Topic: Zoom lecture 11 (informal fallacies, part 2) now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/833522 7/7 This announcement is closed for comments Search entries or author --So be aware that, in using the term “begging the question” as we do in logic, we are being traditionalists in a world in which the vast majority of speakers are unaware of the traditions. You can use “beg the question” that way among philosophers, but among no one else. Fallacies mentioned in the reading that we will ignore for now: ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM APPEAL TO FORCE [“Irrational selectivity” was covered under “cherry picking” and fallacious appeal to authority] <END> Unread    9/17/21, 10:40 AM Topic: ZOOM LECTURE 10 (informal fallacies, part 1) - now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/832039 1/3  ZOOM LECTURE 10 (informal fallacies, part 1) - now available Roy Bauer All Sections ZOOM LECTURE 10 (informal fallacies, part 1) - now available HERE (https://ivc- edu.zoom.us/rec/share/3WFX4hDan- I1gOrfDQaebXe5fWAZLUY0_caV9hEKSy7Vfafht7SSnJ1ED5iwX_Wv.Q7c9cidwLvWqkNuT) . 69 minutes Lecture notes: LECTURE 10 Informal fallacies, PART 1 A “formal” fallacy is a fallacy (a mistake in reasoning/thinking) that concerns form, such as denying the antecedent or affirming the consequent: If A then B Not A Thus not B INVALID If A then B B Thus A INVALID But many familiar fallacies are not formal; hence they are “informal.” Here are some prominent examples: POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC This Latin for  https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/users/2658 https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/users/2658 https://ivc-edu.zoom.us/rec/share/3WFX4hDan-I1gOrfDQaebXe5fWAZLUY0_caV9hEKSy7Vfafht7SSnJ1ED5iwX_Wv.Q7c9cidwLvWqkNuT 9/17/21, 10:40 AM Topic: ZOOM LECTURE 10 (informal fallacies, part 1) - now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/832039 2/3 After this; therefore because of this Example: I get a headache. My friend suggests that I try a homeopathic headache remedy. I take the pills and after an hour or so I find that the headache is going away. I declare, “It works” or “It works for me” I am saying, in effect: “My headache went away after I used the homeopathic remedy; therefore the homeopathic remedy caused my headache to go away” (After this; therefore because of this) That is, I took the homeopathic remedy; then, after that, my headache went away. I conclude that taking the homeopathic remedy caused my headache to go away. Again: after this; therefore because of this. This is poor reasoning, called post hoc ergo propter hoc. (Post means “after,” of course. “Ergo” is often used by lawyers when they draw conclusions; it means “therefore” or “thus”) Why? Because, in our little scenario, “I” am jumping to conclusions. I have decided that the facts— namely, that I had a headache; then took the homeopathic remedy; then my headache went away —can only or best be explained with the hypothesis that the homeopathic remedy worked, that it was “efficacious.” But is that the only explanation of the facts? Clearly not. Here are two others: I am experiencing the placebo effect (my thinking that the homeopathic remedy would work released chemicals in my brain that caused my headache to get better) I am experiencing spontaneous improvement (i.e., the headache was going to go away anyway, without treatment; the homeopathic remedy had nothing to do with my headache going away) Have I ruled out these possible explanations? I have not. In fact, once one understands what homeopathic remedies are, it becomes clear that at least one of these explanations is better than the “the homeopathic remedy works” hypothesis/explanation—namely, the spontaneous recovery hypothesis. Hypothesis: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation…. (NOAD) (Often, a hypothesis is simply a possible explanation, not yet confirmed) FALSE DILEMMA STRAW MAN AD HOMINEM [ONLY PARTIALLY DISCUSSED]  9/17/21, 10:40 AM Topic: ZOOM LECTURE 10 (informal fallacies, part 1) - now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/832039 3/3 This announcement is closed for comments Search entries or author APPEAL TO IGNORANCE Scientific truism: "you can't prove a negative (but you CAN prove a positive)" [NOT A FALLACY] FALLACIOUS APPEAL TO AUTHORITY/EXPERTISE (CHERRY PICKING) APPEAL TO CONSEQUENCES [NOT YET DISCUSSED] BEGGING THE QUESTION [NOT YET DISCUSSED] APPEAL TO POPULAR OPINION OR COMMON PRACTICE [NOT YET DISCUSSED] ETC. Unread    9/17/21, 10:39 AM Topic: Zoom lecture 9 (more argument patterns; reminders) - is now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/830417 1/7  Zoom lecture 9 (more argument patterns; reminders) - is now available Roy Bauer All Sections Zoom Lecture 9 (non-conditional forms) now available HERE (https://ivc- edu.zoom.us/rec/share/8wjmfHPLJ1Cu26SMe37euv9rwlarXhfnrvMrMtHAU3Wb3J1M- lOrH8dZs2xLfuJg.NKEvfoV2Uxe-VNUr) . 27 minutes …This is actually a continuation of lecture 8 [Power failure cut off Lecture 8] LECTURE 9: (my notes) We’ve seen how deductive (and other) arguments can be approached in relation to two aspects: the FORM and the CONTENT of the argument. In the case of deductive arguments, good form is validity. And validity is when a particular relationship hold between the premises and the conclusion of an argument, namely, that, whether or not the premises are true, if they WERE TRUE (hypothetically), in that case, the conclusion would have to be true too. QUESTION: In what sense must the conclusion be true? ANSWER: in precisely this sense: if the conclusion were not true, you’d get a contradiction! Examples: 1. All men are mortal 2. Socrates is a man 3. Thus Socrates is mortal Now suppose that the premises are true and the conclusion is false: All men are mortal Socrates is a man Socrates is not mortal. –Plainly, this is a contradictory triad; these sentences are saying that Socrates is mortal and not mortal. 1. If I’m a thief, then I’m a criminal 2. I’m not a criminal  https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/users/2658 https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/users/2658 https://ivc-edu.zoom.us/rec/share/8wjmfHPLJ1Cu26SMe37euv9rwlarXhfnrvMrMtHAU3Wb3J1M-lOrH8dZs2xLfuJg.NKEvfoV2Uxe-VNUr 9/17/21, 10:39 AM Topic: Zoom lecture 9 (more argument patterns; reminders) - is now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/830417 2/7 3. Thus I’m not a thief Again, now suppose that the premises are true and the conclusion is false: If I’m a thief, then I’m a criminal I’m not a criminal I’m a thief Again, plainly, this is a contradictory triad. These sentences imply that I’m a criminal and also that I’m not a criminal—a contradiction. 1. If A then B 2. If B then C 3. If C then D 4. Thus if A then D It’s the same….supposing that 1-3 are true while denying 4 gets one into a contradiction In the case of a VALID argument, the relationship between the premises and the conclusion is such that, if the premises were true and the conclusion were false, you’d have a contradiction (a sentence or proposition being both true and false). It is in that sense, then, that, if the premises were true, then the conclusion would HAVE TO BE true too (validity). We’ve been looking at argument forms containing conditional statements: If P then Q. Let’s consider argument forms containing, not conditionals, but disjunctions (“or” statements): Either A or B Either A or B Not A Not B Thus B Thus A These are both valid argument forms. That’s intuitively obvious. We can use truth tables to objectively prove that they are valid. Here’s an instance of the first form: 1. You’re either a Democrat or you’re a Republican Either A or B 2. You’re not a Democrat Not A 3. So you must be a Republican Thus B Clearly valid. Sound? No. The first premise is false: it’s what is called a “false dilemma,” a statement that says there are only two possibilities when in truth there are more than two. But that  9/17/21, 10:39 AM Topic: Zoom lecture 9 (more argument patterns; reminders) - is now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/830417 3/7 has nothing to do with FORM. That’s a CONTENT issue. Bad content. SOME REMINDERS: Consider this deductive argument. Let’s call it argument A. 1. If God were to exist, then all evils would be prevented 2. Not all evils are prevented 3. Thus God does not exist POINT 1: Q: Why am I calling it “deductive”? A: Because the best and most generous or charitable interpretation of the argument is that the arguer intends that the conclusion MUST be true—it could not fail to be true—given the premises’ truth. It would be very odd to interpret the INTENT of this arguer as: “Given these two premises, it is likely that God does not exist.” Here’s a natural interpretation (and one that’s charitable/generous) of the INTENT of the arguer: “Given these two premises, it necessarily follows that God does not exist.” In fact, that statement is true (the argument is plainly valid). POINT 2: This argument happens to have two premises and a conclusion, but know this: an argument can have any number of premises (as long as that number is at least 1). POINT 3: Argument A is valid. In saying that, I’m not saying that A is a good argument. In logic, we attend to two distinct aspects of an argument when we evaluate it: its form (i.e., the kind of relationship that holds between the premises and the conclusion) and its content (whether the premises are true). Good form = validity. Good content = premises-are-true (all of them). Another term for a deductive argument with good form and good content is: SOUND. By definition, a sound argument is valid and has true premises (good form, good content). Sound arguments necessarily have true conclusions.  9/17/21, 10:39 AM Topic: Zoom lecture 9 (more argument patterns; reminders) - is now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/830417 4/7 POINT 4: When we say that A is valid (or that it has good form), we’re not saying that the 1 premise implies the 2 premise and that the 2 premise implies the conclusion. NO! (Look at the argument! Think about it!) Rather, we’re saying that THE SET OF PREMISES REGARDED AS A TEAM imply the conclusion. That is, 1 & 2 together imply 3. POINT 5: As we saw last week, argument A is UNSOUND, that is, it fails to be sound. Hence, it is a deductive failure. It is unsound because it fails to have BOTH of the crucial features of a sound argument: It is valid Its premises are true Here’s another failed argument, argument B: 1. You’re either a Democrat or you’re a Republican 2. You’re not a Republican 3. Thus you are a Democrat Argument B is valid: if the two premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true too. But the argument is unsound—this time because it has a false premise, namely, premise 1 (which falsely asserts that a person must be either a Democrat or a Republican. Obviously, they might be neither). POINT 6: Argument B is unsound. Please notice that it would be absurd to say that argument B’s first premise is unsound. No. Soundness & unsoundness are properties of ARGUMENTS. Only an argument can be sound or unsound. A premise is not an argument! Talking about an unsound premise is like talking about a red sound or a green idea. Nonsense. (Combining an adjective with the wrong kind of noun is called by philosophers a “category mistake.” It is a kind of deep confusion.) Here’s an invalid (thus unsound) argument, argument C: 1. If you’re a thief, then you’re a criminal 2. You’re not a thief 3. Thus you’re not a criminal st nd nd  9/17/21, 10:39 AM Topic: Zoom lecture 9 (more argument patterns; reminders) - is now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/830417 5/7 This argument is invalid—i.e., the “logical implication” relationship does not hold between the premises and the conclusion (after all, “you” might be a defacer of public property who never steals). But it would be absurd to say that the premises of this argument are invalid! Validity & invalidity are properties of (deductive) arguments. And a premise is not an argument! Part of becoming educated is making distinctions and avoiding error and confusion. Some of you need to step up your game. You need to understand that the following remarks ignore crucial distinctions and reveal deep confusion: That argument is true That argument is false That premise is sound That premise is unsound That premise is valid That premise is invalid That conclusion is sound That conclusion is unsound That conclusion is valid That conclusion is invalid You need to bring yourself to a condition in which you recognize the ABSURDITY of the preceding remarks! Do not spout nonsense! POINT 7: If you recognize that some argument is sound, then you must embrace the conclusion. Failure to do so would place you squarely in the IRRATIONAL category. Once you understand what deductive soundness is, then you understand that, if an argument is sound, then If its premises were true, its conclusion would have to be true too (otherwise there’d be a contradiction) AND Its premises are true That is, you understand that the conclusion must be true. Someone who recognizes that an argument is sound but who rejects the conclusion is being flatly irrational. They are in effect contradicting themselves. They are in effect saying: This conclusion must be true. Nevertheless, I don’t believe it.  9/17/21, 10:39 AM Topic: Zoom lecture 9 (more argument patterns; reminders) - is now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/830417 6/7 This announcement is closed for comments POINT 8: If you recognize that an argument is sound but find the conclusion to be somehow unattractive or undesirable, “choosing” to reject the conclusion on that basis is either irrational or dishonest. For example, someone who recognizes that the premises of an argument are true and that the argument is valid might be appalled or shocked by the conclusion. If, now, they falsely claim that a particular premise is false—just so they can “say” that the argument is unsound—they have declared themselves to be dishonest or illogical, not a fit participant in discussion. The situation is parallel to one in the sciences in which a theory has been refuted over and over again, and yet someone refuses to reject it; or one in which the best explanation (for some fact or set of facts) is theory X, and one recognizes that fact (as a basis for supposing that X is probable), but one rejects X anyway—perhaps on the grounds that X, though probable, has not yet been “proved.” That person is no scientist. That person is an irrationalist. He or she would be excluded from the company of scientists doing science. * * * Next, we’re going to turn to INFORMAL fallacies. Formal fallacies are fallacies (reasoning errors) that concern form or structure, such as denying the antecedent: 1. If you’re a thief, then you’re a criminal If P then Q 2. You’re not a thief Not P 3. Thus you are a criminal Thus Not Q As we saw, this reasoning/argument pattern or form is invalid. It is therefore formally fallacious (erroneous by virtue of form). But some errors in reasoning are not matters of form. These are called “informal fallacies.” Here’s an example: I had a headache, and my friend suggested that I try the new homeopathic remedy for headaches. I took one of those homeopathic pills and, after a couple of hours, the headache went away! So I conclude that that homeopathic remedy works, at least for me! No. This is a case of jumping to a conclusion and ignoring sources of doubt for a belief (namely, the belief that the homeopathic remedy “worked,” i.e., was “efficacious”). As we’ll see, the logician’s term for this error is a Latin sentence: Post hoc ergo propter hoc [After this; therefore because of this.] --We’ll save that for next week  9/17/21, 10:39 AM Topic: Zoom lecture 9 (more argument patterns; reminders) - is now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/830417 7/7 Search entries or author Unread    9/17/21, 10:39 AM Topic: Lecture 8 (truth tables for conditional arguments) is now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/830217 1/1  Lecture 8 (truth tables for conditional arguments) is now available Roy Bauer This announcement is closed for comments Search entries or author All Sections Zoom lecture 8 (truth tables for conditional arguments) is now available HERE (https://ivc- edu.zoom.us/rec/share/NXned6UpMg1cOJPiqt02b_vM-ySjdqwsuJsAdXk8FEDhdywBwAMYyYP- jqg7sSnG.Q6_YwHA90LAXsTDy) . WARNING: this lecture ends abruptly (to be continued in Lecture 9) I present the "truth table" method for determining whether these arguments are valid: 1. If I steal, then I'm a criminal 2. I steal 3. Thus I am a criminal 1. If I steal, then I'm a criminal 2. I'm not a criminal 3. Thus I don't steal 1. If I steal, then I'm a criminal 2. I'm a criminal 3. Thus I steal 1. If I steal, then I'm a criminal 2. I don't steal 3. Thus I'm not a criminal Unread    https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/users/2658 https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/users/2658 https://ivc-edu.zoom.us/rec/share/NXned6UpMg1cOJPiqt02b_vM-ySjdqwsuJsAdXk8FEDhdywBwAMYyYP-jqg7sSnG.Q6_YwHA90LAXsTDy 9/17/21, 10:39 AM Topic: Zoom Lecture 7 now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/828960 1/6  Zoom Lecture 7 now available Roy Bauer All Sections Zoom lecture 7 is now available HERE (https://ivc- edu.zoom.us/rec/share/ZZNcKZqWH_DWUVi6TeMiaOTt9EDmJEFu CnLJbVkcagz04o5sp-58WCRwLWRhxoYU.H1tSvqlMXHEiHb1R) I do some review and then enter into proper logic, starting with propositional/sentential logic In part, I used these notes: Lecture 7: Some review: When you call an argument deductive, you are commenting on its INTENT. You are saying that, of the two kinds of argument, i.e., 1. An argument the intent of which is that, given the premises, the conclusion must be true [PROOF INTENT] 2. An argument the intent of which is not PROOF INTENT, but, less ambitiously, that, given the premises, the conclusion is made more likely true [SUPPORT intent] By definition, a deductive argument has the first, more ambitious, intent. It is the intent involved in geometric proofs. And that means that relatively high standards apply to it. Deductive standards/evaluation: To succeed in proving its conclusion, a deductive argument must have these two features: It is valid Its premises are true A deductive argument’s having of both of these two features is called SOUNDNESS. We want deductive arguments to be SOUND. When a deductive argument fails to have both features, it is called UNSOUND.  https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/users/2658 https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/users/2658 https://ivc-edu.zoom.us/rec/share/ZZNcKZqWH_DWUVi6TeMiaOTt9EDmJEFuCnLJbVkcagz04o5sp-58WCRwLWRhxoYU.H1tSvqlMXHEiHb1R 9/17/21, 10:39 AM Topic: Zoom Lecture 7 now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/828960 2/6 SOUND arguments prove their conclusions; UNSOUND arguments prove nothing; they are failures. Hence, deductive argument evaluation involves two steps (in no particular order): Determine whether the argument is valid Determine whether the argument’s premises are true If the argument succeeds on both counts, it is sound and it has successfully proved its conclusion What justifies my saying that? It is this: Once one understands what a sound argument is, one understands that the conclusion of a sound argument must be true. But why? Because if one knows that an argument is sound, then, by definition of “sound,” one knows that it has these two features: It is valid And Its premises are true. But if one knows that an argument has these two features, then one knows If the premises (of this argument) were true, then its conclusion would have to be true (for that is the definition of “valid”) And one knows that The premises of this argument are true. Knowing these two things amounts to knowing that the conclusion is true. See? And so that is the “holy grail” of philosophy: finding a sound argument to an interesting conclusion (such as “God exists” or “we have free will” or “we don’t have free will,” etc.) BUT WAIT! You’re saying that, once we’ve found a sound argument for proposition C, we’ve proved C, and that’s that. But what if this happens. We find a sound argument for C and then we find a sound argument for the negation of C (not-C)? OK, so can that happen? [I presented two boxes, each representing a set of premises. Below the first box: Thus C. Below the 2nd box: Thus not-C What if it occurs that there are two sound arguments, one for C and the other for not-C?  9/17/21, 10:39 AM Topic: Zoom Lecture 7 now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/828960 3/6 So, can that ever happen? A sound argument for C and a sound argument for not-C? ANSWER: no, it can’t. That’s because of the LAWS OF THOUGHT, which include these three The law of identity The law of non-contradiction The law of excluded middle The law of contradiction says that, for any well-formed sentence (proposition) S, it cannot be that S is true and S is false. I.e., “S & ~S” can never be true. And that means that, if one has a sound argument for C then there can be no sound argument for not-C. Not-C. -- it sound like I’m saying Nazi, but I’m not. Reminds me a story one of my old professors used to tell…. A-ness (sounds like “anus”) P-ness (sounds like “penis”) So, you’ve got to be careful when you start doing like philosophers and logicians and replace things swith letters and words like “not.” * * * Some more terminology: To say that an argument is valid is the same thing as saying that the “logical implication” relationship holds between the set-or-premises of an argument and the conclusion. Logical implication between A and B: if A were true (even if A is false), then B would have to be true. It’s a relationship that does not turn on or depend upon whether A or B are true. Here are some examples of logical implication: A: Joe Biden is a bachelor B: Joe Biden is unmarried A: Scarlett Johanssen is a bachelor B: Scarlett Johanssen is unmarried So, even though A is false, if A WERE true, then B would have to be true too. Hence, A logically implies B. Again, this relationship can hold even when A is a set of sentences:  9/17/21, 10:39 AM Topic: Zoom Lecture 7 now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/828960 4/6 A: All men are mortal Socrates is a man B: Socrates is mortal A logically implies B. That is so, even if one or both sentences in A are false, as when “Socrates” refers to my dog. Or consider: A: All cats are dogs Kathie [my colleague @ the U of Redlands] is a cat B: Kathie is a dog Again, even though the two sentences of A are false, A logically implies B, which means that the truth of A would absolutely guarantee the truth of B. When the LOGICAL IMPLICATION relationship holds between the premises and the conclusion of an argument, then it is called VALID. PLEASE NOTE: An argument can have any number of premises. I have thus far provided examples of arguments with 1 premise, 2 premises, and 3 premises. An argument can have any number of premises as long as that number is greater than 0. Typically, in deductive arguments, the order of the premises is irrelevant. So, in these pairs, the arguments are the same: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Thus Socrates is mortal. Thus Socrates is a mortal. If God were to exist, then all evils would be prevented Not all evils are prevented Not all evils are prevented If God were to exist, then all e’s would be pre’d Thus God does not exist Thus God does not exist Etc.  9/17/21, 10:39 AM Topic: Zoom Lecture 7 now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/828960 5/6 In typical deductive arguments, each premise is crucial to a “team effort” by all the premises. It is a mistake to view each premise as supporting the conclusion; rather, the premises, working together as a team, support (supposedly prove) the conclusion: 1. God has all properties of perfection 2. “Being real” is a property of perfection 3. Thus God has the property of being real (i.e., God is real) Notice that, each premise, by itself, does nothing to support the conclusion. Both premises, working together as a team, support the conclusion. In a typical valid deductive argument, the implication relationship holds between the entire set of premises and the conclusion. It does not hold between the premises! 1. God has all properties of perfection 2. “Being real” is a property of perfection 3. Thus God has the property of being real (i.e., God is real) 1 and 2 together imply 3. But 1 does not imply 2, nor does 2 imply 3. It is nonsense to speak of A true argument A false argument A valid premise A valid conclusion An invalid premise An invalid conclusion A sound premise An unsound premise A sound conclusion An unsound conclusion Truth is a correspondence between what a sentence depicts and the facts of the world. An argument isn’t the kind of thing that corresponds (or fails to correspond) in that way. An argument, though it is made up of sentences, is not a sentence! Etc. GOING DEEPER INTO LOGIC Logic attempts to provide a theory that allows us to distinguish between valid and invalid arguments. No one can be an expert whether arguments (in general) are sound, since, in order to determine whether arguments (in general) are sound, one must be able to determine the truth of  9/17/21, 10:39 AM Topic: Zoom Lecture 7 now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/828960 6/6 This announcement is closed for comments Search entries or author all possible premises, but since that is a very wide set that goes beyond anyone’s competence, no one is an expert in arguments’ soundness. Logicians like to say that they are experts in validity. They have endeavored to provide a theory that allows us reliably to distinguish between valid and invalid arguments. They’ve been very successful. The simplest kind of logic is called sentential or propositional logic. This is a kind of logic that takes sentences (or propositions) as the basic atomic units. Here’s an example that we’ve already considered. 1. If God were to exist, then all evils would be prevented 2. Not all evils are prevented 3. Thus God does not exist Suppose we assign the letter “A” to the sentence “God exists” and “B” to the sentence, “all evils are prevented.” In that case, the argument can be rendered this: If A then B Not B Thus Not A This is typical of sentential or propositional logic. How do we know if an argument with this FORM (PATTERN) is valid? In sentential logic, logicians develop “connectives” that overcome the vagueness and ambiguity of English words such as “and,” “or,” “Not,” and “If … then…” Let’s turn now to the virtual lectures: Went to Virtual lecture 7, starting where it says FORM GOT up through 4 forms starting with conditional: If I'm a thief, then I'm a criminal Did truth table for one of these Unread    9/17/21, 10:39 AM Topic: Lecture 6 (evaluating a deductive argument) now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/826991 1/6  Lecture 6 (evaluating a deductive argument) now available Roy Bauer All Sections Lecture 6: evaluating a deductive argument — now available HERE (https://ivc- edu.zoom.us/rec/share/9YYos7-2JbOea- g5PNEaSyoS_1OfBroOyWPI- 2BDRat8JzVgWM1kBfx0AQst3QLp.quSUgT9sqF-AgKfU) . (About 30 minutes) I do hope you will view this lecture, which endeavors to pull together recent material and apply these logical concepts (validity, soundness) to a particular philosophical argument: the famous "problem of evil" (POE). I wrote Quiz 2 yesterday, and so Quiz 2 does not presuppose your having viewed this lecture (which I just now created). Nevertheless, I do urge you to view this lecture when you have time, since it will likely give you a better understanding of Logic (and of philosophy). MY NOTES Illustrating “doing philosophy” (philosophizing) The Simplistic “Problem of Evil” Argument: 1. If God were to exist, then all evils would be prevented. 2. But not all evils are prevented (for, obviously, some evils do exist). 3. Thus God does not exist. The above argument is very familiar; it is a weak version of something traditionally called the “Problem of Evil”: the problem, for Theism, that Theistic assumptions (that God exists, that He is perfectly good and all-powerful, etc.) naturally cause believers to expect the world to be a good place; but, in reality, the actual world seems to be rather evil. This frustration of our expectations inclines one to refuse to believe in God’s existence. Here, an “evil” is simply an instance of something that is bad, such as an instance of suffering. There are goods (such as the joy of one’s child cavorting with a puppy) and there are evils (the child suffering with a bad tooth ache). https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/users/2658 https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/users/2658 https://ivc-edu.zoom.us/rec/share/9YYos7-2JbOea-g5PNEaSyoS_1OfBroOyWPI-2BDRat8JzVgWM1kBfx0AQst3QLp.quSUgT9sqF-AgKfU 9/17/21, 10:39 AM Topic: Lecture 6 (evaluating a deductive argument) now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/826991 2/6 Note: It would be a mistake to assume that the existence of evils implies the presence of some being such as Satan or the Devil. No such implication is involved. There are, roughly, two versions of the Problem of Evil (POE): This simplistic/deductive version and an abductive [non-deductive] version (one that views the world and asks for the bests explanation for its nature). The latter argument is impressive, though it does not claim to “prove” God’s non-existence (it claims to establish the improbability of God’s existence, as far as the issue of the world’s evils is concerned). The Simplistic/deductive version (which you have now encountered more than once) is very familiar but, unlike the abductive argument, it is not highly regarded. I will briefly explain this. The argument intuitively understood It’s simple. Theists (believers in, say, the Judeo-Christian type of God) assure us that God exists and that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly good, the creator, etc. And so a certain NARRATIVE attaches to Theism: this story of the world being created by a morally perfect being with unlimited power and knowledge. The Simplistic Problem of Evil says this: Gosh, if God is who Theists say He is, then there’s a real problem. For if God is perfectly good, then he would prevent any evils he knows about and has the power to prevent, for it is incoherent to suggest that a perfectly good being would permit unnecessary evils. The fact that there are some evils in the world (e.g., the slow death by cancer of a child at the hospital), then, implies that God does not exist. So the reasoning is: 1. If God were to exist, then all evils would be prevented 2. But not all evils are prevented 3. Thus God does not exist. Premise 1 can be understood as the conclusion of a subargument, something like this: 1. If God were to exist, then a being would exist who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good (AP, AK, PG) 2. If an APAKPG being exists, then a being exists who (i) would act to prevent any evils He could foresee (for He is perfectly good); (ii) would foresee any imminent evils (for he is all-knowing), and (iii) would be able to prevent any evils (since He is all-powerful). 3. If a being exists who (i) would act to prevent any evils He could foresee (for He is perfectly good); (ii) would foresee any imminent evils (for he is all-knowing), and (iii) would be able to prevent any evils (since He is all-powerful), then that being would prevent all evils 4. Thus, if God were to exist, then all evils would be prevented. Let’s assign each proposition a letter:  9/17/21, 10:39 AM Topic: Lecture 6 (evaluating a deductive argument) now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/826991 3/6 A = God exists B = a being exists who is AP, AK, AND PG C = a being exists who (i),(ii),(iii) D = all evils would be prevented With those assignments, the argument can be rendered thus: If A, then B If B, then C. If C, then D Thus, If A then D This argument is obviously valid. Obviously, if we know that A gets us B, that B gets us C, and that C gets us D, then we know that A gets us D. DO YOU SEE? Let’s turn to the core argument: 1. If God were to exist, then all evils would be prevented 2. But not all evils are prevented 3. Thus God does not exist. Again, let’s assign the propositions letters: E = God exists F = all evils prevented Let’s do the substitutions: If E then F Not F Thus Not E This, too, is a VALID argument form/pattern. (If we think about the matter a bit, we will realize that, no matter what we plug in for E and F, any argument of this form will be valid: the truth of the premises will always guarantee the truth of the conclusion. ILLUSTRATION: The refutation of a theory/hypothesis in the sciences follows this pattern. 1. I my theory is correct, then we should observe O (under conditions C) 2. We don’t observe O (under conditions C) 3. Thus my theory is not correct.  9/17/21, 10:39 AM Topic: Lecture 6 (evaluating a deductive argument) now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/826991 4/6 [In the sciences, a hypothesis or theory is understood as a claim about the world that makes concrete predictions about what we will observe and not observe. Insofar as X is a theory, X can thus be tested, for if one of its expected observations (“test implications”) does not materialize, then the theory is disproved.] The pattern is: If A then B Not B Thus Not A Which is the same as If E then F Not F Thus Not E -- [That’s the pattern of the core Simplistic POE argument above] We can objectively demonstrate that this is a valid argument pattern using truth tables (which we’ll do in class next week). We’ll skip that step right now. The only thing left to consider is whether the premises are true. (Why? Because we are dealing with a deductive argument. [Think about the core argument: the most natural and charitable interpretation of the argument is to suppose that the hypothetical ARGUER intends that, if the premises are true, then the conclusion MUST be true. That is, this is a deductive argument and must be evaluated accordingly.]) To be successful (as a proof) a deductive argument must have these two features: It is valid Its premises are (all) true Let’s turn to the core argument: 1. If God were to exist, then all evils would be prevented 2. But not all evils are prevented 3. Thus God does not exist. It is plainly valid. Are its premises (all) true? Here, the argument runs into difficulty. For theologians and philosophers have carefully considered the matter and have arrived at a strong case for rejecting premise 1. Here’s that case in OUTLINE:  9/17/21, 10:39 AM Topic: Lecture 6 (evaluating a deductive argument) now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/826991 5/6 THE CASE RELIES ON THREE POINTS: POINT 1 Our concept of God is of an all-powerful [omnipotent] being. We can express the notion that a being is all-powerful by referring to its powers or abilities. Is it reasonable to suppose that an all-powerful being is able to do anything that can be described? It is not. Explanation: There are two senses of possibility/impossibility: A physical possibility: an event the occurrence of which is consistent with natural [physical] laws [e.g., laws of gravitation]. Thus, it is possible (physically) that I jump a few inches into the air, but it is not possible (physically) for me to jump to the moon. A logical possibility: an event the occurrence of which is not contradictory in description. [Something is contradictory in description if it states or implies a sentence and its denial. Thus, “drawing a round square” or “being a married bachelor” are contradictory: I drew a figure that has no corners [round] and has four corners [square]. I am a being who is not married [bachelor] and married. (A & ~A) Hence drawing a round square or being a married bachelor are impossible, not physically, but LOGICALLY. [My tossing my pen to the moon is physically impossible but not logically impossible; it is logically possible which is to say simply that it is not ruled out by virtue of being contradictory in description. It might be ruled out in some other way—and, indeed, it is: it is ruled out by the physical laws of nature which include gravitational laws that preclude my tossing my pen to the moon.] Q: With the above in mind, how are we to interpret a being’s supposed all-powerfulness (omnipotence)? A: the only sensible approach is to attribute to such a being the power to do the physically impossible but not the power to do the logically impossible, for the latter power is nonsensical (literally inconceivable). Thus, for instance, it makes no sense to attribute to God (an omnipotent being) the ability to create a stone so heavy that He can’t lift it, for that describes a contradiction: that God can lift the  9/17/21, 10:39 AM Topic: Lecture 6 (evaluating a deductive argument) now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/826991 6/6 This announcement is closed for comments Search entries or author stone that he cannot lift. Hence, when we attribute omnipotence to God, we are not attributing to Him the ability to do things that are contradictory in description. POINT 2 Fear is an evil (it may sometimes be a necessary evil, but it is still an evil) POINT 3 When we consider the matter carefully, our conception of goodness is such that, among the better things of our experience, morally, is the possession of moral virtues. I.E., moral virtues are prominent goods. Among the virtues are virtues of overcoming, such as courage. Courage is impressive only insofar as it involves a being’s overcoming His/Her fear. Hence, describing a person as (impressively) courageous while describing a world without evils is contradictory, for in describing a courageous person we are describing a person who has overcome their fear; but fear is an evil. Hence, God’s permitting people the opportunity to be courageous entails the existence of at least some evils, namely, some fears. Putting points 1, 2, and 3 together: The upshot: our worldview according to which virtues such as courage are great goods requires that we regard some evils as necessary for some great good. Even God, despite His omnipotence, cannot bring it about that someone is courageous while also preventing all evils (including fears). Thus it is sensible to suppose that God, despite his perfect power, knowledge, and goodness would allow the existence of at least some evils, such as the fears necessary for the possession of courage. Hence we must reject premise 1. Hence the Simplistic POE argument is unsound; it fails to establish its conclusion. Unread    9/17/21, 10:38 AM Topic: Lecture 5: deductive/inductive and basic deductive logic https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/825917 1/8  Lecture 5: deductive/inductive and basic deductive logic Roy Bauer All Sections LECTURE 5 (Deductive/inductive and basic deductive logic) now available HERE (https://ivc-edu.zoom.us/rec/share/Mchsfn2KZO0FRlErh- WsZzLLSc1rDzY0vksrUdLNRjhhRcG423k295iaI_loLb3F.1WRmSAX-4519r4K6) . The notes I used: LECTURE 5: deduction vs. non-deduction; basic deductive logic Brief review: You cannot evaluate something until you know WHAT IT IS FOR (i.e., what it is intended to do, it’s function or purpose, etc.) This applies to arguments in the logic sense, which are groups of propositions in which some of the propositions, called the “premises,” are offered as support or proof for the remaining proposition, called the “conclusion.” Here are three arguments: [The “problem of evil” argument:] 1. If God were to exist, then all evils would be prevented 2. But not all evils are prevented 3. Thus God does not exist [The “ontological” argument] 1. God, by definition, has all properties of perfection. 2. “Being real” is a property, and it is a property of perfection. 3. Thus God has the property of being real (i.e., God is real) [The “disappearing bottom” argument] 1. I observe that, as ships recede into the horizon, their bottoms start to disappear.  https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/users/2658 https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/users/2658 https://ivc-edu.zoom.us/rec/share/Mchsfn2KZO0FRlErh-WsZzLLSc1rDzY0vksrUdLNRjhhRcG423k295iaI_loLb3F.1WRmSAX-4519r4K6 9/17/21, 10:38 AM Topic: Lecture 5: deductive/inductive and basic deductive logic https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/825917 2/8 2. This makes no sense if the world is flat. 3. This makes perfect sense if the world is a sphere 4. Thus the “spherical Earth” hypothesis is better than the “flat Earth” hypothesis 5. (Thus it is more likely that the Earth is spherical than that it is flat) Observe that each of these is an argument in the logical sense: each is a set of propositions (strictly speaking: sentences conveying propositions) in which some of the propositions are offered as support or proof for the remaining proposition. Note these conventions for presenting arguments: write the steps in a row, starting with the premises, ending with the conclusion. Draw a line between the premises and the conclusion. Use an “illitive particle” (“Thus” to indicate which is the conclusion.) Also: number the steps: the premises and the conclusion This set of arguments illustrates the fact that arguments can be FOR (can be INTENDED to DO) two different things: PROVE the conclusion in a strong sense (i.e., establish that, given the premises, the conclusion could not be false, it must be true) SUPPORT the conclusion (i.e., establish that, given the premises, the conclusion is made more likely [or is made probable] The first two arguments have the “proof” intent; the third argument has the “support” intent. (In the real world, we don’t always know what a speaker or writer’s intent is. In that case, we interpret the speaker generously, viewing their argument as deductive if that’s how it works best, and viewing it as non-deductive if that is how it works best) These are two different INTENTS. Intuitively, we understand that the standards for the first will be more stringent (will be higher) than the standards for the second. Hence, for our purposes, we need a distinction here between the first kind of intent and the second, less ambitious, intent. –A crucial preliminary to. Evaluation. A NOTE ON TERMS: DEDUCTIVE VS. NON-DEDUCTIVE Note: some philosophers/logicians approach this slightly differently. They use the word “inductive” in place of non-deductive. I don’t do that. According to my scheme (which is also quite common but more traditional), there are several types of non-deductive argument, and “inductive” is only one of them. Another is “abductive.” Let’s not worry about that now.   9/17/21, 10:38 AM Topic: Lecture 5: deductive/inductive and basic deductive logic https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/825917 3/8 So we need the deductive vs. non-deductive distinction, since we seek to evaluate arguments— i.e., to determine whether they are successful—and one cannot evaluate something until one knows what it is for (its intent), and an argument in the logical sense can be “for,” or intend, two different, but related, things: Establishing that the conclusion MUST be true, given the premises: that sort of intent is called DEDUCTIVE Establishing that the conclusion is made more probable by the truth of the premises: that sort of intent is called NON-DEDUCTIVE As we’ll see, there are several types of non-deductive arguments (reasoning): INDUCTIVE: essentially, generalizing from a sample [e.g., a poll of voters] ABDUCTIVE: identifying the best (and thus most probable) explanation ANALOGY: … Right now, we’re going to FOCUS ON DEDUCTION, i.e., on DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS Our question is: when are deductive arguments successful or unsuccessful in proving their conclusions? That is, we need to learn how to EVALUATE deductive arguments. Q: Why (start with, focus on) deductive? Why not Inductive or non-deductive? A: Two reasons: The theory of deductive logic is much simpler than the theory of inductive logic Because philosophy focuses so much on concepts (and not empirical matters), it tends to involve deductive, not inductive (and other forms of non-deductive) arguments/reasoning. THE THEORY OF DEDUCTION (“proof” arguments, like geometric arguments) You’ve already encountered deductive reasoning. You did that when you studied Euclidean and Cartesian geometry. Recall proofs: one presents a series of steps and then one announces: “it necessarily follows that” such-and-such. Usually, one places this symbol in front of the conclusion: ∴ The fact that geometric proofs end with an “it necessarily follows” statement means that they are deductive: they intends to prove its conclusion in the strongest sense: given these steps, this conclusion could not be false. So, let’s get started. RELATIONSHIPS THAT CAN EXIST BETWEEN SENTENCES   9/17/21, 10:38 AM Topic: Lecture 5: deductive/inductive and basic deductive logic https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/825917 4/8 Consider sentences (or propositions) A and B: A: Sean is a bachelor B: Sean is a bachelor Observe that a particular relationship holds between A and B, namely, that they are the same, they are identical to each other. Observe also that THAT RELATIONSHIP holds whether or not Sean is a bachelor. Suppose that “Sean” refers to my unmarried brother. In that case, A is true. In that case, A is still the same as B. But now suppose that “Sean” refers to Sean Young, the actress. In that case, the relationship between A and B is that they are the same, despite the falsity of A. Get used to this: the relationship between sentences is one thing; whether they are true or not is another matter entirely. Don’t confuse these things! So these two sentences have the “same as” relationship to each other despite their being false: Joe Biden is a bachelor Joe Biden is a bachelor Let’s turn now to this pair of sentences: C: Sean is a bachelor D: Sean is NOT a bachelor What is the relationship between C and D? It is that they contradict each other. If C is true, then D is false, and if D is true, then C is false. OBSERVE: That relationship is what it is whether or not Sean is in fact a bachelor. Again: suppose that “Sean” refers to the actress Sean Young. In that case, what is the relationship between C and D? Well, they contradict each other. The relationship hasn’t changed. Moving on: Now consider E and F: E: Sean is a bachelor F: Sean is unmarried There is a particular relationship that holds between E and F. It is this: if E were true, then F would have to be true too. Why? Because, in the English language, to say that someone is a bachelor is   9/17/21, 10:38 AM Topic: Lecture 5: deductive/inductive and basic deductive logic https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/825917 5/8 to say that they are an unmarried adult male. Thus, if someone is a bachelor then, necessarily, they are unmarried. We call this relationship “logical implication” (or, more informally, “implication”). Observe that E implies F, but F does not imply E. Why? Suppose you know that someone is unmarried. Does it follow that they are a bachelor? No. For they might be an unmarried woman. An unmarried woman is not a bachelor because an unmarried woman is not a man, and, in the English language, a bachelor is an unmarried man. So E implies F, but F does not imply E. The truth of F does not guarantee the truth of E, though the truth of E does guarantee the truth of F. Suppose E and F were the same proposition? In that case, E would imply F, and F would imply E. ONE FURTHER STEP… The LOGICAL IMPLICATION relationship can hold, not only between two propositions, but between a set of propositions and another proposition. For instance: G = All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. H = Socrates is mortal Does G logically imply H? Yes, for, if the two sentences of G were true, then H would absolutely have to be true, too. And, again, this relationship has nothing to do with whether G or H are true. Suppose Socrates were the name of my dog Is G true? Well, the second claim (that Socrates is a man) is not true, for Socrates is a dog, not a man. Nevertheless, if the two sentences of G WERE true, then, in that case, H would have to be true, too. Thus G logically implies H, despite the falsity of the claim that Socrates is a man. Remember: the relationship should not be confused with the truth of the claims! The nature of the relationship is what it is no matter whether the claims are true or false.   9/17/21, 10:38 AM Topic: Lecture 5: deductive/inductive and basic deductive logic https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/825917 6/8 So now we find that the logical implication relationship can hold between a set of sentences and another sentence. THE UPSHOT… VALIDITY/INVALIDITY Now suppose that the logical implication relationship holds between the premises and the conclusion of a deductive argument. Deductive arguments that have this feature are called VALID. Deductive arguments that fail to have this relationship are called INVALID (Not valid). Observe that VALIDITY is formal or structural goodness, but it is not goodness. (It is structural success, but it is not success “all things considered.”) [To be explained below.] The following argument is valid (structurally good), but it is not good: 1. All men are mortal 2. Socrates is a man 3. Thus Socrates is mortal. (Again, we’re supposing that, here, Socrates refers to my dog.) The argument is valid, since the logical implication relationship holds between its premises (1 and 2) and its conclusion (3). But the argument isn’t any good. That’s because the second premise is false. But notice: if the two premises of this argument were true, then, given that the argument is valid, the conclusion would be proved. SOUND/UNSOUND When a deductive argument has these two features: it is valid and its premises are true—then it is called SOUND. Sound arguments necessarly have true conclusions. Any argument that fails to have both features is called UNSOUND. ACTUAL ARGUMENTS: Let’s return to this deductive argument: 1. If God were to exist, then all evils would be prevented] 2. But not all evils are prevented (since at least some evils do exist) 3. Thus God does not exist. This argument is valid, but it is not sound. Thus it is a failure. (It is not sound because we can show that the first premise is false. I won’t do that here but we’ll discuss the matter later in Phil. 1) And consider this deductive argument:   9/17/21, 10:38 AM Topic: Lecture 5: deductive/inductive and basic deductive logic https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/825917 7/8 1. God has all properties of perfection 2. Being real is a property of perfection 3. Thus God has the property of being real (God is real) This argument is valid. But it is not sound. It fails to prove its conclusion. (It is unsound because premise 2 is false, a point famously made by Immanuel Kant) Here’s another deductive argument: 1. If the Theory of Relativity were true, then light is affected by gravitational fields. 2. [We did the necessary experiment, and we found that] light is NOT affected by gravitational fields. 3. Thus the Theory of Relativity is false. [Early on, Einstein noted that, when they test his theory, it may turn out that light is not affected by gravitational fields. In that case, he said, his theory would be proved false as per above. As it turns out, when Eddington did the experiment {taking a picture of the background stars of the sun during an eclipse}, light WAS affected by the gravitational pull of the sun. Hence premise 2 is in fact false.] UPSHOT: Sound arguments necessarily have true conclusions (they prove their conclusions) & unsound arguments prove nothing Here’s what you must understand. A sound argument necessarily has a true conclusion. Why? Because, if an argument is sound, then, by definition of “sound,” the argument has two features: It is valid And Its premises are true But if we know these two things, then we know that If the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true too (for that is the def. of “valid”) And The premises are Knowing these two things amounts to knowing that the conclusion is true. THINK ABOUT IT. So this is the Holy Grail of philosophy: a sound argument to an interesting conclusion. For if an argument is sound, then, necessarily, its conclusion is true; it is proved.   9/17/21, 10:38 AM Topic: Lecture 5: deductive/inductive and basic deductive logic https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/825917 8/8 This announcement is closed for comments Search entries or author * * * Now suppose that an argument is UNSOUND, i.e., it is not sound. Then it fails to prove its conclusion. Why? Because validity is really the heart of proof. …that relationship… And, obviously, one cannot prove anything based on false assumptions In deductive logic, success is ALL OR NOTHING. Either an argument is sound and it succeeds (in proving its conclusion), or it is unsound and it FAILS to prove anything. It is a failure. As we’ll see, this is a big difference between deductive and inductive logic. With inductive arguments, success can be a matter of degree. For instance, an inductive argument can establish that the conclusion is more probable than we thought, though not probable. On the other hand, it might establish that the conclusion is likely true. But, in the case of deductive arguments, such degrees do not exist. The argument either proves its conclusion or it does not. There is no inbetween. Unread     9/17/21, 10:38 AM Topic: Lecture 4 (truth & arguments) now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/824256 1/5  Lecture 4 (truth & arguments) now available Roy Bauer All Sections Lecture 4 (on truth and arguments) is now available HERE (https://ivc- edu.zoom.us/rec/share/La1_DWfJLfrUknIhFulq9RJteVAxr9tCnn0_X9PK1bEx5JYsHNJu8Kmj3lDMh8_v .qAvNGFH_0dwhWLY0) . Here are the notes I used during lecture: 1. Kinds of sentence or proposition (learn to distinguish them) DESCRIPTIVE (EMPIRICAL; SYNTHETIC) Some sentences purport to state a fact about the physical world. That is, they describe an alleged fact or state of affairs in the world: The cat is on the mat. Light travels at a rate of about 186,000 miles per second. You are very tall. DEFINITIONAL (“ANALYTIC”) Some sentences may appear to be descriptive but are not. Consider this sentence:a. Bachelors are unmarried. VALUE (NORMATIVE) Philosophers have generally viewed sentences of value—e.g., that an action is wrong or that a person is just—as yet another category for sentences. They are neither definitional (analytic) nor descriptive (empirical). They do not pretend to describe the world—at least not in the way that descriptive sentences do. 2. Two kinds of “knowing” I need now to introduce you to an important distinction—one that educated people know. It is a distinction between two kinds of knowing.  https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/users/2658 https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/users/2658 https://ivc-edu.zoom.us/rec/share/La1_DWfJLfrUknIhFulq9RJteVAxr9tCnn0_X9PK1bEx5JYsHNJu8Kmj3lDMh8_v.qAvNGFH_0dwhWLY0 9/17/21, 10:38 AM Topic: Lecture 4 (truth & arguments) now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/824256 2/5 Sometimes one knows something—call it K—and one knows it, ultimately, because one has used one’s senses (or someone else has done so and we’re basing our belief on their report). For instance, I know that it is dark right now. I know this, roughly, because I can see that it is dark. If it weren’t for my senses (I’ve got five of those), I wouldn’t know that it is dark right now. I would have no way of knowing it (unless I relied on someone else’s senses). It is sense-dependent knowledge. When one’s knowledge depends on the use of senses, it is called “a posteriori.” Sometimes, of course, one knows something and one’s knowledge really has nothing to do with one’s senses. For instance, I can take the number 223 and the number 334 and add them. I get 557. I know that 223 plus 334 is 557. How do I know this? Well, this much is clear. I know this for reasons that have nothing to do with any of my senses. It is something that I can understand even were stuck I in a sensory deprivation tank. When one’s knowledge is independent of the use of senses, it is called “a priori.” Actually, this is a “before” and “after” distinction: A priori – prior to (before) sense experience A posteriori – post (i.e., after) sense experience 3. The concept of an argument Let’s begin with some disambiguation: DIGRESSION: dis·am·big·u·ate| ˌdisamˈbiɡyəˌwāt | verb [with object] remove uncertainty of meaning from (an ambiguous sentence, phrase, or other linguistic unit): word senses can be disambiguated by examining the context. [NOAD, i.e., New Oxford American Dictionary] i.e., identify the differing meanings. Meaning 1: a dispute (The “dispute” sense of a) Meaning 2: an attempt to persuade (The “rhetorical” sense of a) Meaning 3: a piece of reasoning (premises and a conclusion) (The “logical” sense of a) Sometimes, when we speak of an argument, we are referring to a dispute, as when two people disagree over the reality of the Covid-19 pandemic. A concrete things: a dispute in the world, locatable in time and space   9/17/21, 10:38 AM Topic: Lecture 4 (truth & arguments) now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/824256 3/5 Sometimes, when we speak of an argument, we are referring to an attempt to persuade—as when one refers to the “closing arguments” in a criminal trial. The defense attorney provides one last effort to persuade the jury that the defendant has not been proved guilty; the prosecutor provides one last effort to persuade the jury that the defendant is proved guilty. Again, a concrete matter. Something occurring in the world, in time and space. Sometimes, when we speak of an argument, we are referring to an abstraction: a set of propositions in which some of the propositions are offered as support or proof for the remaining proposition. EXAMPLE: suppose that Ann lives on the coast of Spain 1000 years ago. She is accustomed to watching ships sail out of the harbor and off into the distance. She notes a phenomenon: DIGRESSION: a phenomenon is simply an event that occurs, something that happens. It is the most generic idea of an event or happening. It is illiterate to think of a “phenomenon” as something weird. Think of what scientists, when they try to explain what they do: “we’re in the business of explaining natural phenomena.” They’re not referring to weird events. They’re referring to events, all and any. Here’s the phenomenon: first, as the ships sail into the distance, they become smaller; second, on a very clear day, when the ships are very far away and at the horizon, the bottoms of ships seem to disappear. Ann reasons: if the Earth were flat, this second phenomenon shouldn’t happen; it would make no sense for it to happen. On the other hand, if the Earth were a sphere, this second phenomenon is what you’d expect; it would make perfect sense. She INFERS: The SPHERICAL EARTH hypothesis does a better job explaining the facts than the FLAT EARTH hypothesis. Thus the SPHERICAL EARTH hypothesis is more likely true. Ann has an argument in the logical sense: a set of propositions some of which are offered as proof or support for the remaining proposition: 1. If the Earth were flat, this second phenomenon shouldn’t happen; it would make no sense for it to happen. 2. If the Earth were a sphere, this second phenomenon is what you’d expect to happen; it would make perfect sense for it to happen. 3. Clearly, the SPHERICAL EARTH hypothesis does a better job explaining the facts than the FLAT EARTH hypothesis. 4. Thus the SPHERICAL EARTH hypothesis is more likely true than the FLAT EARTH hypothesis. DIGRESSION:   9/17/21, 10:38 AM Topic: Lecture 4 (truth & arguments) now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/824256 4/5 hy·poth·e·sis noun (plural hypotheses | -ˌsēz | ) a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation: professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis. [NOAD] A hypothesis is a proposed possible explanation of something (typically, some fact or facts). ANN, then, has an argument. It is an abstraction: a set of propositions such that some of the propositions are offered as support or proof of the remaining proposition. It can be expressed in many different languages. The sentences are necessarily in a particular language—in this case, English. But they can equally well be expressed in Mandarin or German. They might not be expressed at all. We can think of this “argument” as an abstraction that exists whether any ever thinks or infers it, just as some sum n + m = r “is” and is true whether anyone actually thinks it. It is this kind of abstraction that we are interested in in Logic and Philosophy. Arguments, in this sense, can help us distinguish between the true and the false. And just as there exists a body of knowledge that allows us to distinguish between true and false arithmetic sentences, there is a body of knowledge that helps us to distinguish between successful an unsuccessful pieces of reasoning or “arguments” in this logical sense. The name of this body of knowledge is LOGIC. 4. Two kinds of argument in the logical sense Here’s a basic or fundamental truth about evaluation: You can’t evaluate a thing until you know what it is for. (Alternatively: what its function is; its purpose; what it is intended to accomplish; etc.) Example: workers across the street dig a foundation, pour it, put up framing—then leave. Have those workers succeeded? –Well, that depends on what they intended to do. If they intended to build a house, then, no; they’ve not yet finished. If, on the other hand, they were the crew for the foundation and framing, then, yes, they have succeeded. You can’t evaluate a thing until you know what it is intended to accomplish, what it is for. SAME GOES FOR ARGUMENTS IN THE LOGICAL SENSE: observe that my definition of an argument mentions two things that an argument might be for: An argument, in the logical sense, is a set of propositions in which some of the propositions (called the premises) are offered as proof or support for the remaining proposition (called the   9/17/21, 10:38 AM Topic: Lecture 4 (truth & arguments) now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/824256 5/5 This announcement is closed for comments Search entries or author conclusion). So an argument (in the logical sense) can be for either Proving the conclusion (i.e., establishing that, given the premises, the conclusion must be true). [INTENT A] Or Supporting the conclusion (i.e., establishing that the conclusion is probable [or more probable than we first realized] [INTENT B] As you can well imagine, the standards that must be met for intent A are higher than the standards that must be met for intent B. So, here’s our first crucial distinction (in the field of logic): DEDUCTIVE: the term for an argument the intent of which is that, given the premises, the conclusion MUST be true (its falsity would be impossible) NON-DEDUCTIVE: the term for an argument the intent of which is not deductive; it intends only that, given the premises, the truth of the conclusion is probable (or is more probable). Why do we care about intent? Because you can’t evaluate a thing until you know what it is FOR. And an argument in the logical sense can be for either: Proving the conclusion (it is necessarily true, given the premises) Merely supporting the conclusion (it is probable or more probable) Next time, we’ll go into the different forms of non-deductive reasoning/arguments: Inductive Abductive etc. But mostly we’ll present the essentials of DEDUCTIVE LOGIC. That’s a lot to digest. Begin to do so. Unread     9/17/21, 10:37 AM Topic: Lecture 2 now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/820579 1/4  Lecture 2 now available Roy Bauer All Sections Lecture 2 is now available HERE (https://ivc-edu.zoom.us/rec/share/KWSXXgkQ-m24KXdexcED- dfJ7uXq8SqCwIewmMBeTOCAKjcu56eKRWAkWW7AF7AE.5MuQZaX_1hL7QRz9) . FYI, here are my notes (used while lecturing): LECTURE 2 Brief review: What is philosophy? Historically, the term “philosopher” (and “philosophy”) was first used during the Ancient Greek period to refer to attempts by some to gain understanding or knowledge That’s the original and broad sense of philosopher/philosophy (seeking understanding, knowledge) By the time of Socrates, there arose a narrower sense of philosopher/philosophy (focusing on an inevitable preliminary to any understanding: focusing on FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS & CONCEPTS) A crucial distinction: the distinction between two realms of knowledge or understanding: the realm of the concrete and the realm of the abstract Mathematics illustrates a field that seeks knowledge within the realm of the abstract. E.g., “2 + 2 = 4” refers to a kind of fact, but it is not a concrete fact. It is an abstraction: not locatable in space or time. Astronomy illustrates a field that seeks knowledge within the realm of the concrete. That most of the points of light in the night sky are galaxies—large spiraling clusters of stars—is an alleged concrete fact, not an abstraction. We can think of philosophical activity as an INEVITABLE PRELIMINARY or BASE for any body of understanding. Whatever we’re doing or thinking about, at some point, we must become clear about and justify our most FUNDAMENTAL concepts and ideas. Philosophy is the enterprise of pursuing those two projects: Getting clear about our fundamental concepts and ideas (conceptual analysis) Pursuing whether our fundamental concepts and ideas are justified (via examination of arguments) NOTE: philosophers approach these projects without prejudice. I.e., they do not assume that our concepts make sense, nor do they assume that our basic ideas are justified. They go  https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/users/2658 https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/users/2658 https://ivc-edu.zoom.us/rec/share/KWSXXgkQ-m24KXdexcED-dfJ7uXq8SqCwIewmMBeTOCAKjcu56eKRWAkWW7AF7AE.5MuQZaX_1hL7QRz9 9/17/21, 10:37 AM Topic: Lecture 2 now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/820579 2/4 where the LOGIC takes them (just as scientists go where the evidence takes them, without prejudice). [Philosophy as impartial, unbiased, disinterested.] Examples of FUNDAMENTAL concepts and ideas: The notion of a persisting self [self existing over time] that is responsible for what it [he/she] does: concepts and ideas fundamental to morality and legal systems The notion of a [“natural”] world persisting independently of our consciousness and that is highly regular: a concept or idea assumed in the sciences The notion that some propositions are true and some are false and that there are ways of telling which is which: a basic idea assumed whereever knowledge is sought NOTE: for any area of thought and activity, there will be FUNDAMENTAL ideas and concepts and the need to clarify them and raise issues of justification about them. Hence, philosophy is unavoidable and inevitable. LAST TIME, I mentioned three major areas of philosophy: EPISTEMOLOGY (focus on knowledge) METAPHYSICS (focus on being and reality) ETHICS (focus on values, morality) Another area crucial to an understanding of philosophy is LOGIC, which is the study of the difference between good and bad reasoning. (Logic is always taught in philosophy departments.) END OF REVIEW: NEW MATERIAL: The sentence/proposition distinction Numbers vs. numerals Propositions vs. sentences The use/mention distinction Red is a color. (This is a sentence that expresses a proposition about a particular color [not a particular word].) “Red” has three letters. (This is a sentence that expresses a proposition about a word [not a color].) “Es regnet” is German for “It is raining.” (This is a sentence that expresses a proposition about the meaning of a particular German sentence.) Es regnet. (This is a German sentence that expresses the proposition that it is raining.) Some abbreviations and foreign terms e.g. - exempli gratia – for example i.e. - id est – that is   9/17/21, 10:37 AM Topic: Lecture 2 now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/820579 3/4 etc.– et cetera – and the other things et al. – et alii – and other people ca [or ca.] – circa – about (approximately) The abstract vs. the concrete [review] Inference: a psychological event I see two sheep on that hill and three sheep on the adjacent hill. And so I have spotted five sheep. That I have spotted 5 sheep is an “inference”; it is my recognition of the implication of there being 2 sheep on this hill and 3 sheep on that hill. “5.” A psychological event But that psychological event corresponds to an abstraction: “2 + 3 = 5” Observe that the field of mathematics is not interested in the psychological event to the number 5. It is, rather, interested in the correlative abstraction (“2 + 3 = 5”) and methods for determining which such abstractions are true and which are false. Similarly, those who work with arguments determining what is true or false are not interested in the psychological event of inferring some idea from other ideas; rather, they are interested in whether these clusters of sentences—these abstractions called “arguments”—establish the truth and when they fail to do so. Two examples: 1. If God were to exist, then all evils would be prevented 2. But not all evils are prevented 3. Thus God does not exist [—This is an "argument," an abstraction made up of propositions] 1. God, by definition, has all properties of perfection 2. “Being real” is a property; and it is a property of perfection. 3. Thus God has the property of being real (i.e., God is real) [—This is an "argument," an abstraction made up of propositions] Psychologists are interested in the psychological event of reaching these inferences. Philosophers, like scientists, are not. Rather, they are interested in whether these abstractions succeed in identifying what is true. Possible relationships between sentences/propositions For instance: “logical implication”: John is a bachelor John is unmarried   9/17/21, 10:37 AM Topic: Lecture 2 now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/820579 4/4 This announcement is closed for comments Search entries or author Possible relationships between facts The notion of a natural law (physical law) [The example of Kepler's first two laws of planetary motion: that orbits are elliptical, that the area swept out by an orbiting body in any period is always the same. Can we be sure of these generalizations? No. Why not?] The “empirical” – a term that refers to observation, normally, via our five senses (sometimes: formal observations – e.g., experiments) Whether Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction (in 2003, when we invaded) "is an empirical question." —What is this saying? It is saying that it is not a matter for speculation; rather, it is a matter properly decided by MAKING THE APPROPRIATE OBSERVATIONS—which we have done, establishing that Saddam had no such weapons. It is foolish to speculate about an empirical matter when, through observation, the matter can be determined. Can terms of natural language ever be (completely) defined? – Probably not. (The "fuzzy boundaries" of natural concepts.) The theory of word defining (necessary and sufficient conditions) “Technical” terms vs. “natural language” Unread     9/17/21, 10:37 AM Topic: Lecture 1 now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/818583 1/10  Lecture 1 now available Roy Bauer All Sections Lecture 1 available HERE (https://ivc- edu.zoom.us/rec/share/WEhEunLguFemxc96KKgpVj56SgdA1Y9ybMkMuMTJc63lozbC_euzccxRJ8Vg AdPR.hHE7zhzHHkcSTCGY) Lecture 1 available HERE (https://ivc- edu.zoom.us/rec/share/WEhEunLguFemxc96KKgpVj56SgdA1Y9ybMkMuMTJc63lozbC_euzccxRJ8Vg AdPR.hHE7zhzHHkcSTCGY) FYI, here are the notes I used for this lecture: Intro to Philosophy, lecture 1 Introduce self (“call me ‘Roy’”) Introduce course: 1 , do not take this course unless you are willing to monitor our CANVAS site daily, or at least very regularly. 2 , there is no text to purchase for this course. Our only text is a set of readings made available here on CANVAS (under “file”). [Not true for Phil. 3] 3 , please familiarize yourself with this CANVAS SITE. In particular, be familiar with FILES: including course files and syllabus ANNOUNCEMENTS: staying on top of these is critical GRADES: you can keep apprised of how you are doing in the course SYLLABUS Course mechanics: st nd rd  https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/users/2658 https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/users/2658 https://ivc-edu.zoom.us/rec/share/WEhEunLguFemxc96KKgpVj56SgdA1Y9ybMkMuMTJc63lozbC_euzccxRJ8VgAdPR.hHE7zhzHHkcSTCGY https://ivc-edu.zoom.us/rec/share/WEhEunLguFemxc96KKgpVj56SgdA1Y9ybMkMuMTJc63lozbC_euzccxRJ8VgAdPR.hHE7zhzHHkcSTCGY 9/17/21, 10:37 AM Topic: Lecture 1 now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/818583 2/10 Your course grade is largely a function of a points system. There are 1000 points possible during the semester. 800-1000 A range 700-799 B range 600-699 C range Etc. I always use this standard: 80% and above is A 70% up to 79.9 is B 60% up to 69.9 is C Etc. For instance, I’ll use this standard for the quizzes. If you receive 24 points on quiz 1 (out of 30), that’s an A (A minus) since 24 out of 30 is 80%. There are three tests: each will be worth 200 points. 600 points. The rest is the quiz grade: 13 quizzes at 30 points each = 390 points plus a quick 10-point quiz. That’s 400 points. The tests: Format: two parts: Part 1: multiple-choice, Part 2: written answer (usually, you’ll be asked to explain something) The significance of the written part goes up through the semester. For Test 1, the written part is 20% of the grade. For Test 2, it is 30%. For Test 3, it is 40% Please do not take this course if you are not able to write coherently in English.   9/17/21, 10:37 AM Topic: Lecture 1 now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/818583 3/10 Obviously, cheating is unacceptable. For instance, sharing quiz questions with others is an instance of cheating, as is piecing together written answers from an array of Google sources. That’s called plagiarism, and it is a clear instance of cheating. If I ask you to write something, I expect the writing to be yours, not someone else’s. It is necessary that you read the course syllabus, which is available under “pages.” WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? First, a historical perspective: You need to start thinking of Western Civilization in relation to three eras: The Ancient [more properly, “Antiquity”] The Medieval [Middle Ages] The Modern The Ancient ["antiquity"] era concerns mostly the Ancient Greeks [starting roughly 750 BCE] and Romans up to about the 5 Century, ACE The Medieval era concerns the development of Europe, especially Western Europe, from about the 5 Century to about the 16 Century The Modern era concerns roughly the 16 Century to about World War II (1945). What happens today is not “modern”; it is “contemporary.” The Modern era is a distinctive era of emergence from the Medieval era occurring roughly 500 years ago. Let’s go back to the Ancient Greeks. There was an earlier Greek era that collapsed at roughly 1200 or 1100 BCE. What emerged from that is (roughly) the Ancient Greek civilization that we’ll be focusing on. Roughly in the year 600 BCE, there emerged thinkers who came to be called “philosophers,” lovers of wisdom or learning. First among these, as far as we know, was Thales of Miletus (Miletus is a city on the west coast of what is today Turkey). Miletus was then the center of Greek life (not Athens). th th th th   9/17/21, 10:37 AM Topic: Lecture 1 now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/818583 4/10 The Greek world at that time involved the peninsula of Greece that we know today plus the islands between that peninsula and the west coast of Turkey—up through the Bosporous and the Black Sea. I’ll likely post a map on announcements to clarify this. So the Ancient Greek world was much larger and further east than what we today call “Greece.” These Ancient Greeks were a dominant Mediterranean power, later challenged by the Persians and then the Romans. These first “philosophers” are nowadays called “pre-Socratic philosophers,” since they lived before the birth of the great Athenian philosopher Socrates, who was born c. 470 BCE—roughly 500 BCE. He marked a turning point in philosophical and scientific thought. Among other things, these pre-Socratics, such as Thales, sought to understand and explain the world in terms of physical or natural processes, not heroes or gods or myths. That’s why, today, they are considered the first scientists. It’s what they were NOT doing (appealing to Gods, myths) and what they WERE doing (appealing to physical processes: relationships between elements, etc.) You should be aware that the term “scientist,” as we use it today, did not come into existence until the 19 Century—i.e., the 1800s. Before that, people we nowadays call scientists were called “philosophers”—usually, “natural philosophers,” i.e. those who focused on the physical, natural world. For instance, Isaac Newton was never called a “scientist.” He was called a “natural philosopher.” And the great economist Adam Smith (1776) was not called an economist. Rather, he was called a “moral philosopher,” i.e., a philosopher who concerned himself with human matters, such as human society. Let’s change gears for a moment. I want you to make this important distinction between The concrete And The abstract “Concrete” and “abstract” are adjectives or describing terms. To say that something is “concrete” is to say that it concerns physical reality, what is usually called the natural world in time and space. (Being in time and space is the essential idea of the concrete.) That which is “concrete” is usually observable, using our senses: our sense of vision, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling. We only use our senses on that which is in time and space. In contrast with the “concrete” is the “abstract”: that which is not concrete—not in time and space —but instead an idea or concept. Thus, for instance, the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 is not concrete; it is th   9/17/21, 10:37 AM Topic: Lecture 1 now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/818583 5/10 not a fact of the physical world; it is not locatable at a time or a place. It is, rather, a concept or idea, as is the Pythagorean Theorem: that A + B = C . Think about it: we are inclined to say that it is a “fact” or at least a certain truth that 2 + 2 = 4, but we cannot point to that fact or locate it at a particular time. It just “is,” abstractly. The fact that 2 + 2 = 4 is nothing like the fact that the numeral 2 appears on a chair on my patio. And so we have two distinct realms of knowledge: facts or truths of the physical world, the world in time and space. AND facts or truths not in time and space that are ABSTRACTIONS, such as the Pythagorean Theorem. Essentially, a philosopher in the original and broad sense is one who pursues knowledge— whether knowledge within the concrete realm or knowledge within the abstract realm (e.g., geometric knowledge). Among the first pre-Socratic philosophers was Pythagoras, who is famous for his development of geometry. Geometric knowledge is abstract, not concrete, though, obviously, it applies to the concrete. But, in itself, the truth that A + B = C in a right triangle is not locatable at a time or at a place. It is an abstraction. In general, mathematics is a realm of knowledge in the abstract, not the concrete. We usually think of the natural sciences as involving physics, chemistry, and life sciences. These are in the realm of knowledge of the concrete, not the abstract. So one sense of the word “philosopher” or “philosophy” concerns some effort to gain or seek knowledge, whether concrete or abstract. And that is the sense of philosopher that was involved in calling Thales—or, later, Newton or Darwin or Adam Smith—philosophers. I’m going to call this the original and broad sense of “philosophy/philosopher.” But, early on (i.e., at least by the time of Socrates), a narrower sense of “philosophy/philosopher” developed. That is the sense of philosopher as someone who focuses on a range of issues in the realm of the abstract, excluding mathematics. What would that be? Well, if you think about it, you will realize that, no matter what kind of knowledge you seek, you will need to become clear about our most basic or fundamental assumptions and beliefs. We will seek two things about them: Clarification Whether they are rationally justified 2 2 2 2 2 2   9/17/21, 10:37 AM Topic: Lecture 1 now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/818583 6/10 As a rough approximation, this, then, will be our definition of “philosophy/philosopher” in the narrow sense, one that began to develop after the time of Thales and the pre-Socratics. The philosopher, in this narrow sense, is someone who seeks knowledge of the abstract world of fundamental concepts and beliefs. They seek knowledge; in particular, they seek to CLARIFY our fundamental concepts/beliefs and to pursue the issue of whether they are RATIONALLY JUSTIFIED. This leaves us with one more matter to explain. What is a FUNDAMENTAL concept or idea? What’s called for here is CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS. To analyze something is to break it down into its parts: e.g., chemical analysis, which breaks compounds down to their constituent elements. Conceptual analysis breaks down the MEANING parts of a CONCEPT. For instance, a conceptual analysis of the notion of a BACHELOR is something like this: A BACHELOR is an unmarried, adult, male person. So we have the concept of a bachelor, and we have the elements that make up that concept: Person Unmarried Adult Male Here’s another example. KNOWLEDGE is Justified True Belief My two examples—“bachelor” and “knowledge”—illustrate the kind of activity for which philosophers—in the narrow sense—are famous for. CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS—done for the   9/17/21, 10:37 AM Topic: Lecture 1 now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/818583 7/10 sake of gaining clarity about a concept. We look within ourselves, at our thoughts, and we ask: as we use the word “knowledge” (that convention), what must be true of a thing for it to COUNT as an instance of knowledge? Well, it must be a belief. But it mustn’t be a false belief. Further, we must have some rational justification for the belief. Again, we look within ourselves, at our thoughts and ideas, and we ask: as we use the word “bachelor,” what must be true of a thing for it to COUNT as an instance of a bachelor? Well, it must be a person, but not a married person. An adult and male person. Now let’s turn to the notion of the FUNDAMENTAL. To say that something is fundamental relative to X is to say That it is ESSENTIAL to X. That is, without this feature, it wouldn’t be an X. Having corners is essential to something’s being square. Thus, having corners if “fundamental” to squareness. That it is VERY IMPORTANT to X. Being designed for sitting by humans is very important to the notion of a chair. It is fundamental to the notion of a chair. It is that on which all of our ideas about X depend. For instance, our beliefs about moral obligations depends on our belief in the existence of persisting selves with free will. Our beliefs about the physical world depend on the notion that there is a world that exists independently of our minds. Etc. We’ll say more about fundamentalness later. THINK ABOUT IT. One who seeks knowledge about something—e.g., the world of living things or, say, the world of mathematical truths—must at some point gain clarification and justification regarding the FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS AND IDEAS relative to that something. For instance, those who seek knowledge of living things must be clear about the notion of a NATURAL WORLD. What is the natural world? What makes it natural?   9/17/21, 10:37 AM Topic: Lecture 1 now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/818583 8/10 This kind of question is not scientific, for it is abstract, not concrete. It is philosophical. It seeks clarity and justification of FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS relative to the world of living things. --And so let’s refer to “philosophy/philosopher” in the current and narrow sense: the pursuit of knowledge of the realm of the abstract, specifically, fundamental concepts and ideas (relative to some area of thought or study or action—that’s pretty broad!). Starting in the 19 Century (i.e., the 1800s), there was a shift in meaning of the term philosopher. Increasingly, people abandoned the original, broad sense of “philosopher” for the narrow sense. And that is the sense of “philosophy/philosopher” that dominates (in academia) today, though the original broad sense persists, especially among the well-educated. Thus, for instance, one who seeks to understand (i.e., to gain knowledge about) morality or ethics must at some point become clear about whether there are moral truths—and, if so, their nature. (Are they subjective? Are they relative?) The pursuit of such issues is PHILOSOPHY in the contemporary narrow sense. One who seeks to understand (i.e., to gain knowledge about) the concrete world must at some point become clear about the notion of the natural world. (Are there unnatural facts? Is something natural even if it is created by human beings?) They must also become clear about the relevance, if any, of consciousness to reality. Are states of consciousness a part of the existing world? Are they mere side effects of material processes with no existence in themselves?) The pursuit of such issues is PHILOSOPHY in the contemporary narrow sense. One who seeks to understand (i.e., to gain knowledge about) the human mind must at some point become clear about the notion of a self and a persisting self. (Is a self a conscious thing? Is it a material thing? How do we explain the continued existence of a being from birth to old age? What justifies regarding this as one persisting self, if anything?) So, to review: th   9/17/21, 10:37 AM Topic: Lecture 1 now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/818583 9/10 It is best to think of two senses of the words “philosophy” and “philosopher,” both arising from the Ancient Greek tradition and still embraced today. The original and broad sense of philosophy is the pursuit of knowledge or understanding— whether or the concrete or the abstract realm. The distinction between the CONCRETE and the ABSTRACT is crucial to understanding philosophy. There developed a narrow sense of philosophy relative to the larger pursuit of knowledge: the —necessary, unavoidable, inevitable—pursuit of knowledge of our most fundamental ideas and concepts—upon which all of our ideas and beliefs depend. Philosophy, as such, seeks clarification of our concepts and ideas; further, it seeks to determine whether such ideas are rationally justified. This narrow sense is the dominant contemporary sense of philosophy and philosopher. FUNDAMENTALNESS is crucial here. The older, broad sense of philosopher persists—as when we acknowledge that Newton and Adam Smith were called philosophers, not scientists, in their day. From now on, we’ll emphasize the narrow or contemporary sense of philosopher, while still recognizing the older and original broad sense. NEXT: the three major areas of philosophy Just as the natural sciences are understood as including physics, chemistry, and life sciences, PHILOSOPHY (in the narrow sense) is understood as breaking down into three rough, general areas: EPISTEMOLOGY: focusing on knowledge: what it is and what makes it possible. METAPHYSICS: focusing on being and existence.   9/17/21, 10:37 AM Topic: Lecture 1 now available https://canvas.saddleback.edu/courses/49700/discussion_topics/818583 10/10 This announcement is closed for comments Search entries or author ETHICS: focusing on values and obligations --That’s it for today. Unread    