notes_9_2x2

notes_9_2x2 - Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 1& $...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 1 ' & $ % Announcements & Such • Genesis : Cinema Show • Administrative Stuff – HW #2 is due (first submission) Friday @ 4pm @ the 12A Drop Box. ∗ See my “HW Tips & Guidelines” Handout, pertaining to HW #2. – I’ve posted the solutions for HW #1. – I recommend Schaum’s Outline of Logic (or any other introductory symbolic logic textbook) for additional solved problems. • Chapter 2 (LSL), Continued — More Symbolization from English to LSL – Symbolzing English sentences (one last example — for emphasis). – Symbolizing entire English arguments into LSL. ∗ Symbolizing sentences in the context of an argument . ∗ Here, we have a principle of charity for argument symbolization. • Time Permitting: Chapter 3 Introduction — LSL Semantics. UCB Philosophy Chapter 2 Finalé & Chapter 3 Intro. 09/17/08 Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 2 ' & Rewind: The Last Problem on HW #1 • The last problem on HW #1 is about the following argument ( A ): (1) If Prince William is unmarried, then Prince William is a bachelor. (2) Prince William is a bachelor. (3) Therefore, Prince William is unmarried. • Is A is absolutely sound ? Since both premises (1) and (2) of A are actually true, this question reduces to “Is A is absolutely valid ?”. • A is clearly not sententially valid. Its sentential form is the fallacious form that I called affirming the consequent in a previous lecture. • Nonetheless, one might be tempted to argue that A is absolutely valid on the grounds that A ’s conclusion (3) follows from premise (2) alone . • We are conservative about such cases. We only call arguments valid if we have a formal theory according to which they have a valid form . As it turns out, we have no such theory. So, our answer will be: NO. • Our course in philosophical logic (142) delves into this subtle issue. UCB Philosophy Chapter 2 Finalé & Chapter 3 Intro. 09/17/08 Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 3 ' & $ % English ֏ LSL ( sentences ): Example #4 • ‘Tom Cruise goes to the premiere provided that Penelope Cruz does, but Nicole Kidman does not.’ (#8 from my list of 13 last time) – Step 0: Decide on atomic sentences and letters. T : Tom Cruise goes to the premiere. P : Penelope Cruz goes to the premiere. N : Nicole Kidman goes to the premiere. – Step 1: Substitute into English, yielding “Logish”: T provided that P , but not N . – Step 2: make the transition into LSL (in stages as well, perhaps): P → T , but not N . Final Product: (P → T ) & ∼ N • Note that the location of the comma makes the grouping here clear . Do not use “background knowledge” to trump clear sentence structure....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/23/2009 for the course PHIL 12A taught by Professor Fitelson during the Spring '08 term at Berkeley.

Page1 / 4

notes_9_2x2 - Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 1& $...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online